Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] March 19
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of LEXX episodes
I loved this show dearly, having watched every episode aired on the SciFi Channel in the U.S. I even have autographed pictures of two major cast members, Patricia Zentilli and Eva Habermann. In spite of all this, I must say that this article is unencyclopedic fancruft and listcruft and needs to go. I can't think of a single reason to save it, and the existing systemic bias towards science fiction fandom means that we should hold articles on science fiction topics to a very high standard. Brian G. Crawford 00:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I can't think of a single reason why we should eliminate a list of verifiable episodes from an important TV show. It is standard here for so many shows such as the +200 lists found in Category:Lists of television series episodes or more specific categories such as Category:Star Trek episode lists or Category:Lists of Law & Order episodes by season. -- JJay 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all of the episode articles into this article, as they are fairly short, and unlink all of the episode titles. -- Kjkolb 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, and enhance as per JJay. As well: if the nominator at all perused a related talk page regarding the series (which, despite stated interest, neither article of which said editor has contributed to) and paid as much attention to the content therein as to the encyclopedic standards one wishes to uphold, said Wikipedian would realise that there have been discussions/plans to augment this list and work towards developing articles for each ep. Start your campaign to nix fancruft et al. elsewhere. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Plenty of precedent for this sort of article. 23skidoo 02:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep There is a precedent to keep such episode lists as they have encyclopedic value. Bobby1011 02:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Jjay. No different than List of The Colbert Report episodes, or any other such article. -LtNOWIS 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being. My preference would be to have a master list in the main article and a page for each season with short episode summaries for that season (the ultra detailed scene-by-scene summaries for some shows goes too far I think.) There seems to be an active discussion on LEXX about how to deal with episodes so lets give them a chance to sort it out.Thatcher131 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above, list of episodes from a notable TV show --TBC
??? ??? ??? 07:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - Keep per Thatcher, Bobby and JJay. JoshuaZ 03:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We have a List of Family Guy episodes, a List of Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes... Well, you get the picture. And they are useful. GrandmasterkaImage:Blend Flag.jpgImpart wisdom 03:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, if we have List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos and other things of TV shows. This should be a keep, this shows a form of biasness here. --Terence Ong 05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia does this sort of thing and it isn't going to change, so we might as well stack up the keep votes to discourage similar nominations. CalJW 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Although I don't have high hopes for most of these ever getting filled out. Cyde Weys 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Systemic bias is not corrected by deletion of content and the quality of the encyclopedia is not diminished by its existence. kotepho 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as there is precedence for this stuff, no matter how much it is disliked. Maybe there should be some policy created on this. --Midnighttonight 09:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep on clear precedent and even original intent of Wikipedia. Samaritan 10:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am going to do the work on the episode guide, as I'm watching the series currently. I can see both sides of the argument. I've looked at the Southpark guide, which is extensive and bulky, but a different form to Star Trek. The problem I've got is that not a lot needs to be said about some episodes of Lexx... yet people talk extensively about other crappy shows. I have no idea how to judge this, as Wiki is expanding rapidly, and soon avi files will end up in here as well. We're obviously devoting more space to Buffy than Shakespeare. What can you say? Bipedia 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per above and merge episode articles into this article. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn. Since there's a consensus on keeping this, there's no reason to keep this in AfD. Apparently, presence in pop culture and mass media guarantees presence in Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 16:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yourphone
Article about non-notable company. Original contributor (perhaps the company itself) contested prod and attempted to rewrite the article to be less advert-like, which however does not make the company notable. Henning Makholm 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. unless evidence of notability is provided. dbtfztalk 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Still an advert. Feezo (Talk) 01:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as ad. Bobby1011 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the story does not continue. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable and still an ad, despite the re-write. Kuru talk 04:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, ad, nn company. --Terence Ong 05:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, advertising, company appears to be non-notable per WP:CORP regardless. --Kinu t/c 07:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Mattbr30 17:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert -- Samir
(the scope) 22:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moving Tips
I'm sure it's really useful, but WP:NOT a how-to guide. Would Wikibooks want this? Mithent 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. dbtfztalk 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. Bobby1011 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- SPEEDY DELETE obvious copyvio the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipeida is not a how-to-guide. --Terence Ong 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic, WP:NOT a how-to. --Kinu t/c 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is now eHow, also removing the db-template as this article is going to be deleted anyway. -Obli (Talk)? 13:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
DeleteStrong delete, WP:NOT a How-To guide. JIP | Talk 13:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Delete, advertising. Looking at the external link mentioned in the article, they post a link right back to the article: "In order to see for yourself if the depth and completeness of our instruction is worth a $10 subscription you may wish to review our article on the subject at Wikipedia." — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Thanks for the comment. This is really infuriating. This is a clear and blatant case of abusing Wikipedia for commercial gain. It's OK when people link to Wikipedia articles as a neutral, objective reference, but a company writing an advertisement on Wikipedia and then linking to it from its own website makes me angry. They already have a website, they can write anything they want there, and advertise themselves as much as they want. What's stopping them from putting the article text on their own bloody website? Or haven't they yet figured out how to make links point at the same website? Are they simply trying to show that they can PWN! Wikipedia if they so choose? JIP | Talk 19:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per Kimchi.sg's new evidence. This is advertising for the service, especially if they are linking back to the article for the reason for advertising. Also Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, as mentioned by several others (including the nomination). From all this, I say: Wikibooks will probably request this page's deletion too. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom (how-to guide) and per Kimchi.sg. Of course, the article does teach us that to move a window air conditioner one must first remove it from the window, which is surely valuable. Joe 23:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Delete as above, sneaky advertising. ProhibitOnions 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom. Triage 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sexuality and Christian Art
