Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Friday (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minority Babble

Nn neologism. Would have tagged with speedy but has a nonsense claim to notability. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Ridiculous. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously Just zis Guy you know? 00:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism; non-notable, five irrelevant google hits. Accurizer 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Smells like WP:NFT to me. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Ziggurat 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. _→AzaToth 01:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Sheehan (Talk) 04:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, what's that claim to notability? I don't see it. Unnecessarily offensive (heh... As an aside, I'm playing piano for a play about race, I got back from rehearsal and this is the first AfD I see...) Grandmasterka 06:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 08:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Oliver Keenan 10:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 14:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A nonsense article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete on the grounds of unanimous consensus. -- Arnzy (Talk) 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, neologism, etc. youngamerican (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nonnotable, blatantly racist neologism. rm -rf with extreme prejudice; even UrbanDictionary probably wouldn't touch this one. Haikupoet 01:14, 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. W.marsh 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TrackPoint

Delete Non-notable advertising. I came across this article expecting to find IBM's laptop input device. This and its sister article ArticleLive are linked nowhere except from each other. PeteVerdon 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spamvertisement. Redirect to pointing stick. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like advertisement only _→AzaToth 01:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement (and someone should probably write about the IBM input device, if we don't have it?). -- Mithent 02:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A quick Google [1] tells me it's at Pointing stick (TrackPoint is IBM's trademark for their version). — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks; we should Redirect to that then after deleting this one. -- Mithent 14:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Redirect per Mithent and Kimchi; good idea. --Allen 03:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 08:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, definite ad. Oliver Keenan 10:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 14:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect to pointing stick --Karnesky 16:50, 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 Delete. W.marsh 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian CMS Products

This is not the same article as was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian CMS Products - that was spam, this is a spam magnet which is different. So: what is special about Canadian CMS systems? Are they offered for sale only in Canada? Not as it turns out. Are they notable for being Canadian? No, they are redlinks, so they would appear nto to be notable at all. There are lots of lists of software products of various types, they are watched b y many and purged of spam all the time; this will not be on many watchlists. I think it's a problem. Even if it's not a problem it needs a consensus to keep to avert nominations as {db-repost}. Just zis Guy you know? 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete this list would make sense if it was of CMS's that were localized for Canada, which would be a useful distinction. The article as it stands does not make that claim and until it does I agree with the nom. However if this were a list of localized Canadian CMS's I could support it. Gwernol 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gwernol and as non-notable software. [2], [3]. Feezo (Talk) 02:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn adverts.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article doesn't claim that Canadian CMS products are notable independently of CMS products generally. --Allen 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn software. --Terence Ong 08:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete also. Oliver Keenan 10:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable software. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:44, 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 00:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aimee Semple McPherson movie

Promotion for a non-notable movie made with a consumer-grade camcorder starring mostly unknown performers that has never been in general release. Will Beback 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Film mentioned in Ministries today (Dec. 2005), Film Threat magazine (2006), Charisma Magazine (October, 2005), East Valley Tribune (August 27, 2005) Hollywood Reporter and Variety production listings (2004-2005), InMag (Spring, 2005), Hollywood Jesus (2005), imdb.com, ZReview, movietome.com, and other publications cited on reviews and links at aimeesemplemcphersonmovie.com. This is the only feature dramatic film to explore Aimee McPherson's significance to evangelism and the history of Los Angeles. To delete out of discrimination against women, Christianity, or art created on a low budget is to miss the larger issues of the work. Jacksbernstein
• Delete, non-notable. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: An anon has been removing the {{afd1}} text on the article repeatedly. I've warned him not to. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its at imdb -- Astrokey44|talk 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable Makgraf 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. This is not the IMDb, and the fact that an entry on this movie can be found at the IMDb only makes this article more worthy of deletion, as no knowledge will be lost. Brian G. Crawford 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Very very weak keep, if only because the film has a few name actors in it, such as Rance Howard. However, some serious editing is required, as the article reads like a puff piece written by a publicist, or Rossi himself. Someone's definitely trying to pimp this film, though, as the same anonymous edtitor keeps trying to insert it into a list of significant independent films. MikeWazowski 02:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn , sounds very bad/amateur.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- perhaps give it one sentence in Aimee Semple McPherson. Catamorphism 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• KeepArticle mentions both viewpoints concerning film. Filmmaking is effected by digital revolution and films made digitally on smaller budgets are a significant movement, akin to French New Wave of the 1960's. Usr talk: sirrodburton
• Delete useless, insignificant and looks like an advertisement. Sheehan (Talk) 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable movie --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, no IMDB page means is definitely non-notable, only in exceptional cases. --Terence Ong 09:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It does have an IMDb page. David Sneek 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's at IMDb, it's got a notable actor, it's reviewed here and here. It does have POV problems and it should probably be moved to Aimee Semple McPherson (movie), though. David Sneek 09:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it is at the IMDb. It requires improvements - I will be happy to make these if the consesus is to keep. Oliver Keenan 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MikeWazowski. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the most notable thing that can be said about this movie is that "it's on IMDb." Personally, I don't think that's worth a whole lot on its own, much like something isn't notable just because it's on Wikipedia. Lord Bob 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The movie features at least one notable actor who already has a Wikipedia entry. It was apparently noteworthy to the SAG. It's on the IMDB. It's notable. It's also still too POV, but Oliver Keenan has volunteered to fix that. --Hyperbole 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per IMDb, SAG, etc., but make sure the POV gets cleaned up. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based upon the comments from MikeWazowski. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:00, 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. W.marsh 00:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sky Pirates

Delete as NN band. Contested {{prod}}. The article claims that a couple of band members are notable for work outside the band, but gives no reason to believe that the band itself meets WP:MUSIC. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not many hits for the band [4] and the members of the band dont sound very notable: writers of tv shows and someone who was "closely associated" with another drummer -- Astrokey44|talk 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, get rid of it.--Alhutch 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The band itself fails WP:MUSIC, and isn't notable. Seems like the article tries to assert notability by mentioning what some of the members/writers do, but that doesn't make the band pass MUSIC. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete del.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn band. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. --Terence Ong 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. _→AzaToth 15:06, 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. W.marsh 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entitilitis

Totally non-notable. Neologism and fancruft too. Reyk 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, entirely non-notable and could probably never be expanded. -- Mithent 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Mr. Show since its only relevance is there, otherwise Delete as non-notable. Gwernol 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even though it seems to be what all the vanity page writers have ("I am entitled to have a page on Wikipedia..."). --Midnighttonight 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gwernol. Feezo (Talk) 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of characters from Mr. Show. Only you can help find a cure. -- Samir (the scope) 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't even have a consistent spelling throughout M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of characters from Mr. Show, and delete as fancruft. --Terence Ong 09:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. _→AzaToth 15:07, 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 speedied as copyvio, can be recreated if it seems noteworthy. It was spam about some random book. Ashibaka tock 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret River

Delete this page because it is incorrect Harpercanada 01:09, 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 Wikibofh_(talk) 05:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jalpo

The article is all original research, poorly written, and cites no references that actually talk about the subject matter of the article - worse than this however, it appears to be a complete fiction. Googling came up with nothing relevant. ZoFreX 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per ZoFreX. Googling for "gyalpo" instead of "jalpo" comes up with some results, but this is apparently a common word in the Tibetan language and few if any of the results have anything to do with whatever this article is about. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause, I'm reporting you to Wikipedia for the following "... undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert. That is what you did when you outrightly deleted 20 kilobytes of page at Jonang-Kalachakra Controversy see History : [5]

A pattern of wrongful deleting and of incorrect assumptions so as to create problems somewhat akin to vandalism is appearing with your assertion here that Gyalpo and Jalpo were not found on Google which is blatlantly a lie in view of the plethora of that. Add in gto your previous deleting manner, I found it right to warn Wikipedia of your deeds. I'm also filing for undeletion of Jalpo as your charges are unfounded here. Geir Smith 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, article for keep. The Googling probably didn't work out right but I have references to Gyalpo-Jalpo all over the net. Just it's tough to see, because Gyalpo is also an ordinary name of persons like John or George in English. Here's one reference. I'll give more of such; and for good measure I'll also provide them on the page. It's not a hoax or other things that I've seen it here described as. I'm afraid I've not clearly understood what people read into the page. Corrected here with Google research. This is a case of msitaken identity. Jalpo is not at all what you suspect it of being : either inidentifiable, unverifiable or original research. None of that at all. [6] Geir Smith 10:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep strongly/ reference to Melhai Gyalpo (fire spirit, the lord of genii of fire) and Sadag Gyalpo (earth spirit) in one click here : [7] Geir Smith 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep definitively. The argument that it is not found on Google is not true. Reference here to the king-sprit (rgyalpo) subdued by the world famous Padma Sambhava. There's not much more authoritative source than this in Tibetan Buddhist history seeing he's like the father of Tibetan Buddhism recognized by all schools and sects there. [8] Geir Smith 11:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete nomination/ Google search gives a ceremony of Refuge taking taught by the Karmapa (a very famous lama of Tibet) speaking of appeasing the Gyalpo spirits. [9]