Article barely touched for some time, nothing was there except original research and rampant speculation. I'm not sure there ever could be much content here except criticism of Christian sexual ethics which belong in other articles. -- Jbamb 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. This article doesn't actually discuss sexuality in Christian art at all. Feezo (Talk) 02:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is an essay that presents original research. Bobby1011 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- D per nom the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom Henning Makholm 03:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, we are an encyclopedia. Essays are original research. --Terence Ong 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, original research --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. Original research. ProhibitOnions 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Triage 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NatureSoft
Advert. Nothing links here. Delete? Sammysam 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising. Feezo (Talk) 01:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as an ad. Bobby1011 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice. Henning Makholm 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. JoshuaZ 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, advert as written - would still fail WP:CORP if re-written. Kuru talk 04:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete an advert. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Corkman Irish Pub
Non-notable, prod removed Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Historical building in Melbourne. Bobby1011 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems historic enogugh and seems to have a notable presence [4] [5] on the net and google AdamJacobMuller 02:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep only b/c very old. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
*Keep per Bobby. JoshuaZ 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC) rename and redirect per below. JoshuaZ 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable pub with historical interest. --Terence Ong 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a notable building --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as notable enough, and I have a soft spot for buildings. --Cyde Weys 08:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Well known pub near the city. -- Synapse 13:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As nom - I don't think, in my case, a public house is notable. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Building with a long history in Melbourne; I wonder personally whether it should be moved to Carlton Inn, since that was the name it was known by for almost 150 years until only 4 years ago, and the redirect reversed? --Ishel99 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That makes sense to me, but I don't have a strong enough preference to vote for it in either direction. JoshuaZ 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above remarks on keeping the article. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This article does an excellent job of establishing the Corkman's historical significance. I, for one, found it very interesting and informative, and will now proceed there for a quiet ale (all in the name of research, of course). Cnwb 06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a building of historic interest. I second the motion to rename it as Carlton Inn - it sounds like it's now another historic public house given a generic name. ProhibitOnions 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I also agree. Corkman Irish Pub should redirect to Carlton Inn. Cnwb 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep and rename . Sounds historically interesting. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep . Has important historical relevence to the local area. --Mawbid 2 11:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (e) 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dagdi chawl
Hi - this one-liner's subject is non-notable. I don't see the point of naming every Indian MLA's bungalow. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn bungalow. Feezo (Talk) 04:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 07:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. feydey 13:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Deizio 18:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom ImpuMozhi 19:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] People speculated to have been autistic
List is entirely speculative as the title and the introduction blatantly say. As speculation there is no way to support any of this with facts and speculation does not have a place on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete per nom.--Adam
(talk) 04:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Delete, pure speculation.Keep, article is indeed extremely well sourced, this is not original research. My bad... Grandmasterka 04:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Delete as unencyclopedic original research.Remove all unreferenced entries in section 1 and 2, Keep the well referenced material on Einstein and Newton. Feezo (Talk) 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep A lot of work has been done in the last decade by historians and psychologists about whether certain historical figures had autism. The article is well written and and large parts are sourced. JoshuaZ 04:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, original research, listcruft. --Terence Ong 05:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It isn't listcruft at all, it has a lot of sources to historians and psychologists who have made the speculations, many of which appeared in actual journals. JoshuaZ 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just because someone else does the speculating doesn't make it encyclopedic. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was merely addressing the issues of listcruft and of OR. JoshuaZ 06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just because someone else does the speculating doesn't make it encyclopedic. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It isn't listcruft at all, it has a lot of sources to historians and psychologists who have made the speculations, many of which appeared in actual journals. JoshuaZ 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Just toss out the unreferenced stuff. A few bad apples here don't spoil the barrel. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as far as I know, Wikipedia does not "speculate". The only way to possibly keep this is strong citing, which, chances are, wouldn't be done. Wickethewok 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - But of course make sure everything is sourced. Cyde Weys 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - High quality and most of it is sourced. But perhaps the title is unfortunate. Henrik 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I see this article as being about a controversy about whether or not certain historical figures were on the autistic spectrum. Perhaps it should be renamed so that the title includes the word controversy and not speculated. Q0 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, pay attention to concerns as above. Samaritan 09:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete Speculation is, by definition, not completely supported by facts. Delete, as per nom. Roodog2k 14:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedians should not speculate, but reporting on other people's speculations, such as leading autism experts, is fine, as long as it is sourced, verifiable, and labelled as such. Turnstep 15:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as not verifiable. Any doctor will tell you that it's impossible to diagnose the dead. Last I checked, Wikipedia wasn't in the business of creating poster children for the autism rights movement. This may be a fine subject for a human interest story in a newspaper or magazine, but it's out of place in an encyclopedia because it is, as its title says, only "speculation." It may be educated speculation on the part of some of the doctors cited, but it's still speculation. Brian G. Crawford 16:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The standard is "verifiability, not truth" (see WP:V). Suppose well-known doctor X publishes an article in which he says "I think maybe Y was autistic." Then "Y was autistic" is unencyclopedic speculation that does not belong in Wikipedia, but "X said 'I think maybe Y was autistic'" is a verifiable fact and could well be properly included. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Excellent references, strong discussion of an issue of real historical interest. This is part of historical scholarship and is not a problem unless we make the claims. -- JJay 16:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG, Speedy KEEP, per JJay - of extreme historical interest - Paulus89 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article cites its sources, and does not make its own speculations. It tries well to be NPOV and not be biased towards the autism rights crowd (as the first paragrah shows). We can report on others' speculations. (posted after edit conflict) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep: It is true that Wikipedia does not allow speculation. However, this article is not speculative, it reports the speculation that has been done outside Wikipedia. Someone once suggested that if Wired Magazine said in 1999 that Bill Gates might have Asperger syndrome, then it would be acceptable for someone to write, "In 1999, Wired Magazine speculated that Bill Gates might have Asperger's." Similarly, it should be encyclopediatic to say "Temple Grandin, PhD. and Arthur Caplan, PhD. speculated that Bill Gates might have traits of Asperger's", since Grandin and Caplan did indeed speculate this, as referenced in the article. I think there are dubious entries like Richard Nixon. That is why I tagged it as needing citations. Although it is against Wikipedia's policies to write a controversial claim in Wikipedia, it is not against Wikipedia's policies to write that a certain person or group supports a controversial claim. Similarly, the situation about whether or not Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, etc. are on the autistic spectrum is a controversial issue (and the speculation about Einstein appears to come up quite a bit in the autistic community) so it should be NPOV to state which people think Einstein and Newton are autistic and which people think they are not autistic. Q0 19:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: In addition there is another list about people speculated to have a condition at List of people speculated to have been syphilitic. Q0 19:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Another similar list is at List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder. Q0 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There is too broad a spectrum of autism. Some will live their whole life and never know they had it. --mmeinhart 19:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Irresponsible to be speculating on such an important issue. Even these "medical studies" are speculations by doctors. Without proof, it doesn't make sense for this to be here. pm_shef 19:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per "This is a speculative list." --Rob 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Could you please elaborate on your thinking here. If medical journals and other scholarly reviews are publishing works on the topic, why can't we discuss it here? Should we ignore the fact that the medical conditions of famous personalities are a real field of historical scholarship that is frequently echoed in the popular press? Going further, wouldn't that type of thinking eliminate the possibility of incorporating any new material into our historical articles since the new interpretations could just as quickly be branded speculation? -- JJay 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people speculated to have been syphilitic which is an AFD of yet another entirely speculative list. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - We have a list of people suspected to have epilepsy somewhere out there! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: List of people believed to have epilepsy has been moved to List of people with epilepsy on March 7. Q0 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay Jcuk 21:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong keep NOT speculation - a documentation of speculating that others have done. Extremely useful, well put-together, and generally an excellent and encyclopedic guide to iterations of autism in the times before it was better known. The Asperger's stuff is also notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but limit to cases that can be properly sourced to authoritative experts. Thatcher131 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Why is this in any way better than adding the speculation to the notable person's biography? I can see that medical conditions of famous individuals are a proper filed of historic study (did Napoleon have severe piles, thus arriving at Waterloo shorter of sleep than Wellington, and less mobile?) but I can't see tha that is assisted by the historian having a list of people with piles, running his finger down it and picking out Napoleon to consider biographising. Is it a reflection of limitations in the search facilities available - a way of doing a search for Cat:people word:autis* ? Weak delete, or merge to talk page of main article on the condition. Midgley 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess it's the same logic as that behind categories and lists in general - it's a way of centralizing and grouping the information for a user whose interest is in autism/asperger's generally, rather than in a specific person who may have had autism/asperger's Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete At best, this page can aspire to be original research! Absolute garbage, would love to see it gone. Ben-w 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but remove the large amount of dubious and badly-sourced material in it, and in future apply WP:V and WP:CITE punctiliously and promptly move unsourced items to the Talk page. There's nothing wrong with reporting well-sourced opinions, and there is some point in localizing this material in a single article than rather than having individual discussions biographies. But. This is a page where the verifiability policy needs to be applied punctiliously. I notice that a number of seemingly sourced items have pretty unsatisfactory sources; for example, Alan Turing is referenced to a page on a medium-credible website—it's about "sexual health" and the source is an RN with an autistic child, who in turn, cites "Tony Attwood 2000" but does not actually give a reference. Attwood in turn is quoted rather vaguely as saying "Examples of possible 'Asperger's Achievers' are Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Mozart, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Glenn Gould and Alan Turing ... such illustrious individuals could be valuable heroes to children with Asperger's Syndrome." I don't think that's good enough, particularly since the statement suggests Attwood is motivated by a wish to provide "heroes" to children with Asperger's, rather than a desire for encyclopedic accuracy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as long as Wikipedia is not doing the speculating, it's all right. It could be improved and better sourced, but the article is interesting and noteworthy. ProhibitOnions 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment we'll have People speculated to have been Shirley MacLaine in a prior life, People speculated to have voted for George Bush, People speculated to have enjoyed their martinis stirred not shaken, People speculated to be space aliens.. Or more seriously (perhaps)....People speculated to have been gay, People speculated to have been born out of wedlock, People speculated to have had plastic surgery, which are all fair game if this stays and Wikipedia isn't doing the speculating.... Carlossuarez46 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The last three seem reasonable to me, especially given that when such speculation is common it is already on some of the individuals pages. JoshuaZ 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Nobody has mentioned that there are a very large number of articles on Wikipedia that already contain rumors or speculation. Future products, such as Nintendo Revolution are an example. Or most future years that have articles. Any article about something in the future (or otherwise) is game for speculation, and if it's sourced and is not a far-out fringe belief I don't see what the big problem is. Grandmasterka 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The last three seem reasonable to me, especially given that when such speculation is common it is already on some of the individuals pages. JoshuaZ 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: This page is not about Wikipedia or Wikipedians making speculations, but about scientific speculations. This is an acceptable Wiki subject, as it seems to be a genuine area of scientific interest. The article seems well sourced and with a lot of references, and is NPOV and does not contain original research. I see no reason to delete it, and many reasons to keep it. -- Ritchy 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a good, interesting article. Kill it and wikipedia will die a little death. Sparsefarce 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article does no speculation. There are many scientists who believe some people in the past have been autistic and the article is about their speculation(which is pretty well known and could be considered quite important) and not the editor's speculations. This article could be useful and as long as everything is cited would not detract from the quality of Wikipedia. Shadowoftime 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I notice some people are saying that even if the speculation is documented speculation from experts it should still be deleted. By this logic, articles on evolution, quantum physics, or religion should be removed as well since not everybody agrees on their truths and being unprovable, they are speculations. Encyclopedias do, however, include articles on science, religion, history, and many other subjects that rely on speculation. As long as the speculation into the possibly autistic nature of historical individuals is well documented speculation from experts and not editors, the fact that this type of speculation exists should be included in Wikipedia. Shadowoftime 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. Grandmasterka 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just to set the record straight, there is no real scientific controversy over evolution. It's all manufactured. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- However likely it may be that evolution is correct(and personally I believe it is), it is still speculation about something that happened millions of years ago. If Wikipedia can have well documented speculation by experts about things that happened a million years ago, I think it can afford to have well documented speculation by experts about something that took place within the last thousand years(the lives of these people suspected of Autism). Shadowoftime 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not only that, every single aspect of autism (from treatment to causes to whether or not it is a disorder) is controversial and autism itself is so poorly understood that I think it might be fair to say that all claims about autism are speculative. If this article is deleted for reporting speculation, then it would make sense to delete all autism related articles. Q0 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. DS 17:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zhenteng Li
Probable hoax. PROD removed by article creator. The content of the article changed from basketball player to pingpong player in various incarnations of the article, leading to the hoax conclusion. Article's creator has created several other dubious articles. Joyous | Talk 04:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- note: if deleted, please note numerous links have been added to other articles. Joyous | Talk 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 05:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as a hoax. --Trafton 06:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious vanity-hoax here. (If this goes, also delete the worthless redirect at Zhenteng li.) --Kinu t/c 07:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. --Allen3 talk 13:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and make necessary cleansing actions. feydey 13:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was gone. DS 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dong Lin
Another probable hoax, by the creator of Zhenteng Li. PROD tag removed, so I'm bringing to AfD. Joyous | Talk 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. JoshuaZ 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 05:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a hoax --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious vanity-hoax here. --Kinu t/c 07:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. --Allen3 talk 13:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (e) 05:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bruce Krane
Delete Notwithstanding the copyvio tag, the subject is a non-notable politican; the page is also likely autobio/vanity, inasmuch as its the only page the editor has edited or created in two-plus years. Joe 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Content has been removed now by someone anyway.
VirtualSteve 10:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 kept as nomination withdrawn. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moni Aizik
Delete. Non-notable, reads like a resume. Ckessler 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Keep rewritten article, notability proven. (changed vote) Ckessler 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The nomination is therefore withdrawn. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, incoherent, excessively flattering, and generally inane. --Trafton 06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above; I would have tried prod first.Keep reworked article. Grandmasterka 06:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Delete as non-notable person, Keep, article has been reworked --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article has been COMPLETELY REWORKED, POV removed, turned into a stub. As a repeat national champion he is notable, as a developer of Krav Maga he is notable. Article was originally an ad, but is now worthy of inclusion. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand article as it stands now Jcuk 21:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Minor figure, but notable within that world. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (e) 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dror Saporta
Delete. Non-notable krav maga instructor. Ckessler 05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, possibly vanity. Egil 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable person, with about only 28 google hits --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (e) 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yigal Arbiv
Non-notable krav maga instructor. Ckessler 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, possibly vanity. Egil 06:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable person, with about only 49 google hits --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No claim to notability. ~MDD4696 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (e) 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hisarya, India
Mostly duplicates Hisar, India. Not a merge because there's no new info. Not a redirect because Hisarya, India is neither a city nor a nickname, and Hisarya, Bulgaria is unrelated. See Talk:Hisar, India Art LaPella 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete asap :D --chinu 06:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joe 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and talk-page. ImpuMozhi 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adam Allard
Not sure which "google" you searched, but I found quite a lot on google.com. I know the alt.fan.adamallard news group has been around for at least 10 years because it was one of the first to be found way back in the archie and veronica days. I don't know much about the "musician" part but I did find something on purevolume.com/adamallard.
I know about him from a technology perspective since that I my field. He was one of the first people to use Java in a large-scale public site... he created the original Pepsi.com in all-Java in 1995. I also know the Plenium company because of the Wired article that Chris Oakes wrote in 1997 about their company and the netdesk thingy.
Just clicking around on other people in wikipedia, its easy for me to find many other people in the main collection that appear to have done much less.
Strong whiff of vanity about this. Googling doesn't unearth much evidence of his notability as a musician or "technologist", and I'm not at all clear what our notability standards for the "visionaries" is. Alai 05:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable person --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no verifiable notability. Henning Makholm 07:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Wickethewok 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unverified. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks fine to me. HeyMikey
- Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comic Book Extras
Delete Contested prod. Webcomic with no alexa rating and no evidence of size of audience. Only one independent Ghit--Porturology 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 06:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Sandstein 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I only have one online reference for its importance and it's in Greek... http://www.comicdom.gr/stripshow.php mentions it, the comicdom website being an important greek comics news website, and it's also discussed in greek forums such as http://www.rpgnet.gr http://www.forum.electricrequiem.com/ http://serendipitous.d3snetwork.com and most importantly http://www.comicart.gr - I have no other "evidence" of its importance for a scene that is mainly reliant on subculture hearsay, and I live in the UK so I don't subscribe to "9" (a weekly greek comics magazine). I still feel bad to be called (and be treated like) a Ghit, just because I want to share my interest in a non-critically-acclaimed medium. BunnyDee 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ghit stands for Google hit and as you confirm there is only one in Greek.
- Oh... heh... sorry. Don't know about how the hits work, just that there's been a lot of talk about it lately among greek comic fans, and it is (as you can see from the website itself) a serious, non-profit endeavour. Other than that, It's been added to comixpedia (by someone nicknamed Nifboy), so even if it's deleted here, that will do I guess...