No one in their sane mind can keep on claiming that these spirits don't exist in the Tibetan Tantric Buddhist pantheon. I'm surprised that no one found these references on Google but I'm giving them here so it doesn't matter. But at least the error can be fixed. But undeleting is imperative. Making errors is OK but on condition of fixing them and not leaving unverifable things on the net. The person (Nat Krause) who said Jalpo-Gyalpo is not on Google said this but it's unverifable because I found a lot of Gyalpo Jalpos on it. So, he stands corrected. So, sorry, it's a mistaken identity there for you but I've helped out with references. There *is* a gyalpo-Jalpo on Google all over it really, in fact. There are tons on Google so if needed, I'll just give some more. Thanks. Geir Smith 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• No dearth of references to Gyalpo, Tsens and other spirits. I'll just put a whole bunch of references and all can just open them here one after the other:[10](Pehar is also a form of Gyalpo-spirit)[11](Gyalpo-sprit)[12][13][14](the previous link says "gyalpo-class protectors are practised by all sects." Dorje Shugden is just the name of one gyalpo-spirit. I speak about the general definition of gyalpo or jalpo.)[15](King and demoness i.e. gyal srin means gyalpo and srinmo i.e. king and demoness. i.e. spirits that are female and male.) [16]No contest definite undelete. The web is full of Gyalpo Jalpo references and the claim is unverifiable that it's not there. Unverified claim that it's not so. Geir Smith 12:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Feezo (Talk) 01:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)*Delete. I tried to read it, but it seems to fall into the category of the "unsalvageably incoherent." Brian G. Crawford 02:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be OR. --BluePlatypus 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, possible slander.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, possible POV-pushing. JIP | Talk 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above and as part of a "pattern of wrongful deleting" - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It seems like OR to me, but I can not assert that. _→AzaToth 15:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Original objections that Jalpo is not on Google have been rectified so undelete in order. Then objections that neither Gyalpo nor Jalpo were there either also corrected. So, again undelete is in order. The two original objections disowned now; so undelete for all later delete votes that were added in order. Jalpo is a fact on Google and an important part of Tibetan culture and religion. No contest on that one. False case. No merit. People who can't find it by Googling doesn't mean one can't Google it. I've Googled it, came up with 185 hits and posted about a dozen here now. What part of this don't people understand ? How can someone honestly come and say there are no hits when they can just click the host of links I provided here like a takeaway meal ? Geir Smith 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What is this article even about? The first sentence does not give any insight as to what jalpo is, it just says jalpo should not be confused for something else. That is poor writing.--Pal5017 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• There's a mistake : Jalpo is verifiable on Googles engine

Thanks for the weak delete Aza Toth. The hoax claim is unfounded : the Gyalpo-Jalpo references are all over Internet and it's not a fiction nor a hoax. I think the page should have it's chance to get up some reference written on it concerning the nature of the Jalpo spirits in Tibetan culture. I didn't think of putting them there earlier, thinking the people reading it would all be Buddhists. But for the general public, the page needs just a few references to be written out...and needs a few days for that so weak delete is good if it can just have a few days to improve. Thus putting off a deleting agenda a few days to redo some references is good. Saying it's Original Research, I don't agree with, as I've put up other external links that support the phases of what I say on the page. While I do the new references gleaned from the links I've just given here newly (above), I'll look at the OR issue meanwhile. But the verifiability issue on Google has already been cleared up because evidence is to be found on search-engines. So, with these new links coming on and improvement on the way, a weak delete is proper, if not to say "just a beginning" of getting the page undeleted. Thanks though for this. Geir Smith 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google for either term excluding mirrors and the article creator's own site is second of the handful of remaining hits. Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete theres no mistake. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Debates like this have inspired the proposed policy at Wikipedia:EsperanzaRLY. Deizio 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Jalpo article changed. The article has been changed and references added to make the article descriptive of the deity-spirit. I thus ask for the undeletion of the page as the objections to it not being verifiable on the web is lifted. Also, objections of original research based upon this are also lifted. Geir Smith 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: The page hasn't been deleted yet... so you can't ask for it to be undeleted:) ---J.Smith 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I did some searching in Tibetan history sites and Jalpo doesn't turn up much and "Gyalpo" only shows up in the context of "Pehar Gyalpo as the Protector of the Tibetan government" in 1662. [17] I looked at some of your sources... they aren't acceptable. First of all personal homepages don't count. Neither do Wikipedia-userpages. This is the only one of your sources that even slightly verifies your claim: [18] and it's on "freenet.de". Not acceptable. We need reputable sources. read WP:V ---J.Smith 23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• J Smith, tell me what you don't approve of in the second link that I gave above (the automatic linking gives new numbers to them; but all the following are the same references as those from my first posts earlier. Just new numbers on them.): [19], it gets between half and two million hits a day. It's a peer-sponsored link. See it's descriptive page that states it gets that many hits a day here : [20] Then among the other references I gave earlier : [21] is a Rywiki page which is an established fixture of Wikipedia and peer-approved. What's the problem with it J. ? Just rabble-rousing ? Bad Wikipedia policy again for you then as keeping a civil tone is the rule and not searching for false problems. This is the Sussex University link : [22] You've just been spouting lies J. ! What is this about "we"... "needing reputable sources" J. ? You're representative of Wikipedia ? That would mean poor luck for Wiki if *you* represent it, right ! You're just smearing aspersions here. The links are great links one and all. This link : [23] is to E-Sangha, and it's a well-established and world-wide newsgroup that is peer-sponsored. It's one of Tantric Tibetan Buddhisms premier groups if you want to really know about it. This and just about all these links are unquestionably excellent. Like these two again; one with E-Sangha, and one with "rywiki" (do you question rywiki as sources to undelete this article ? So if you question rywiki, then you're questionning Wiki itself then ! Ha. Weird logic, turning on Wiki in that case then. "Don't trust anyone even your own..." This is the Wiki - "rywiki" - page-site that J. Smith's not accepting for reference.) : [24][25] Definite lifting deletion tag on this article. J. Smiths objections are nul, void, each and every one of them. I doubt if one of his objections is valid even. Geir Smith 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleting deletion tag on page[26] [27] So, J. Smith, these two references, that you accept, and the four I have found above, make up six, so what are you talking about these not being valid ? You should do some serious research before "attacking" others research and efforts. Plus you say the second one from freenet.de i.e. Gruschke, isn't acceptable, well come again. He wrote a paper to Leiden University on that page which is just the support for it. So you'll have to revise your statement. Since when is university work to such prestigious universities as Leiden not accepted ? You must be dreaming bad. Case done, made and won. Geir Smith 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• J Smith, I am filing for the "delete" tag to be taken off the page. What do you see wrong in university theses to serve as reference for the page ?

Anyways it's not because Wikipedia doesn't recognize the existence of Gyalpos or Jalpos (for Tibetan Buddhism) that they don't exist : I have the proof multiplied by ten on Google. I don't think that fighting this will be right for you because the outcome is that. Also, I think that the university references that abound in my references links are very good, on the contrary. Geir Smith 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Delete tag on Jalpo page. The objections of the two first nominations for deletion by ZoFreX and Nat Krause have been lifted as I've found, produced, and posted about a dozen links to Gyalpo-Jalpos from the web (even if it is just on this deletion-page). Thank you for obliging... as no proof of their claims exist. Given ample proof the onus is on the prosecution to answer. No one is considered guilty until proven to be so. False accusations must be dealt with without weakness. Wikipedia policy. It is against Wikipedia policy to let false accusations stay on Wikipedia and this page is proof of the facts that are put forth for the record. No doubt is thus left in this matter. Geir Smith 15:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• KeepJ. Smith, Hi, I've changed the self-referencing links

on the page at Jalpo and the Wiki referencing links have been backed up by non-WIki ones. I think this adresses your concerns and also opens up for the pages being brought into WIki policy constraints. Please keep it's vote. Go from a weak delete to keep. I'll also include shortly, in the references, the "Pehar Gyalpo" reference that you provided above; and the people.freenet.de one (Gruschke) from Leiden University that I think are both perfectly acceptable. Given the three other references from Wiki and E-Sangha; the one from Sussex University; that of sacred-texts.com (one to two million hits a day) that are all perfectly acceptable as references (I think), that makes eight *grounded* and researched references. I've excluded other site-references although they are perfectly clearly appearing on Google, and that may also well be perfectly authentified sources for all that. We're thus looking at a total throve of at least ten to twelve potential references boiled down to a conservative selected number of eight of them. So, as I say, keep it, it's right. Geir Smith 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thousands and thousands of words, and I still don't know what it is. This stinks of hoax or OR. If it is not a hoax or OR, I would still support a delete, or removal of all material and reversion to substub since current content is incoherent after more than enough time. AKAF 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wait I'm working on widening and making easy the search for people verifying the information and trying to make Tibetan language terms easy to scroll down by explaining the names and word meanings involved. I think I've done a good job on some of the links I added to the page today because they're trustworthy reliable sources and easy to understand (or see). The definition window when one opens the page first seems also to appear much clearer for the newcomer now. Please go check it out right now. Geir Smith 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Someone to vote a Keep now ? Time needed to streamline/outline article; so need some time to do that. But ZoFreX and Nat Krauses first reasons for nominating have been answered with ample Googling provided for the article theme and all impressions of it being a hoax dispelled by that. Just need put it in form. I think the description of Gyalpos/Jalpos gives newcomers a good idea of the article theme now, seeing I've provided new form to the page recently. More on the way now. If someone could put in a keep vote that would take the page off the hotline to deletion for the moment. Voluntaries ? Geir Smith 18:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Someone to vote a Keep now ? Time needed to streamline/outline article; so need some time to do that. But ZoFreX and Nat Krauses first reasons for nominating have been answered with ample Googling provided for the article theme and all impressions of it being a hoax dispelled by that. Just need put it in form. I think the description of Gyalpos/Jalpos gives newcomers a good idea of the article theme now, seeing I've provided new form to the page recently. More on the way now. If someone could put in a keep vote that would take the page off the hotline to deletion for the moment. Voluntaries ? Geir Smith 18:44, 26 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 00:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GEOweasel

Delete Apparently non-notable Flash cartoon, doesn't try to establish notability, there are only 926 google hits for the name, no Alexa rank, and the wiki/forum look to be fairly irrelevant. Prodded, but the prod was removed. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable flash. Feezo (Talk) 01:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I know, I know. I'm the one who removed the prod. However, thinking hard about the Flash toon, I can honestly say that right now, there's not enough on it.—thegreentrilby 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. Gflores ^Talk 02:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per non-notable _→AzaToth 15:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, seems to be the logical decision. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 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 Wikibofh_(talk) 05:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dapreview