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Nifboy 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (e) 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Subetapets
This page is linked to from Subeta. I have my doubts about that page too, but Subeta has a number of Google links, and appearantly some following. This list, though, is not even a list, and I cannot see its purpose. Delete, or possibly merge with Subeta (although I doubt it). Egil 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete list of one, unlikely to be encyclopaedic if complete. Sandstein 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sandstein. Henning Makholm 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Sandstein's hit the nail on the head here. --Kinu t/c 07:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn FanCruft Deizio 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn Fancruft. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Feted Inner Core
Unsourced and self-admittedly fringe conspiracy theory about the goings-on in an online game. Very broadly non-encyclopaedic, this. WP:NOT, WP:OR apply. Contested PROD.Sandstein 06:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because deleting it is a loss and merging it with secondlife's article is confusing - Kyrah
- Delete per each reason listed in nom. Joe 06:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. ~MDD4696 06:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge I don't think it needs to be deleted but it could be merged with the Second Life article XSpaceyx 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Speculative, unverified. Completely unencyclopedic GameCruft. Deizio 19:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-encyclopaedic. Nigelthefish 16:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete. The article could use more sourcing, including to the articles by the originator of the term, the avatar Prokofy Neva. The hypothesis is not a conspiracy, and in fact is documented here by the author in argumentation concerning media coverage, outsourcing of contract to Wells Fargo, etc. An important element of the history of the Metaverse, and a household vernacular term for the immediate community, Linden Lab, which includes the term in messages of the day, and those analysing the virtual world.
- Keep/Modify or Merge. Though it may have initially been cruft, its quickly taken on a life of its own in some of the more common vernacular within Second Life, and could be merged into that entry. Alternatively, it could be properly expanded upon to include its possible application among any gaming group (I know of some non-computer games for example which could fit the bill; I'm sure that it could apply to other MMOs or other formats). --TSK 02:15 EDT, 21 Mar '06
- Merge under Second Life, subsection 7 (Issues and Criticisms). -- User:Sarah Little Princess 22 March 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. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Larafairie
Internet photomanipulation artist, apparently popular online, but no independent sources or apparent impact in the real world, so delete. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable person --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. ~MDD4696 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as huge online poularity for one so early in her career is remarkable and notable and does impact the real world which is increasingly influenced by online popularityStevepike 21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as marginally notable internet personality. I'm kinda thinking that some of her popularity might derive from fan crushes, but I have no idea, and it's irrelevant anyhow. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Beauty does affect the world, does it not? Otherwise our famous artists from the past would also not deserve notice. March 20, 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.215.61 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Other, more notable DeviantART artists than larafairie have been deleted from Wikipedia in the recent past (suzi9mm) and there does not seem to be any valid reason that larafairie should be treated any diferent by keeping her entry here. March 22, 2006.
- Delete per nomination. --DiamonDie
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hans Christian Ørsted Institute
Not an actual institute, just a building at an university. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all the buildings in the world. PROD contested. Sandstein 06:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I added prod tag. The log entry that removed the tag suggested that the Hans Christian Ørsted Institute might be notable for being a just a building complex rather than a research/teaching department, but that usage is not uncommon at the University of Copenhagen. (The nearby August Krogh and Panum institues are just buildings too). Henning Makholm 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, a building with no historical significance or notability --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete a nn building--Porturology 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A dorm building at Harvard is notable, but these are not? Whats good for the goose... keep. Roodog2k 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Referred to often enough, with non-trivial Google hits; article suitable because it's something a reasonable person might come across a reference to and want more information on. Monicasdude 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with the parent. -- JJay 16:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge a stripped down version to parent. Deizio 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Information on a building complex at a notable university is useful and not neccessary to merge into the parent. Should be linked to by the parent, however - otherwise, it's useless. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and link to parent Nigelthefish 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts talk 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Anatomy of the Body of God
Non-notable book, Amazon rank 1,657,640 (or 2,319,877 for paperback). Was de-prodded for the reason of being a published book. However, WP:NOT a catalogue of all the books in the world. Merge and redirect to the author, Frater Achad (whose notability is dubious himself, IMHO). Sandstein 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, nomination retracted per Perfecto below. Sandstein 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable book --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per nom. Henrik 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I was the deprodder of this article, and I still believe this article is worth keeping. WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, and the article provides information not included in Frater Achad. I'll admit it's not the most notable source; however, the article's not hurting anyone and provides helpful information to anyone researching the book. I wouldn't, however, strongly oppose merging and redirecting to Frater Achad as Sandstein recommended. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (weakly, in truth, but count it as a full 1 vote). Not the best subject for an Amazon test; Achad aka Charles Stansfeld Jones has a lengthy enough article already. Samaritan 10:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge as per above. Roodog2k 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 22:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge -- this didn't need to be brought to AfD. Jkelly 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Charles Stansfeld Jones. I concur with Jkelly - this is an inappropriate AfD. WeniWidiWiki 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, only because it's more likely to get expanded by an interested party if it has its own article. Including it with a one-sentence summary in the author's article discourages expansion - that's how it always seems to work. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Delete'. No encyclopedic value; per nom. C3H5N3O92010 01:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ...mostly per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.'s thought- I agree. I also offer an opinion that the suggestion that Frater Achad or his works are not notable is, frankly, ludicrous; if we delete them, we might as well delete the articles pertaining to Aleister Crowley and John Dee, which is equally silly action to contemplate here. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Commentaire As the article submitter I'd rather leave this nom alone, but let me just say this: AfD stands for "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for merging and redirecting". Merge proposals are to use the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} tags -- one of the reasons why is to invite discussion on the destination article, presumably among those who have a slight idea what the two topics are about.
- Also, if the "merge and redirect" nomination wins, what is the closing admin to do? Add the merge tags? Execute the merge? Do we want the closing admin to create Talk:The Anatomy of the Body of God and recustomise {{oldafdfull}} to "This article was nominated for merging and redirecting on 19 March 2006. The result of the discussion was "merge and redirect"."??
- Well, okay, guys, I'll move on and leave this nom alone. I have several new articles to create today. :) -- Perfecto 16:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Xezbeth. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portchie
deproded. Seems to be a long article about someones nickname for his significant other. Henrik 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - nonsense about something or other. Wickethewok 08:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: G1, no meaningful content. --Kinu t/c 08:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nonsense --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete for making me hungry for Portugese food. --Trafton 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 WP:CSD#A7. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BASICALLY BRIAN
Non-notable. Probably borderline to speedy deletion. Schutz 14:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete per nom.--Blue520 14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I found it informative as a fan of Basically Brians columns. —This unsigned comment was added by 194.165.183.223 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 March 2006.
- Delete. It's a bio of a blogger. Completely non-notable. --BWD (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. Henning Makholm 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A7, embarassing nn vanity. Deizio 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Over 50,000 members of his fan club, I think he's notable enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.171.181 (talk • contribs)
- Speedy Delete Pointless, obviously a vanity article.C3H5N3O92010 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete under WP:WEB. No verifiable evidence of notability.
Capitalistroadster 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't think some random Blogspot blog meets WP:WEB. I'd venture to guess it's WP:VSCA as well. --Kinu t/c 07:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Dont delete, he's actually very popular in his locality in Dublin, a bit of a cult hero—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.182.135 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 March 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 If the website subsequently becomes notable then the article can be rewritten to reflect this. (aeropagitica) 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fred the Monkey.com
Non-notable website, 280 google hits for "fredthemonkey.com", no Alexa rating. Kuzaar 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete WP:WEB violation; non-notable website. (aeropagitica) 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep it of course!! this site is awesome!
-
- Comment: can't even find this addition to the vote to do an unsigned template. Take that as you will. Kuzaar 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep it! you can't just get rid of something because you think it's "not-notable." as an encyclopedia you are supposed to be nutral and to label something like that is obviously giving it a bias. this article should be kept, and who do you think you are to decide whether or not something is notable anyway? —This unsigned comment was added by Beatrixcastle (talk • contribs) .
-
- (User's only edit) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian vent here 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. ComKeen 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- User ComKeen has been registered for less than four days and has approximately fifteen edits. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep NON Relevant???? Fred the Monkey is about as relevant as an animation website could possibly be. The characters are completely relevant - some might even say significant. MrD 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- User MrD is not registered. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain, but MrD is registered. Ardric47 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP MAN WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SEE THIS GREAT WEBSITE GO AWAY MAN U GUYS ARE IDIOTS
TOADFAN5 aka FRED THE MONKEY FANATIC 5 —This unsigned comment was added by Toadfan5 (talk • contribs) .
-
- User's only edit besides his own user and talk page. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Great humour, and deserves the recognition. —This unsigned comment was added by 59.167.156.33 (talk • contribs) .
- (User's only two edits) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Even though this site is not famous at the moment, it is becoming exponentially more popular, and is clearly quality work. If it is deleted now, it will probably simply be added again in the future. —This unsigned comment was added by Pirateslifeforeme (talk • contribs) .
- (User's only edit) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep! Please don't delete! It's my favorite site in the world and I don't know what I'd do without it! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.171.32.231 (talk • contribs) .
-
- User has two edits, this one and one to Fred the Monkey.com. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Some voters (like this one) seem to think we're voting about removing the entire site rather than the wiki entry. Mackan 12:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Site is over 4 years old with sevearl thousand loyal fans, should be kept as semi notable D_X
-
- User D_X has less than 30 edits, all pertaining to this subject. Not to point the finger, but this is suspicious to me. Kuzaar 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sigh. Fails notability. For reference, I prodded Clydex the Platypus, which is based around the site. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Site itself is growing in popularity, and the flash itself is defintely notable.--Wizardman 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- User has less than 40 contributions and is less than 10 days old. Kuzaar 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- KeepKeep, pretty popular, especially among afficionados of flash. —This unsigned comment was added by CrazyEyes (talk • contribs) .