This article has been continually re-posted by the author who believes his blog is notable. Would appear not to meet WP:WEB, and is advertising/spam for the guy's site. Harro5 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN and "If the sites that I modeled my site after have pages, then by God, I must have one, too!" as indicated from the article itself: "Engadget and Gizmodo, both similar sites, also have pages on wikipedia. I built the Dapreview page based on the engadget and gizmogo article. Before deleting the DAPreview page again, please do the same to Gizmodo and Engadget. Or how about helping me out instead of deleting this article again." --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. Feezo (Talk) 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect nn .Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim of notability, possibly speedy G4, but I'm not an admin. --Allen 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect I actually liked the site and had it in my bookmarks from when I was shopping for a DAP. I find it useful; but unencyclopedic --Mmx1 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, nn Encise 04:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and protect --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the aticle is not encyclopaedic. Also has user comments in atricle. --Soumyasch 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect due to recreation by the author despite many deletions, definitely nn. --Terence Ong 09:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, remains NN. Also, protect, because it's not likely to be notable any time soon, and this guy is clearly just going to remake the page. Oliver Keenan 10:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delte Wow, that's kind of you guys ... So can someone explain to me why Engadget gets one and we don't? And it can't be considered as spam seeing that no-one will find it if they are not looking for DAPreview at all. The article is informational and has no "oh, Dapreview rocks!" in it. And I won't re-create the page if you delete it again, but the first two times there was no reason given and it just seemed like someone was being extremely trigger happy. What does protect mean? And at what time is a site considered "important enough" to get a wiki entry? When they are under the top 10000, 1000 or 500 sites? Exity 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The criteria for web site notability is here. If you feel that, under the listed criteria, you have a case for notability then please feel free to make it here. You will not help your case by asking why Engadget gets an article; that's an entirely separate question which has no bearing on the notability of your site. If you want to convince editors in this discussion that your site is notable then you should read the guidelines and make a case based on those guidelines here. --Craig Stuntz 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Engadget gets one because it's in the top 1000 most visited websites according to Alexa. The article was started by common users of the website, not by the creators of the website. Usually a Wikipedia article is considered "important enough" if enough editors with no personal connections to the subject come together and decide to start an article about it. Frankly, it's not enough to have just the creator of a website say that their own website is important. Also, "protect" means that after an administrator deletes this article they can make it so that the article cannot be recreated by anyone other than another administrator. The reason this has been nominated to be protected is because it's been deleted multiple times before. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete DAPreview is a very informative news site with the resources of hundreds of people with vast experience with DAPs. This article is not an advertisement at all, it's merely a history of the site. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.224.192.52 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete Currently non-notable website. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google News search came up with some verifiable evidence of coverage in other media see [28]. As such, they may well meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Those mentions are on other blogs like engadget and less notable versions. --Mmx1 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not really G4 material as it's not, as far as I can tell, been AfD's before, only speedied - but it is without doubt the most blatant vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blogs that get blogged about are not necessarily notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per CSD General criteria #7 and protect, as this seems to be recreation of twice-deleted DAPreview (see its deletion log -- even if it is all of two entries at this time), so I think this will just keep getting recreated if we merely delete it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant speedy delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and if it is not a speedy, then it will be correct for me to say strong delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Another possible case for Wikipedia:EsperanzaRLY. Tag removed, no significant attack in the end. Deizio 23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but is the obnoxious {{AfdAnons}} tag really necessary? I don't see any ballotbox stuffing here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I just saw the above vote from 71.224.192.52 (talk · contribs), which was the anon's only contribution. I thought I might be pre-empting a campaign. If you want, you can remove the tag. Harro5 08:34, 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. W.marsh 00:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Streets of Mayfair

Non-notable article about a mall in Florida. Nothing of encyclopedic value in the article. Moe ε 01:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable mall. Feezo (Talk) 02:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Gflores ^Talk 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. No Guru 04:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable mall --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable mall. --Terence Ong 09:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all malls should be NN unless specifically N! - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mall with no assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Coconut Grove, Florida. BD2412 T 16:16, 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. W.marsh 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farbod Fujimoto

Hoax, was prodded once but prod removed by creator. Likely utter nonsense ("Farbod's last name (Fujimoto) has rich Latin American origin"). Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Farbod Fujimoto (born 1484) is a mythical traveler.. wikt:mythical. Enough said, hoax. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Google search turns up nothing for Farbod Fujimoto mythical. Gflores ^Talk 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Feezo (Talk) 03:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Gflores. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hahahaha!!!! Delete this hoax. Grandmasterka 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 09:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. My suspicions are confirmed when a page creator removes the prod. Oliver Keenan 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: "Without question, Farbod Fujimoto's existence will come into debate." - enough said! Oliver Keenan 10:59, 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. W.marsh 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chug

Delete I could find no reference to this "ship" in a google search, or to the SHAG society in Henley of which this is supposedly the flagship. Also, as the picture in the article shows a 10 foot long boat slightly bigger than a canoe, it seems rather unlikely that this is the flagship of a merchant fleet. Xyzzyplugh 02:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, couldn't find anything either. Gflores ^Talk 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Feezo (Talk) 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; looks like more joke than hoax. --Allen 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like ajoke, per Allen. Looks like these young men decided to put their boat in Wikipedia. Fan1967 03:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this joke. Grandmasterka 06:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - stuff the chug. Oliver Keenan 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete; obvious reasons. - —This unsigned comment was added by 172.215.100.30 (talk • contribs) 19:49, March 22, 2006.
• Hear Hear—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.182.232 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as a bad joke. Eivind^t@c 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete theres a new zealand band with this name that deserves an article much more than this. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:06, 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. W.marsh 00:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IFractal

Non-notable consulting company. 306 Google hits, a number of which go to their blog. Delete. DMG413 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — fails WP:Corp. Feezo (Talk) 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Blahm 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Feezo. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not reach notability threshold. Gwernol 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable company, fails WP:Corp --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC

So, it's interesting. Notability is the criteria? Is Google notability the only criterion for a quality company? Sure. Delete. That won't make the company go away, and won't make it so that the company isn't involved in some of the largest HR and organizational communication projects in the country.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Flintstone unit

Limited notability; Google search shows only 207 results [29], about a quarter of which appear to be Wikipedia. At best, this should be merged into English unit or some other article --Bletch 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable neologism. -- Mithent 02:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mithent. Feezo (Talk) 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mithent. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to English unit. This is in fact an often used derogatory term for units used by the only non-metric countries left in the world (what are there, 1 or 2 still left?), especially with their own condescending attitude towards metric, claiming that their units are better just because they're older. JIP | Talk 07:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 07:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Nigelthefish 14:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although I do like the term. James Kendall [talk] 16:25, 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. W.marsh 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W248AB

"W248AB is the call sign of a ham radio translator of WILI-98.3". Non-notable. Xyzzyplugh 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn .Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Feezo (Talk) 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. JoshuaZ 04:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly non-notable. WP:NOT a list of every radio call sign. Gwernol 04:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I saw a similar article that I prodded about a week back on newpage patrol. Non-notable. Grandmasterka 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable radio translator. JIP | Talk 07:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oh, and translators aren't ham radio, and we can't redirect to WILI since the article on that station has yet to exist. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Please see below for new vote.
• Comment: There's an article at WILI-FM for the main station. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I change my vote to redirect to WILI-FM, still per nom. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --James 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to WILI-FM with comment: -- translator stations are slippery beasts and are known to change affiliation from time to time. Any redirect involving a translator station may be subject to link rot without notice. IMHO translator stations are not very notable or encyclopedic, but if we're going to keep it redirect to the parent station is the best answer. Haikupoet 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• As the one who originally nominated this for deletion, I'm fine with Redirect to WILI-FM, now that we know the article exists. --Xyzzyplugh 14:58, 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. W.marsh 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My First Cult

Contested prod. Bringing here as a courtesy to the person who reprodded it. It's an "online community" founded earlier this year. It's probably not notable enough for an article here, but I'm going to hold out for now in case there's some notability evidence that surfaces soon. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable MySpace page [30]. Feezo (Talk) 03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable.--Blue520 04:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 307 google hits, only about a third of which seem connected to the group. JoshuaZ 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Postdlf 04:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "My First Cult"? Great name. Alas, not notable enough. Grandmasterka 06:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. nn. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a name with such promise and so little delivery MLA 10:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 11:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MLA. Eivind^t@c 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From Author: Maybe was a bit premature putting the article up - you've all made good points. There's a CD due to come out in June under the My First Cult record label - would it be better to wait until this has happened before submitting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwilson81 (talk • contribs)

Only if the CD gets mentioned in the media. Ashibaka tock 14:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nice effort! Not notable. Showtime203 03:55, 25 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 deleted —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:24Z

[edit] Images 1972

Delete; Entire article is simply plagiarized from a review by Richard T. Jameson on Amazon.com Hal Raglan 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio. Feezo (Talk) 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Article tagged for speedy. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. --Blahm 04:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and keep an eye on the creator. Editor who created it seems to be adding a whole bunch of copyvio articles directly lifted from imdb.com and amazon.com. He has twice taken the AfD tag off of this article. --Descendall 05:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. User has been warned several times and continues to create copyvio articles. Gflores ^Talk 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy it soon. Grandmasterka 06:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:36, 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. W.marsh 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pepar

Unverifiable neologism. To quote the relevant bit of the article, "The verification of the language is only achieved through the oral tradition in regions of Gaston County in North Carolina". Melchoir 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Feezo (Talk) 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Possible Complete Bollocks. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Feezo. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, unverifiable neologism, perhaps a hoax. Grandmasterka 06:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although that explains why a lady in my office says "Coloradar" Nigelthefish 14:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• DeletarVizjim 23:37, 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. W.marsh 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soulcrew skateteam

Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoO3 (talk • contribs)

• Delete as non-notable vanity. Feezo (Talk) 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Feezo, total non-notable vanity. Gwernol 04:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Feezo. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Feezo. Grandmasterka 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Nigelthefish 14:26, 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 Speedy deleted —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:22Z

[edit] The Leopard 1963

Delete; Entire article is plagiarized word for word from other sources Hal Raglan 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio. Feezo (Talk) 03:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Article tagged as such. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete We seem to be getting a lot of copyvio stuff here lately. JoshuaZ 04:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, User:Derbent 5000 is creating some problems. Grandmasterka 06:40, 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 speedy deleted by User:Xaosflux. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fingers 1978

Delete; entire article is simply plagiarized from other sources, including IMDB Hal Raglan 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio. Feezo (Talk) 03:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Article tagged. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:51, 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 keep. W.marsh 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of WWE pay-per-view events