- Comment I just went thru and identified some unsigned posts and commented on users without significant contribution histories. It doesn't mean I don't think new users can contribute, but it points out who might not be familiar with Wikipedia policy and might only have an account for the purpose of "voting" here. (Decisions are made by consensus, not vote.) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Three years old, does carry an audience on the net, and I haven't heard any grounds for deletion that appear reasonable other than the per nom which I assume has to do with the policy. The newest post on Newgrounds is a social commentary that I find pretty good, similar to the battle between "Cyanide and Happiness" with "Top Web Comics". Give the artist time and I'm sure he'll battle this deletion to the bitter end. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.195.78.102 (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP - Exactly like that guy says ^^ it's a monkey for christ's sakes! - monkeys rule :( —This unsigned comment was added by 83.216.136.62 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete and Comment. To justify my deletion vote I just want to say that even if it will become notable it doesn't mean it is now. Joseph Blanchette aka Legendary Frog had his entry removed despite being several times more famous than "Fred the monkey". My comment is, the creator of Fred the monkey has started a campaign to make sure his entry doesn't get deleted, through a flash movie submitted to newgrounds.com and probably elsewehere as well where he tells people to go to Wikipedia and "tell them to shut their stupid faces" (and a clickable link that leads to the Fred the Monkey entry). This surely explains the many recent unsigned "Keep" votes. I am appaled by the creator of "fred the monkey"'s lack of understanding for what wikipedia stands for (it's an encyclopedia and not a showcase for up and coming artists) and I think this move makes it much harder to hold a fair vote, which I think in the end will only weigh FOR the deletion of this article. Here's the animation on Newgrounds: Fred the notable monkeyMackan 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yet another Comment: There is not only a single (1) google hit on "fredthemonkey.com", search for any page name and you'll only get one result. From there you click "Find web pages that contain the term "fredthemonkey.com"". This gives 243 hits (note, by looking on the first page of results I get the impression that many of them are created by the maker himself). This does however, in my opionion, doesn't change anything. I'd vote "delete" if it had 10 000 hits. In fact, my own flash game "Shotgun Orc" comes up with 30,000-65,000 hits on google (currently 65,000), but I wouldn't dream of suggesting an entry to be made for it and if somebody did make one I would definately nominate it for deletion myself. Mackan 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable - 280 Google hits. -- infinity0 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn --mmeinhart 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If you're gonna delete this from The Wiki, then Delete Homestar Runner, too. This site has been around for about as long as them, and they've made tons of laughs amd is enjoyable by many people. And, why does Clydex get his own Wiki Page, but this one is on the edge of deletion? He isn't ver a main character! Anyways, keep the page up. The Pro X
-
- The Alexa ranking for homestarrunner.com is 2947, while fredthemonkey.com has no ranking. A Google search for "Homestar runner" finds over a million hits, while a search for "Fred the monkey" finds less than a thousand (including unrelated usage). Please take a look at WP:WEB if you haven't done so yet. (User:Pro X 20 has six edits.) — TheKMantalk 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete-non-notable cartoon ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete not notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Bucketsofg 21:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. This not a vote on the webpage. It is a vote on the Wikipedia article about the webpage. (OOPs forgot to sign.)Mikereichold 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This website is not notable. — TheKMantalk 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as not meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts talk 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pennrose Mall
non notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- See also Pennrose Mall, Mayberry Mall. The creator of all these articles is the North Carolina vandal, who uses large numbers of sockpuppets. -- Curps 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
ABSOLUTE keep, there is not even any question. Infact I demand IMMEDIATE removal of the AfD!Some guy from tennessee 21:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Again a non-notable mall. JoshuaZ 21:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Emminently nn. Denni ☯ 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Of comparable size to other malls documented on Wikipedia. Been kicking around since the 60s. An institution, more notable than many museums listed on wikipedia, say. Anti-mall bias should not prevent the inclusion of this notable market Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Malls and shops are generally not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages. --Metropolitan90 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I feel that this precedent should be challenged, as it is a product of simple anti-mall cultural bias. Large malls are more notable than most museums documented on Wikipedia - I don't particularly love them, but malls are very notable local institutions and centers of commerce. Simple distaste for the subject, and a view that different instances of the subject are a bit samey...does not suffice as a criterion for deletion when the subject is of clear note. The massive size of many individual malls makes them features in the lives of millions or hundreds of thousands of people and clearly notable. Anyone who has a similar opinion of this precedent (i.e. that it excludes notable institutions from the encyclopedia due to cultural bias), let's begin opposing it here. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A useful local history article. Osomec 02:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per policy and nom. feydey 19:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as it is perfectly notable. Keep this and Eden MallParkerhimin 20:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The above is a sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal, no other contributions. -- Curps 21:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Curps and Metropolitan90. It might be marginally more notable than Eden Mall or Mayberry Mall, but it's a hair-splitting exercise in degrees of NN. It also looks like WP:NOR. Slowmover 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Being located in a small community, it is likely a commercial center of that community - and, as such, as important as a local state park or something on that idea. What's more, it's been around for decades. Notable commercial institution. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Local notability, if it is relatively unknown outside its immediate community, does not meet the standard for notability on Wikipedia. Slowmover 15:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- If it has been notable for the community then it might make sense to merge it in to the article about the community. It doesn't deserve its own article. JoshuaZ 22:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- You could do the same with museum articles, but no one seems to do that Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep as the most notable mall since Mayodan.Reidkins 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This user has no edits other than edits to the malls currently under review. Is most likely a sockpuppet of the NC vandal. JoshuaZ 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic. -- JJay 11:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_buildings for an attempt at discussion of notability of buildings (including malls) in general. Friday (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example.--Primetime 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eden Mall
non notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- See also Pennrose Mall, Mayberry Mall. The creator of all these articles is the North Carolina vandal, who uses large numbers of sockpuppets. -- Curps 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Infinite keep, go to hell if you think otherwise.Some guy from tennessee 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No sign of notability. JoshuaZ 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- But guys, there's a Hallmark store!! Of course, delete per nom. Joe 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Malls and shops are generally not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages. --Metropolitan90 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete, and if you do delete, than the Untied kingdom is going to Redirect to England.The Streets of New York 02:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This user has only this edit, and seems to be making some sort of threat here but I don't quite understand it. JoshuaZ 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- CommentDo not even DARE delete this article. You must understand it. If you delete Eden Mall, I will use 1,000,000 sockpuppets, each to redirect the United Kingdom to England!
- Comment And you think that this is will make us inclined to keep it? Generally on AfD's people respond to threats by being more deletionist, not less so. You stand a better of chance of getting the article to stay by demonstrating that this mall is notable in some way. JoshuaZ 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- CommentDo not even DARE delete this article. You must understand it. If you delete Eden Mall, I will use 1,000,000 sockpuppets, each to redirect the United Kingdom to England!
-
- Delete per nom. and Metropolitan90. feydey 19:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a perfectly notable mall. What's with "delete per nom". People should vote on what they think, not just vote because the article was Afd'd?Parkerhimin 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: the above is yet another sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal, no other contributions. -- Curps 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, despite compelling defense by Parkerhimin. Slowmover 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep the recent spate of mall AfD's is an example of an anti-mall cultural bias, as are any anti-mall precedents in deletion policy. I strongly feel that Wikipedia is being kept from covering many massive, notable, quasi-permanent commercial institutions (many of which are important features in the lives of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people - entire communities!) simply because of cultural bias. I am not a huge mall-lover myself, but most large malls are more notable than many of the small museums that wikipedia covers, and are treated differently mainly because they are seen as distasteful or dislikeable. Wikipedia should not censor or delete an entire category of information (we already cover a number of malls), information that is relevant and important to an electronic encyclopedia, simply because some people find that subject a bit crass. Covering individual malls is not comparable to, say, covering individual Wal-Mart stores (which should not be done), because each mall is different. The layout, location, and composition of a mall is important geographic and cultural information. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Bobby, if you want to propose a standard for what malls should be kept, we might listen. Note that I take slight issue with the comparison to wallmart, many malls have roughly the same level of notability (especially compared to a wallmart in a small town). JoshuaZ 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd agree that Wal-Marts often have the same notability as a smallish-medium mall, but having articles on individual Wal-Marts would be hard, given how they're all so alike. Malls may superficially seem to be alike but they often have different store compositions based on the size and affluence of the community, and they also sometimes have interesting quirks in architecture and layout. A provisional proposal for a notability standard might run along the lines of: 1.) Must be of sufficient size and stability (relative to the surrounding community) to be a major and central commercial institution in a given geographical area, 2.) Must have 20+ stores (a somewhat arbitrary number; we can obviously work on that), 3.) Must have some possibility for documenting the composition of the mall, in terms of constituent stores (as this is the heart of the usefulness of an article), 4.) Must have the possibility for some description of the layout, architecture, and type of the mall. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Bobby, if you want to propose a standard for what malls should be kept, we might listen. Note that I take slight issue with the comparison to wallmart, many malls have roughly the same level of notability (especially compared to a wallmart in a small town). JoshuaZ 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge Like Mayberry Mall, and unlike Pennrose Mall, this might be merged.Reidkins 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This user has no edits other than edits to the malls currently under review. Is most likely a sockpuppet of the NC vandal. JoshuaZ 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town square. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic. -- JJay 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why do all malls need artciles? Some are quite simply not notable. Vegaswikian 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_buildings for an attempt at discussion of notability of buildings (including malls) in general. Friday (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No showing of why this is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Very useful and informative.--Primetime 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Mall Athens
No assertion of notability, non-encylopediodic design ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (and kudos to Jester for listing all these extraneous articles about non-notable shopping centers). Joe 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Malls and shops are generally not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages. --Metropolitan90 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, rewrite poor article, but clearly notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The largest shopping centre in a capital city of millions is clearly notable. Osomec 02:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The Mall is notable because (1) it is the largest shopping center in Greece, newly built and a nationwide center of attraction. If Disneyland is important enough for France, so is the Mall for Greece. (2) according to recent press reports ( "Galera" magazine ), the construction of the Mall has been one of the largest economic and political scandals in post-junta Greece, larger than the Koskotas scandal of the 1990ies. If this poll decides against deletion, I am willing to contribute this information. --Michalis Famelis 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Mall (Edgware)
non-notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've been there. Shopping centres like these are thirteen in a dozen. No specific notability, no connections to historical events. Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joe 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Malls and shops are generally not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages. --Metropolitan90 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Anti-mall bias. More notable than many museums noted on wikipedia. I don't really like malls that much myself, but they are notable institutions. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We have many articles on minor topics. This is worthier than the ads for minor porn stars that don't get deleted. Osomec 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because other non notable things are on wikipedia doesn't mean this shouldn't be deleted ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I feel that this is a notable institution of commerce. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per policy. feydey 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing in the article makes it appear encylopedic. Vegaswikian 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example.--Primetime 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miami International Mall
Article does not assert notability of mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiegel (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Malls and shops are generally not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages. --Metropolitan90 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Notable due to huge size. I find the recent spate of mall AfD's to be simple anti-mall bias. Large malls are more notable than most museums documented on Wikipedia. I don't particularly love malls myself, but they are very notable institutions and centers of commerce. I don't like mid-level Nazi politicians of little real accomplishment, but I think they should be documented on Wikipedia. Simple distaste for the subject, and a view that different instance of the subject are a bit samey...does not suffice as a criterion for deletion when the subject is of clear note. The massive size of this mall makes it a feature in the lives of millions and clearly notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's much less trouble to accept these and encourage the development of good articles than to keep squabbling over them. Osomec 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian 01:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That may be well and true Bobby, but there's nothing in the article that asserts any sort of notability, any reference of what population shop there, etc. There's in fact no notable information about it at all other than it exists and a list of some stores ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the basic asserted grounds of notability is its large size - it has to have a huge shopping population if it can sustain that many active stores. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing in the article makes one think it is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 01:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example.--Primetime 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Short Pump Town Center
article does not assert why this mall is notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joe 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Notable due to huge size. I find the recent spate of mall AfD's to be simple anti-mall bias. Large malls are more notable than most museums documented on Wikipedia. I don't particularly love malls myself, but they are very notable institutions and centers of commerce. I don't like mid-level Nazi politicians of little real accomplishment, but I think they should be documented on Wikipedia. Simple distaste for the subject, and a view that different instance of the subject are a bit samey...does not suffice as a criterion for deletion when the subject is of clear note. The massive size of this mall makes it a feature in the lives of millions and clearly notable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable enough. Osomec 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That may be well and true Bobby, but there's nothing in the article that asserts any sort of notability, any reference of what population shop there, etc. There's in fact no notable information about it at all other than it exists and a list of some stores ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the basic asserted grounds of notability is its large size - it has to have a huge shopping population if it can sustain that many active stores. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