Delete - Main point of this article seems to be to promote WWE pay per view events. Per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 seem to apply. Although advertising space is not explicitly noted, I think the intent is under not a host or page provider. Some of the content may be appropriate within another page. Pro-Lick 03:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Super-Weak Keep - Provides historical context, which explains why pay-per-view events are relevant. I think it needs to be reworked into an article about pay-per-view events for WWE, because it really isn't what the title describes, but I think that it's of encyclopedic value. I didn't get an advertising vibe from the page. Just b/c it's for sale doesn't mean that it's an advertisement. The Disco King 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Super-Weak Keep and move to WWE pay-per-view events --Mmx1 04:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WWE is a notable company, and its PPV schedule is something to note. Plus, it already has a brief discription of the history in there. Maybe expand more on the article, and move it to WWE pay-per-view events, because it should be more than a list. I've just read it in full, and I didn't see any blatant advertising in it. tv316 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Move it to WWE --DragonWR12LB 06:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The idea that it exists to promote WWE is absurd at face value because that would also imply every wrestler who works for WWE would have to have their profiles deleted too as that "promotes their business." All of the TV programming is used to build up to these specific big PPV events and a list of what the events are is historical fact, not WWE PR. BronzeWarrior 09:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this notable company produces so many PPV's that they'd swamp a more general article. MLA 10:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a notable company PPV events is something important. --Terence Ong 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Will no doubt be very useful to broadband users with bad taste in entertainment, who will use it as a file-sharing checklist. Monicasdude 14:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to bash wrestling fans? Eenu 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment: I understand the interest to keep past signifcant events (assuming there were any), but do we really want Wiki to become the place to list upcoming events? Every pro sports team, under this reasoning, can publish their schedule for the season ahead. Every TV show, their upcoming shows and times. Every film, its release date and theaters where it will be playing.--Pro-Lick 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an entertainment guide. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wasn't entertaining, I wouldn't bother to come here or use it. Even the featured articles that change on the homepage each day are highly enjoyable to read. BronzeWarrior 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per Mmx1. Eivind^t@c 20:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge into WWE --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a directory. Or an advert hoarding. Just zis Guy you know? 22:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Move Helpful resource, move to WWE pay-per-view events and expand. Eenu 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Eenu and others. Harro5 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. -- Crna ^t_e^c Gora 02:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep and move to WWE pay-per-view events. Rehardless of the intent, the information is still encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 03:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per above. I see no difference between chronicling the PPV events and the numerous TV series episode guides on Wikipedia. 23skidoo 03:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not TV guide.Tombride 05:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you ought to propose deletion for South Park, Family Guy and Dawson's Creek while you're at it. You're only attacking it because it's pro wrestling. BronzeWarrior 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Merge Merge it with WWE, i have read the article fully, i dont see any advertising in it. Snroy 06:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per BronzeWarrior. --Oakster 06:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no merge per Terence Ong. -- JJay 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The chronological order in which these pay-per-view events have been broadcast is extremely useful information; there are those who have spent time overseas and may not have had access to WWE pay-per-view events. This chronology allows those viewers to follow the emerging story-lines in sports entertainment. There is absolutely no advertising content in it, and the chronology cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.
• STRONG KEEP As the creator of the article. Merging would only make the WWE article extremly long. I broke it away from the article just for that reason. It's encyclopedic information that should not be deleted and there is no advertising presented in it. Moe ε 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My article was actually merged into this one, I thought it looked similar. :-) Moe ε 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- per BronzeWarrior. Trosk 00:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Just get rid of the upcoming PPVs section, apart from that I don't see any advertising. Normy 08:31, 26 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 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of grime artists

• Delete as per WP:MUSIC: The majority of these "artists" are not noteworthy. Blahm 04:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Allow me to add: The popularity of Grime is indeed growing, but I beleive, at the moment, the major 'players' can simply be listed in the Grime article as there aren't that many that have reached a relative level of success. --Blahm 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Blahm. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, listcruft. --Terence Ong 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom Nigelthefish 14:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft of non-articles. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft and "new genre" cruft too. The music press have to keep inventing new genres to sell papers, but this subdividing is just getting silly. --kingboyk 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Stunning ListCruft. Stunning for its sheer length and lack of bluelinks, among other things. Deizio 00:13, 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 deleted as non-notable biography —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:20Z

[edit] Thomas Hecker

No information given about notability, Google doesn't bring up anything about him either. Crystallina 04:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Delete - Does ADHD make one notable? Probably not.

• Delete nn,vanity --Mmx1 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mmx1. Feezo (Talk) 04:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Gwernol 04:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:39, 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 redirect. W.marsh 00:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fruita

Possible hoax. -- Curps 04:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable or a hoax. (Google) Feezo (Talk) 04:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete its not a hoax, see [31]] (under the Kirks brandname) its a minor Coca Cola brand in Australia. That said, this doesn't seem notable. Perhaps Merge into Coca-Cola_brands? Gwernol 04:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete or Merge per Gwernol --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable enough to have its own article. I've added it to Coca-Cola_brands. If there were anything interesting to say about it, I'd probably say keep. dbtfz^talk 05:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not seeing it. — Mar. 22, '06 [06:44] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Merge/Redirect to Coca-Cola_brands. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:18Z
• Delete - I feel a bit of a traitor for this but Fruita is not notable enough. It is a soft drink that was/is sold to a limited market (South Australia), original manufactured by Halls now sold under the Kirks brand. Could be seen sentimentally by some or as an iconic product for South Australia, but no were near the extent that of Farmers Union Iced Coffee [[32]] and note Farmers Union Iced Coffee is not on Wikipedia. The single sentence of the article sums it up and it is not notable. Now it has been added to Coca-Cola_brands it can be deleted.--Blue520 08:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Coca-Cola brands. It is a plausible search term. Capitalistroadster 09:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Capitalistroadster. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Coca-Cola brands. --Terence Ong 11:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Coca-Cola brands per Capitalistroadster. Alba 13:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• definitely redirect - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• redirect as per above. -- Arnzy (Talk) 16:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Best damn soft drink ever. Ambi 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right? My grandma made the best brownies ever, but that doesn't mean they deserve their own article.  :-) dbtfz^talk 05:03, 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 keep. W.marsh 00:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mutants (San Francisco)

An articlw which has been deleted on numerous occasions, and still does not show the band meets WP:MUSIC. It might be notable, just written terribly, but the fact that it didn't have an article in the past (remember 99.9% of notable bands already do) leaves me as a skeptic. Harro5 04:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep Although I've argued here largely that articles that are horribly deficient or otherwise unsalvagable should be deleted and, if on subjects that merit articles, added to WP:RA, this article doesn't seem so poorly written as to be altogether without hope. On the subject of notability, a Google search takes one to the the band's site, where one learns that they have recently played with three bands for whom articles exist (most prominently, Dead Kennedys). Other returns from the search lead me to think that they are notable, although surely the article does not establish notability at this time. Thus, I think perhaps the best course of action is to tag for sourcing and cleanup, although I would certainly revisit a "delete" vote in the future were the article not improved (such lack of improvement would, I think, demonstrate non-notability). If the same user has recreated the article in the same fashion as that which previously has been deleted, I would think it would be appropriate to suggest to the user on his/her user page that such recreations are disfavored where the resulting articles don't represent improvements over articles that have already failed to survive AfD. Joe 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep per Joe. Note that this has been speedily deleted twice already as nn-band. Sandstein 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Joe --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete repost, Not yet notable, Joe's efforts are valiant, but Crystal-Ballish. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete Sorry, they still fail WP:MUSIC. Just not yet notable. Nigelthefish 14:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the article makes a decent case for minimal notability, and the "99.9% of notable bands already have articles" is spuriously self-proving -- it justifies rejecting any band. And it's pretty clearly wrong -- there was a writeup on lesser-known Grammy nominees in the NYTimes recently, and several of them didn't have articles, even though a Grammy nomination clearly establishes notability in the field. Monicasdude 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it'll be hard to find relevant WP:MUSIC references for a band 20 years old, but they did get a feature in Bay Area Music, and that seals it enough for me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, There are many books that have articles about the Mutants and many publications from Re/Search.Search & Destroy Volume I;Issues 1-6; Search & Destroy Volume II Issues 7-11; PUNK '77: an Inside Look at the San Francisco Rock 'N' Roll Scene, 1977 X-capees: James Stark, A San Francisco punk photo documentary,X-Capees Press; 2nd rev. ed edition (1980). The September 1979 New York Rocker proclaimed "The Mutants are the most polular band in San Francisco." They are listed in List of musicians in the first wave of punk musicRetrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_first_wave_of_punk_music" and other wikipedia articles about San Francisco Punk Rock. They headlined at CBGBs in New York, considered a major punk rock venue. They have put out at least two records on 415 Records and are included on compilations with many bands that do have pages on wikipedia. Actually, many bands that are on wikipedia opened for the Mutants when the Mutants were the headline band (i.e. The Dead Kennedys). A feature length documentary is about to be released about the Mutants, produced by Dirk Dirksen ( of Mabuhay_Gardens fame). A photograph of the Mutants is currently on the cover of Punk Globe magazine: http://punkglobe.com/. And was also on the cover of Damage Magazine: http://www.sfmutants.com/damagecover.html. The Mutants were featured in films: Rick Schmidt's Emerald Cities (90 min., Color, © 1983), Faster, Louder, Shorter directed by Mindaugis Bagdon and in numerous videos by Target Video (Joe Rees). They have been interviewed throughout the nation on radio and television shows including the Uncle Floyd Floyd Vivino Show in New Jersey.
• Keep Peter G Werner 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Keep but Move to The Mutants (band) Peter G Werner 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Keep. I was involved in the San Francisco punk scene in the early 1980s and remember The Mutants as a notable band, within a milieu that's now considered historically important. The statement by Delete voters that the band is "not yet important" is in error - the band is historically important, though less well-known today. The article itself needs work. -- I do feel, however, that unless there's another notable band in another city called "The Mutants" that the name of this article should be "The Mutants (band)" rather than "The Mutants (San Francisco)". Brazilain band Os Mutantes wouldn't count in this regard, as they never used an English translation of their name.

I checked up on other bands using the name The Mutants. It turns out that there is a Detroit band called The Mutants, active in the same era as the SF Mutants. The Detroit Mutants have an album and a website and are somewhat notable. Anyway, to avoid confusion, the title "The Mutants (San Francisco)" should be kept. Some sort of disambiguation should be written into the beginning of the article stating that The Mutants from San Francisco are different from The Mutants from Detroit. -- Peter G Werner 04:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:MUSIC should imho be aimed at vanity articles by no-name bedroom DJs and unsigned bands, not bands who achieved historical importance in genres of old. In such cases record sales don't matter one jot. --kingboyk 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Mutuants were one of the most important punk rock bands of the late 70s and early 80s They were kind of a west coast B52s. They palyed along with the Nuns, Avenges, Dils, and many of the art punk bands of the early punk rock scene in Northern California. They are in the Louder Faster Shorter video and numerours articles had been written about them. Their influance has been felt by a generations of bands. —This unsigned comment was added by User:69.226.108.63
• Comment: Keeping in mind I was not the person who first called for deletion of this article - I just followed procedure by starting an AfD on a challenged {{prod}} - but I am happy for this article to stay. It needs some work, and I like the move proposed by Peter Werner above, but the article has potential and plenty of sources to work from. Harro5 05:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I've just cleaned up this article a great deal. Peter G Werner 05:41, 26 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 00:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peaberry Coffee

I added the proposed deletion tag, but the page's creator removed it and so I'm bringing it here. Inasmuch as I think it's a close call, I'm not voting yet (though I may), but I wanted to see if others concurred in the conclusion that this is likely a non-notable business, consistent with WP:CORP. According to this, the business has recently sold a good portion of its locations, but, according to this, the company continues to maintain an online presence (in addition to its eighteen stores) and has product sold in several supermarkets for which we have articles (e.g., Albertson's). Joe 04:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Redirect As the creator, I agree with youngamerican (talk), to redirect it to the Peaberry entry and add some of the additional text I put in the new entry.
• Delete per norm --DragonWR12LB 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 11:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable regional company. If others do not agree, I would suggest that it should at least be redirected to Peaberry instead of deleted. youngamerican (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Redirect per Youngamerican. Haikupoet 01:32, 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 wasDeleted in mid-AfD {{deletedpage}} tag placed on page due to 13 recreation attempts.  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Gai

Delete - Vanity article, with an unverifiable assertion of notability (Oreo stacking). Seems to fail WP:BIO Blue520 04:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Looks like vandalism to me. NTK 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow That was quick.--Blue520 04:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What was quick? NTK 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The time between me finishing the AfD and the posting of your comment, it must have been less than 30 seconds.--Blue520 05:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vanity, fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as above and nom. Gwernol 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom -- Ned Scott 05:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:39, 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. W.marsh 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raskals

Totally non-noteable. I can't find anything about this brand on google. "Styles for Juveniles," the slogan of the company, produces two related hits on google, one of wikipedia and the other of answers.com. Obviously an advertisment, and hopelessly POV. Descendall 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertisement. Feezo (Talk) 05:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Comment: around here (Australia) this word has a rather different meaning. —Chris Chittleborough 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 14:29, 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 in mid-AfD  (aeropagitica)  07:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oreo stacking

Exists only to link to a nonsense atricle currently under AfD. Descendall 05:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, this should be nominated on RfD, not on AfD --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Eh, you're right, but it actually started out as something other than a re-direct. I don't know if I should actually take it off of here and put it on there, or just leave it on here (where it will undoubtably be deleted). If it should be moved, let me know or go ahead and do it. --Descendall 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This definitely could be speedied as lacking any real content (perhaps we should have an article on Oreo stacking, inasmuch, IIRC, as the company does sponsor stacking competitions at various grocery stores, but surely this page isn't it). As to nominating on WP:RfD instead, TBC is perhaps correct, though the page as presently constituted isn't technically a redirect. Joe 05:11, 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. W.marsh 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Sergiacomi

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

Non-notable, unverifiable, probably original research if not vanity. Claims "He is a local celebrity in the town of Bundaberg and is idolised by many young bass guitarists and by charity organisations alike." See also Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions#Daniel_Sergiacomi Melchoir 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable person, only 5 Google results [33] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, I forgot about that. Anyway, only one seems to be him, and it's trivial. Melchoir 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:Bio. Feezo (Talk) 05:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That too. Dang, I'm off my game. Melchoir 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Sandstein 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. School captains are not generally notable. Bass guitarist for a band that doesn't meet our musical guidelines. A search of an Australia New Zealand newspaper database comes up with nothing on him. Capitalistroadster 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article notable achiever in humanitarian efforts and the school captain etc. is just background info its not the notable facts. —This unsigned comment was added by Smithy 12345 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 March 2006.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. He sounds like a nice guy though. :) -- Ian ≡ talk 09:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• i think this si bullshit. ian is right, he sounds like a nice guy and like every bass guitarists deserves to be heard. —This unsigned comment was added by Nicholasaron (talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 March 2006.
• Nicholasaron-delete him, he's a slut —This unsigned comment was added by Nicholasaron (talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 March 2006.
• grady martin- i disagre daniel seems to be a great carachter and i believe more and more people should be able to view his heroic achievements —This unsigned comment was added by Nicholasaron (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 March 2006.
• Delete - Non-notable (despite the illiterate ramblings of his little school friends writing above) Maustrauser 09:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP keep him as a notable person —This unsigned comment was added by Nicholasaron (talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 March 2006.
• Very Weak Keep - Notable enough despite people abusing this forum they must be little school friends his efforts are example of Catholic charity in regional Australia —This unsigned comment was added by Smithy 12345 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2006.
  • There's no need to vote twice. Melchoir 10:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Charity is not notable but it should be. This article should be kept because it is a young man who seems to be generous and charitable, those qualties are admired in my church and im Lutheran. Writemind 10:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are many things that I wish people would publish commentary on so that I could summarize that coverage on Wikipedia. But we don't get all our wishes, do we? Maybe Sergiacomi ought to be notable, but you said it: he isn't. There is no evidence that anyone independent of him has published non-trivial material on his life. We have to delete the article. See WP:V and WP:OR for why. Melchoir 10:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not for admirability, it is for notability. Joseph Stalin wasnt admirable, but he was very notable, and thus he has an article. Daniel Sergiacomi is very admirable, but as of now, he is not notable, and thus he should not have an article. --Pal5017 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, vanity and non-notable. --Terence Ong 11:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and very vain person. Eivind^t@c 16:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN / Vanity. Cnwb 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Pal5017 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline speedy 'cos I'm not seeing any realistic assertion of notability. Deizio 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a force five hurricane typhoon tropical cyclone -- possible vanity, and article's creator seriously underestimates the notability of a local celebrity in a little-known city in northern Australia. Haikupoet 01:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notebale, perhaps self promotion. Kyle sb 10:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MSJapan 00:18, 27 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 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Worfolk

Delete Biography, asserts minor notability but seems to fail WP:BIO. Blue520 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Feezo (Talk) 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable person --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Gflores ^Talk 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and my prod. Royboycrashfan 20:11, 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. W.marsh 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wootability

At an Alexa rank of 3,210,620, I don't even think we can begin to talk about WP:WEB. Daniel Case 05:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Damn CE, always messing things up... - CorbinSimpson 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joe 05:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 11:46, 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. W.marsh 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technosigner

Apparent neologism, six Google hits. Also, text is lifted straight from the first Google result for technosigner.com, to which one Richard Joffray contributes. He is the likely author of this article as User:Rjoffray, so it looks like an advert as well. Sandstein 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Ned Scott 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Soumyasch 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just wanna be different. --DragonWR12LB 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert/dicdef/neologism. Perhaps well-intended, but not encyclopedic. NickelShoe (Talk) 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete I am the author and I'd like to change my vote to delete based on Wikipedia guidelines that I didn't know about before. Rjoffray (Talk) 07:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Before the AfD nomination, a prod tag (added by me) was removed without comment by an anon whom I suspect to be Rjoffray. Henning Makholm 10:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We must be anti-neologists in my teachers lounge. Deizio 00:21, 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. W.marsh 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of magic spells in Charmed

Delete, complete Fancruft, very much useless and possibly a copyvio (although not likely) Ned Scott 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fancruft, WP:NOT a spellbook. Sandstein 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as fancruft or merge into Charmed --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm --DragonWR12LB 06:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft, fancruft. --Terence Ong 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Updating the entries to include episode references to fans can tell what episodes each entry came from (since some are from several) would make this a useful reference tool. Maelwys 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 17:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, but only under the condition of replacing with a list that actually has some relevance to the series in question. The current list is more of a random nitpicking of spells used in Charmed. It would be useful to have a short article on the spells of Charmed that have relevance to the show's plot (ie. the spell that ignites the storyline, the truth spell that many times advances the plot, etc.). It is useless to just have a normal list. I am strongly against inserting this into the main Charmed article as we've spent a couple of months just trimming it down to the size it is now. AdamDobay 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Ajdz 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per AdamDobay. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adam, and Maelwys

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual IT Solution

Non-notable company, advertisement, fails WP:CORP, only 125 Google results [34], founded recently in 2006 --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious spam, created by - THIS IS NOT SPAM Virtualitsolution. Feezo (Talk) 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.--Blue520 07:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, IT companies founded in 2006 really have to go some to hit my bar. WP:CHILL out there guys. Deizio 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE, -- Hello Guys I founded this Company and we are an IT Startup LLC serving several small businesses and medium size businesses in our Area. We were previously two private IT Consulting companies in operation since 1997 and 1999 respectivly. We have merged into a partnership in 2006.

This is not SPAM, we are really contributing to Managed Service Providers on Wikipedia, as it's an up and coming sector of the IT Market. Im sure you've heard of an Application Service Provider (ASP) or Internet Service Provider (ISP), this market is booming and we want to contribute to the definition of what exactly an MSP does and has to offer. VirtualITSolution 12:26, 23 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 and when some information from reliable sources surfaces, this decision can be revisited. brenneman^{L} 07:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gangfurd

Unsourced (WP:V), has 37 Google hits, none of which are pertinent (forum usernames, etc.). Sandstein 05:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. Merge with Stirling. Feezo (Talk) 09:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Ned Scott 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

retracting my vote for now to make a good faith effort to find an article this could be merged to. -- Ned Scott 09:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be a hoax. Granted, it wouldn't get many relevant ghits if it was real, but probably more than 0. Grandmasterka 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm --DragonWR12LB 06:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am the author of this article. This article is not a hoax. The last edit may have included a bit of frustration on my part with the comments left by the first critic. I can see by your comments that an article only has merit if it receives a certain minimum number of hits on Google. Very scholarly approach. The rest seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the posts of others. The same scholarly search conducted using "gang forward" would produce a significant number of hits. I am a Stirling. The proper usage has been passed down through my family for generations. We are multi-lingual and we are not confined to an understanding of the world limited to Americanized English.Tijuca 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)]

This is all true, and I do feel bad about judging this article so quickly in light of your comment. But even with all that it's just a stub about a phrase. Maybe you could recommend an article it could be merged to, such as some sort of list of sayings or phrases. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you misunderstand my nomination. The article must not go because it does not receive a certain minimum number of hits on Google. It must go because it is unsourced. Being invisible on Google is just a quick-and-dirty indication for made-up stuff (of which Wikipedia unfortunately receives a lot). Consequently, as per Weregerbil infra, I would oppose a merge as well unless it is verified that "Gangfurd" indeed means "gang forward" and is the Scots version of the Stirling motto. Sandstein 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Stirling, obviously. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment merge sounds good — then again this is unverified... The first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Is there any history book or anything at all that mentions this, outside word of mouth within one family? Weregerbil 16:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unveriable, very unlikely search term. Would be a dicdef if it exists. Deizio 00:24, 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. W.marsh 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monroe transfer

Unverifiable. It's been an orphan for months; I found it via good ol' Special:Random. There will never be a reliable source for this nonsense. Melchoir 05:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be non-notable neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- lustcruft. Reyk 06:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Requires a citation and reference to be considered legitimate.  (aeropagitica)  06:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as non-notable neologism. There are some urban dictionary-type links but I doubt this is used other than rhetorically, and as such would need to be transwikied to Wiktionary anyway. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:16Z
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 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 deleted all as copyvios, without prejudice against recreation using original/GFDL material —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:28Z

[edit] The Cricket (La Cicala)

Copyright violations by User:Derbent 5000 Descendall 05:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC) I also include:

• La notte
• L'important C'est D'aimer
• Berlin Alexanderplatz movie
• Malicious 1973
• Something Of Value
• Delete as copyvio, or until someone rewrites the articles --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but remove copyvio and update with info. --Soumyasch 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Derbent5000 created those after being repeatedly warned about previous copyvios. Should be deleted as copyvio unless someone rewrites them. Gflores ^Talk 06:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete all Derbentcruft and protect if necessary. Grandmasterka 06:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clean up though --DragonWR12LB 06:50, 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 Speedy deleted as copyvio (without prejudice against non-copyvio recreation) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:54Z

[edit] The Divine Nymph

Copyright violation from imdb.com Descendall 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio, or until the article is rewritten --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, Then it should be speedied, marked as such. Makemi 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Clean up is needed --DragonWR12LB 06:50, 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. W.marsh 01:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life of a Tennis Ball (film)

This is a non-notable film. You may notice a number of ghits for a similar title, however it seems that there have been many unnoteworthy student films about the life of a tennis ball. Prodded—de-prodded—re-prodded by anon—AFD'd by me, Delete Makemi 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Makemi 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable movie --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Only on google video, not much else found via google. Gflores ^Talk 06:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WTF makes something "notable" to YOUR standards? If this film was in any film festival it deserves an article --DragonWR12LB 06:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, where does it say it was in a film festival? Certainly not in the article, where it should be. Makemi 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, WTF is wrong with YOU? Delete - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable (an interesting backstory to the film, though; possibly the first film in history that became a silent film by virtue of the directors' having had editing problems). Joe 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet there have been others. Makemi 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Somewhere I agree with the below [above] comment: "WTF makes something "notable" to YOUR standards?" One advantage of Wikipedia is the ability to contain many times more articles than other forms of encyclopediae. Each article could have a "non-notable" flag, and viewer's could set a preference to filter these out (which could be the default). There's still discrimination in this case, but it's just categorization & not censorship. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.19.246.232 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment Perhaps there is merit in this proposal from an anon editor (although of course there are practical concerns), but surely this AfD is not the place at which to have the discussion. Such a discussion would require the participation of the community writ large, and it would be wholly untoward of six or seven people to remake policy on at a single AfD discussion. Joe 21:31, 26 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 as copyvio —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:37Z

[edit] Overlord 1975

Copyright violation from imdb.com User:Derbent 5000 is literally adding copyrighted info and removing AfD tags faster than I can correct them. Descendall 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, merge this AfD nomination with the other AfD nominations on Derbent's copyvio articles --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Gflores ^Talk 06:40, 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 Speedy Keep --Commander Keane 07:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attilas '74,

Copyright violation from Amazon.com, poorly named article Descendall 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not realising this was up for AfD, I removed the copyvio material and moved it to the correct title. Thus the speedy keep.--Commander Keane 07:31, 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. W.marsh 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malawaina

Seems to be a hoax article, found few goole results [35], none of which are relevant --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, seems hoax-y. Hbackman 06:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no results for Malawaina grape. Gflores ^Talk 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax. Grandmasterka 06:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm --DragonWR12LB 06:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:17Z
• Delete, unverifiable hoax. --Terence Ong 14:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L'Important C'est D'aimer

Page was blanked by sole editor. Restored it to this version, which is a copyvio. Descendall 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if rewritten; probably notable enough for an article, but the current version isn't it. --Alan Au 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oh, I see, this is part of a set of User:Derbent 5000's copyvio additions. Hmmm, probably fine except for the problem of the articles being copyvio. --Alan Au 06:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be 100% copy from IMDB --DragonWR12LB 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Considering that the only author to this page blanked it indicates a WP:CSD G7 candidate, and it is possibly an A8 candidate as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 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 Speedy delete as copyvio —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 07:37Z

[edit] L'Important c'est d'aimer

This article, with different capitalization, is already under AfD for copyvio by User:Derbent 5000. Descendall 06:56, 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. W.marsh 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirk Kumquat

Nonsense, or perhaps a poorly conceived hoax: an unlikely name (with no apparent Google results), a given birthdate of April 1st, and overall silly content. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly a haox, no google results --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious hoax. dbtfz^talk 07:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  07:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious hoax. Aren't they meant to be funny? Vizjim 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 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. W.marsh 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcore casual

Neologism, possibly taken from Gamespot's forums (as the article uses terminology commonly seen only on Gamespot). --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as above. Wickethewok 07:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 08:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Maustrauser 09:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 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. Stifle 14:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settimo Accardi

Not sure if I'm on to something or not, but Google only picks up Wikipedia and mirrors.[36] Looks non-notable to me?

• Delete per nod JackO'Lantern 07:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• The article does claim to appear in the Encyclopedia of World Crime and it was written by a legitimate user, MadMax, so I'm not very sure, No vote --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per mentions in [37] and [38]. Appears legit. Ziggurat 08:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• JackOLantern,

While I make every attempt to include external links, the vast majority of contributions have almost no online references. I don't believe Wikipedia policy establishes notibility based on Google hits (which, in my own opinion, seems questionable particluarly when credible sources are included). However, I have added additional sources and clarified the subjects notibility. Although I do understand your consern, the vast majority of my contributions recieve minimal Google hits and it would certainly seem a shame to delete the countless articles I've compiled based on that fact. Unfortunatly, several of my articles have been nominated for deletion from time to time on the same grounds. I have proposed the WikiProject Organized crime in an attempt for more knowlegable Wikipedians to determine the notibility of what is at times an otherwise disputed subject, although it hasn't had much support. If there is anyway I can more clearly establish his notibility I would certainly appreciate any suggestions. MadMax 21:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have nominated this in the first place. I mostly just wanted to see what other people thought as to the notability of it. JackO'Lantern 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not a problem, and it admittedly could have used some cleaning up. Besides it gave a chance to plug the Organized crime project. ;-) Thanks for letting me know. MadMax 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL - in reference to the Organized crime project comment - no publicity is bad publicity, I guess. :) JackO'Lantern 22:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per Ziggurat and apparent retraction of nominator. --Hyperbole 23:03, 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. W.marsh 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.kalanath Mishra

Delete as non-notable. 14 hits on Google[39], out of which about five are from TutorGig or The Free Encyclopedia(which use wikipedia content). Others include comments on websites/guestbook comments [40][41], photos submitted by the author himself etc. I've already userified the article. utcursch | talk 07:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, non-notable person --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as already userfied. Non-encyclopædic biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  10:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 12:38, 25 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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 19:36Z

[edit] Softasking

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Looks like WP:SPAM as well. Their website doesn't seem to give off "company in existence since 1992" either. As a term, it gets 8 hits. Delete. Kinu ^t/_c 07:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as above. Wickethewok 07:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I forgot to mention it, but if you hadn't guessed, this is a contested PROD. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 08:39Z
• Delete Non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. No claims to notability in article.  (aeropagitica)  10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• question:hi, dear editors, your comment about 'nn company' is absolutely true. my original thinking is to explain this term first created and used as a company name. i thought that wikipedia, as an encylopedia, will be interested in capturing any new term created and where it's used. that is the reason i've created the page. it is not my intention to create it as a company page. but since i'm a first time user, i'm not sure what is the policy regarding to the original intention i have. is it allowed to do this? if yes, do you have any suggestion about how to modify the page to make it to conform with your policy? if not, i appologized for this and i'll happily remove it immediately to conform with your policy. pls note that i'm not looking for debating on this but just seeking some guidelines and feedbacks. thanks for the help. best regards, --Softasking 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Answer - nope, thats not WP is for. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.. Wickethewok 17:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: thanks for the feedback. i understand now that wp is not for defining a new term. i'd like to remove this page ASAP. is there anyway we can do it? thanks. --Softasking 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The normal way is to write {{db-author}} at the top of the page you would like deleted. Since you have requested deletion here (and the AFD will very likely continue in the current direction), I have gone ahead and deleted it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 19:35Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emerging Techno scenes

Seems to be original research --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete — Worse than that; it's a copyvio. [42] Feezo (Talk) 08:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Now tagged as copyvio.  (aeropagitica)  10:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's not copyright violation then it's OG research. Tombride 05:33, 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 deleted as a non-notable bio and waste of afd space. — Mar. 22, '06 [08:27] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Aldo Comi

Vanity page in the article space. S.K. 08:23, 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 keep disambig page. W.marsh 01:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conky

Delete — Hand puppet from Trailer Park Boys. Keep as disambiguation page. Feezo (Talk) 08:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Convert to disambiguation page. There is a Linux system monitor program with the same name. [43] A google for "conky" (198,000 hits) [44] turns this up, as well as a suggested search for "conky trailer park boys" which gives 792 hits [45]. That said, redirect to Trailer Park Boys. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a disambiguation then? Feezo (Talk) 11:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd lean towards a disambiguation page as well, since my gut reaction to "Conky" was the robot on Pee-wee's Playhouse. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, change vote to "disambig" then, since there seem to be more other notable uses of the word than I first thought. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 04:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Kimchi --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Convert to disambiguation page - see comments above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Convert per above and make the link to the Trailer Park Boys puppet a link to the TPB article. I don't know the show all that much but I don't believe the puppet is notable enough to have its own article. 23skidoo 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and converted it. Feezo (Talk) 09:03, 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 (userfied), since author of article agrees —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-25 23:02Z

[edit] Wolfrum, Stefan M.

Biography, notable? Article author, User:Stefan.wolfrum, disputes notability concerns. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-22 08:57Z

• I wanna be a research student so that I can have papers published in 8 journals, a patent to my name, and a Wikipedia article, to boot! Meh, delete, fails WP:BIO. 434 ghits. [46] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable person, fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  10:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy as Vanity abakharev 13:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  
• i can understand what you are trying to communicate, however, i used the article on "Popko Peter van der Molen" figuring on Wikipedia as an example, and i am not very sure why this one should exist and mine not. Can you explain the difference in importance? Attention: i do not object your comments on mine a priori, but do wish to understand why there is a difference. I agree with deletion PROVIDED that somebody explains me the difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan.wolfrum (talk • contribs) user:stefan.wolfrum
  • I have nominated this article for AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popko Peter van der Molen. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-23 19:17Z
• Delete Non-notable, already has own user page: User:Stefan.wolfrum Stephenb (Talk) 20:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and early close The author has already blanked the page. No need to sit around and wait. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• blanked page as there is apparently a noticability standard (stephenb: it would have been more gentle to give me notice of that standard than just to open a public discussion, that way of acting is more 'scientific'). However, if i used apparently a wrong example, i will notice the discussion on that example. user:stefan.wolfrum

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Wikibofh_(talk) 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reform of the political divisions of China

DELETE Suggestions of reform based on vague pronouncements off internet messageboards? Wowee! That certainly warrants mention in an encyclopedia! Or not. Typos 09:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete , we'll have an article on it (as will all major newspapers) when it ever really happens. WP:NOT a crystal ball. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is Not a crystal ball. Kcordina ^Talk 13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Could the original editor come up with his sources? If he doesn't, I'm afraid we should probably delete for now, though the topic is interesting and noteworthy. I'm sure there must be some sources around on this, no? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• oppose. I had no part in writing this article, but it brings up and addresses some common facts, issues, and ideas. I dont see how it is predicting the future. perhaps it can renamed. --1698 05:56, 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 delete. W.marsh 01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waspsi

there is no information in the article except for the name of the society. I suspect that the society does not exist any more, because google finds several links to discussion pages which only exists in google's cache. Austrian 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable organization. Only 542 Google results [47] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn society Kcordina ^Talk 13:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. —LrdChaos 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A1. Royboycrashfan 22:48, 26 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 as hoax. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Dauth

Likely hoax, and even if a true person, non-notable. Zero google hits. Ian ≡ talk 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable person and possible hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, looks like attack page if the person actually exists. Henning Makholm 10:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{db-attack}} if the subject exists; delete if the article is a {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  10:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A6. As long as it disparages the subject, real or not, it's an attack article. Tagged. PJM 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - (1) Blatant personal attack. (2) Probable hoax - Can't find any mention of him on the Carlton footy club's site [48] and there are some obvious inconsistencies and outright lies in the article itself. -- Synapse 12:32, 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 was speedy deleted by Royboycrashfan as WP:CSD A1 (Liberatore, 2006). 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is really poorly written and could even be made up. No sources, no plausible wikification, no real content. Black-Velvet 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably speediable as nonsense. tregoweth 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Do I even have to say another word?Freddie 01:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual presence

Dictionary definition. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not dicdef per se, more like covert linkspamming of the external link. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, particularly since the creator of the article appears to be the same individual as the creator of the website. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what Kimchi said --Forzan 10:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Kimchi. Kcordina ^Talk 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kimchi --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 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 redirect. W.marsh 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indymedia romania

Added by the organisation itself or copyvio. Considered redirect to Indymedia but there are no other regional Indymedia redirects or articles, and there is too much content to merge. Badly-formed title doesn't help either, but might still work for a redirect. Canley 10:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Indymedia. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 11:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge useful content to the main article about Indymedia. Afonso Silva 20:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Indymedia. Much of the content of this article is basically the same as that on Indymedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:03, 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 speedy delete as non-notable biography. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve McCormick

Non-notable musician. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This article also appears to be self-written. The name of the user who created it is the same as the email address provided on his website. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Currently unsigned says it all. This article is better-suited to a Myspace page until notability status is achieved. WP:BIO and/or WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)  10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 12:15, 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. W.marsh 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasselhoffed

Delete. This article was created by the same people who made the website Hasselhoffed. Seems they just want to try and start some internet fad. Furpee 11:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT the birthplace of fads. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn protologism and WP:NOT stuff made up in school. Esquizombi 11:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Bucketsofg 14:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice and prevent it from being created again. Wikipedia is quickly becoming an attractive place for bored teenagers to promote their internet fads. Policy is clearly against neologisms and things made up in school one day. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism, non-verifiable, non-notable, and whatever else. Let Urban Dictionary take care of it. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, attempting to use Wikipedia to make an internet meme notable, which destroys the whole process. --Hamiltonian 18:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; non-notable and neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 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. Stifle 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preston McAfee

This appears to be a vanity article. The only edits to the article have been by a user Prestonmcafee of the same name as the article (except a recent bot AWB edit) during December 17-18. The initial edit even has the summary "a self-description". The content of the article reads like a resume or autobiography. The user has also only made edits to Wikipedia during those two days. I left a message on the user's talk page two months ago about this article and have not received any response. Although the topic of the article is a professor, I do not believe there is much notability in it (at least currently). Spoon! 11:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy Article subject may have some claim to notability, but the autobiographical nature of the article makes it a userpage entry IMO. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 12:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy (perhaps speedy userfy?), this is a self-admitted autobiography. JIP | Talk 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, per above. PJM 12:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Obviously notable as published author and recognized expert in field, 50K or so Google hits -- and more than 1600 Google Scholar hits, holds an endowed chair at a quite major university. And you propose deleting the article because he didn't answer the note you put on his talk page? I can't begin to describe what a bad idea this is without saying things that people would describe as civility violations, but Wikipedians ought to get down on their knees and be thankful that somebody like McAfee even bothers with this project. Monicasdude 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, NPOV: Notable, but we can't just let an autobiography slide. What part of this is self-promotion, and what is encyclopedic? This page needs attention, but it also needs to be here. Alba 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though clean-up --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep!! I am very familiar with McAfee's work... I read the article thoroughly and if anything it errs on the modest side. The PCS spectrum auction netted billions of dollars, etc., but none of this is mentioned in self-aggrandizement. The subject is certainly a very notable economist and removing the article would detract from the quality of Wikipedia. Also, everything is documented and verifiable. -- Wilanthule 03:34, 25 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Required Navigation Performance

Delete. Doesn't really seem to be enough subject for an article. Maybe transfer to Wiktionary? Wickethewok 09:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as technical dicdef, probably unsuited to Wiktionary. Sandstein 13:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per changes and discussion below. Sandstein 18:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is a dicdef right now, but RNP is an important new airline precision landing/navigation technique. It's essentially the new replacement for Instrument Landing System for high precision approaches. It's gotten several mentions in Aviation Week & Space Technology in the last few months. You clearly can't tell any of this from the existing article, but someone should upgrade it rather than nuke it. If it survives AfD, I'll work on it in my spare cycles. If not, I'll see about building it in a sandbox and then recreating with adequate content once it's ready to go. Georgewilliamherbert 23:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge & redirect. The above comments suggest a merger to Instrument Landing System, but this [49] article seems to explain that RNP relates principally to inflight navagtion rather than landing, in which a case merger elsewhere may be more appropriate. Kcordina ^Talk 12:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Change of vote in view of comments below and amendments to the article. Kcordina ^Talk 15:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mind-bogglingly strong keep. I can see why somebody not familiar with aviation would read the original article and not see the significance, but this is a major new concept which is changing the face of global air traffic control. Merging with ILS would be completely inappropriate. I've added some material. The article still needs work, but it's an interesting topic, well deserving of an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep RNP is a completely new way of defining the required airspace around a particular aeroplane, permitting greatly increased numbers of planes in any air corridor (etc.). It will have a very significant impact on air travel. Sliggy 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:RoySmith and User:Sliggy. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to recent additions to article. Wickethewok 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:44, 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 keep. W.marsh 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Slim

Delete Unverified drink. Seems made up. Perhaps not notable. Thanks for providing refs. Still a little dubious. Can you get another reference? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that one reference (plus derivatives from it) is all I can find. Sliggy 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Non-verifiable. I just don't know if it is a hoax or not. Shame if it is as pesticide and Gin sounds like such a good drink. Hope some one can provide a reliable source for it.--Blue520 13:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, due to the additon of reference.--Blue520 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-verifiable and probably a hoax. (Come on! DDT in a drink?) Bucketsofg 14:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The cocktail is mentioned in a book on absinthe, and I've added a reference to the book (and an online article from The Guardian where the book is reviewed and the cocktail mentioned). Clearly this is not an unimpeachable source, but it could be a start. Sliggy 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I reworded the article to emphasise that the drink was reported to have had popularity in the 1950s in the particular reference. This is to try to ensure adequate verifiability — not that the drink definitely existed, but that a report of its existence definitely does. Sliggy 18:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's necessary, and it strikes me as POV for the article to doubt its own sources! The Alexander the Great article doesn't say "'Alexander the Great was reported to have been born in Pella, Macedon, in July, 356 BC, and reported to have died in Babylon, on June 10, 323 BC. He is reported to have conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks before his death." Simply cite the source, and leave it up to the reader to decide if it's dubious or not. -- MisterHand 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but all I turn up is this one source, and sources derivative from it. In other words, I can't provide verifiable evidence of a Mickey Slim, only that this one book has mentioned it. If you know of better sources please do add them in and take out my rewording! Sliggy 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as we now have some kind of reference for it. A drink containing DDT certainly is unusual... -- Mithent 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable thanks to new reference. -- MisterHand 15:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, references have been added --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that references have been provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment we're putting a lot of faith into one reference. This doesn't seem right to me. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:18, 26 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 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel rachel

An article about a musician that fails to provide verifiable sources demonstrating that he meets the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. The principal claim to notability is a "self-financed" album, and two "limited edition" singles. Allmusic.com has no entry. A google search turns up references, but I couldn't pin down a reliable source. Although some reviews on his web site appear significant/noteworthy I cannot get the links to work, nor can I locate the original article(s). He's clearly an active musician, but there's nothing in the article to meet the notability guidelines. In the absence of clear, reliable and verifiable sources, delete. Sliggy 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable musical biography, as per WP:Music.  (aeropagitica)  13:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, fails WP:BIO and WP:Music --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless vanity page *Satis 06:07, 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 delete. W.marsh 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex richards

delete - non-notable bio UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom abakharev 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable biography Bucketsofg 14:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete biog suitable for user page. James Kendall [talk] 16:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 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. W.marsh 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Hall

Looks like a vanity article to me. Only 21 and not found on a Google search. Necrothesp 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, author's promotional skills will serve him well, but not here.Bjones 13:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. The article links to Karen Fesop, which seems non-notable to me as well. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The artist had himself covered in pigeon fæces in Trafalgar Square and used these as an amalgam for a lifesize sculpture shown being shat out of a 16ft perspex pigeon as a comment on America in Iraq? Is there a picture of this for purposes of verification? I can't believe that a publication such as the Daily Mail would have passed up the opportunity to use such a piece of contemporary art to comment on The Way We Live Today.  (aeropagitica)  14:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bucketsofg 14:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and vanity, fails WP:BIO --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 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, non-notable biography. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Wyatt

Delete: Non-notable. The article even admits he is not particularly well-known. Crystallina 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I think a {{db-bio}} tag would have been a little more appropriate though.  :p --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete {{nn-bio}} tag added, thusly. Non-notable schoolboy, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:VANITY all refer.  (aeropagitica)  14:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Bucketsofg 14:50, 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 keep reverted version. W.marsh 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me & You

Delete. Couldn't find a group by this name. In previous revs, the article contradicts itself, more than once. --Soumyasch 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert. I originally said "delete," but looking at the history, this article was originally a legitimate article about an album by Lindsay Hartley, (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_%26_You&direction=next&oldid=42812468) and was vandalized and completely replaced by this promo for an unknown group. (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_%26_You&direction=next&oldid=44578839). Would it be breaking some rule to just revert it back to the original article? Because I would like to. This is vandalism that wasn't caught when it happened. Carlo 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, no rule against it at all. Go right ahead. If you don't know how to close this, drop me a message when you're done. Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 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 keep. W.marsh 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeans Revolution, Denim Revolution

Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make the news. This term is a very non-notable neologism, and the contents of the article only a matter of speculation among Wikipedia users about an ongoing demonstration in Minsk following the March 19 Belarusian presidential election. As far as I can tell, the term traces its way back to an article by Independent reporter Andrew Osborn. [50] The speculation of a single reporter, and perhaps a handful of other commentators, however, does not make an encyclopedia topic. Based on a search for the term on Yahoo News, not a single media outlet is even mentioning the "Jeans Revolution," let alone referring to the event itself as the "Jeans Revolution." [51] 172 | Talk 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also, FYI, this article was previously deleted under the title "Denim Revolution." [52] 172 | Talk 14:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I nominated it for deletion myself in 2005, however in 2006 new events made this term sufficiently prominent. The article would be useful today, to counter various speculations in the west about the term. mikka (t) 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as repost of previously deleted material. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am afraid Speedy delete is inappropriate because the article totally, 300% rewritten. mikka (t)
    • Change vote to keep and expand, this has become a sufficiently well-used term per news website links below. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep I am sorry to comment that this time normally very knwoledgeable user:172 is mistaken. The term is in use in Russian language since October 2005. It is not a "single reporter". I added russian language names. Unfortunately I have no time to do proper research and write a decent text. However please let me note that the very fact that Belarus President Lukashenko himself used the term (BEFORE the elections and recent demonstrations) makes it notable. See my comments in Talk:Belarusian presidential election, 2006#Colour Revolution. mikka (t) 17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Right now I added a reference to the original event that gave rise to the term (and Rusian/belarusian terms, for google search). I am sorry I didn't do it earlier. I did not expect that the article will be contested. mikka (t) 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Belarus election riots gets many thousands of ghits, this gets about 500. It looks very much as if either the term has not yet made it into the English language media, or it's a localised neologism. No dispute that the riots took place, but we have not yet seen much in the way of credible evidence that this is what they are generally called. Articles which are "useful to counter speculation" almost invariably violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT (a soapbox). If Mikka can show credible evidence that this is the most widely used term for these events, I will change my vote. Just zis Guy you know? 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You are not reading carefully. The term is not confined to "these events", if you mean the post-election rallies. In fact, this part of the article must be severely trimmed (done). Also you are forgetting that English language does not rule the whole world. this term is notable locally in Belarus; even Belarus President uses it in his speeches bashing the opposition. Wikipedia is not only for American porn stars, you know. As for English language media, they prefer the term "denim revolution", which is related with this idiotic fixation on "color revolutions" and loses all associations with the word jeans in Russian/Belarusian culture. mikka (t) 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. mikka knows what he is talking about. So does ABC News, The Times, Amnesty International, The Economist, etc. -- JJay 21:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiNews. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. User:172 wrote: The speculation of a single reporter, and perhaps a handful of other commentators, however, does not make an encyclopedia topic. Based on a search for the term on Yahoo News, not a single media outlet is even mentioning the "Jeans Revolution," let alone referring to the event itself as the "Jeans Revolution." The term is being widely used in the Polish traditional and online press. Here are some links to Polish news pages using the dzinsowa rewolucja, which means jeans revolution about the preparations leading up to the present protests and the protests themselves. Since Belarusian, Russian and Polish press are all using the term, the usage or lack of usage in the English-language media is not a problem for the English-language encyclopedia - there are plenty of things not widely reported in English-language media, but nevertheless factual and verifiable (e.g. by contact with others) to English-only-speaking people. Boud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • http://www.euromixbug.org/index.php/pl/bialorus_dzinsowa_rewolucja
  • http://40dni.blox.pl/2006/02/Dzinsowa-rewolucja.html
  • http://www.epoznan.pl/index.php?section=news&id=845
  • http://www.40dni.pl/dzins.htm
  • http://www.polskieradio.pl/jedynka/news.aspx?iID=5999&c=2
  • http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1270600,12,item.html
• The Jeans Revolution, whatever it may turn into, is distinct from the presidential election. If there is too much overlapping material, then the parts more related to the election itself should go to the election page, and the parts more related to an ongoing process - about self-organising political processes self-identified under the name Jeans Revolution - on the J.R. page. Boud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Given the media coverage, I'm frankly shocked there's this much debate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Mikka's points are well taken. I can't read Polish, so I have not been able to follow coverage of the protest in Poland. Still, this is the English language Wikipedia. It concerns me that English-language media outlets are still not using the term. [53] I still think the contents should be merged with Belarusian presidential election, 2006 rather than be contained in the self-standing entry on a neologism. 172 | Talk 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • English Wikipedia does not mean English-centric Wikipedia. If something outside the sphere of the english-speaking world is notable, it should always be included. (It can be verified by people who know the language in which it's usually written about.) But I agree with you somewhat: If it is indeed as widely reported as claimed, it should probably be merged into Belarusian presidential election, 2006. Grandmasterka 07:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have orange revolution, rose revolutions, banana revolutions - why not a jeans revolution? The term "revolution" is pretty cheap nowadays. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Dont merge, dont delete! The term has been in use well before the elections, and has been used by Zubr and other opposition groups to describe their aims. I know Amnesty International and several other HUman Rights groups use the term, I'll see if I can dig up some good references. But please, dont delete, and dont merge with a semi-appropriate article. It's distinct enough. Besides, who knows, if might succeed and we'd be sorry to have deleted it! :-) Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a forum for human rights groups and other advocacy groups, even if the cause is a good one. No matter how much some Wikipedia users want to promote a "Jeans Revolution," the term is still a neologism. A good standard for determining whether a term is a neologism or a real movement recognized by the zeitgeist of the English-speaking world is checking to see whether or not the New York Times has mentioned the term. So far, the Times, along with just about all other major media outlets in the English-speaking world, has not used the term. [54] Let's please resist the temptation to make the news. 172 | Talk 08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Haha! Read WP:BIAS. The English-speaking world is not the benchmark for what should be included in a Wikipedia! :-) I think we agree on most points, but please, dont pretend that people citing HR groups are POV pushers for that agenda. Notable HR groups as Amnesty International or HRW are also simply sources for notability of such a term, just like you cite the Times. For arguments sake, if the term is widely used in German, Polish, Belarusian and Russian media, but not in English media, would it be notable enough? My answer would be hell yes. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • When it comes to naming, the English-speaking world is indeed the benchmark for naming of articles on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Naming conventions lays out a set of guidelines under which "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Thus, I would still prefer to redirect the article to a page like 2006 Belarusian post-election protest while the term "Jeans Revolution" is establishing itself in the English-language media. Regarding your point on human rights groups, I think that overall news agencies striving for objectivity are better guides for naming than activist groups, although material from human rights groups certainly ought to be cited. 172 | Talk 13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Your mixing up two questions. Question one is whether this subject should have its own article. My answer would be yes. Question two is what this article should be called. Jeans revolution seems uncommon as of yet in English media (though not elsewhere). We could rename it to say, Jeans Campaign (as used in this Commission hearing). Still, the term may be much more neutral, but is used even less in both English and non-English sources, so I'm not sure if its a good idea. Still, just because the name may not be notable, does not mean the topic is not notable. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As per Mikka and JJay the subject is very notable. If you search for "джинсовая революция" (best not in google but in a Russian language search engine, e.g. yandex.ru) you'll also find a lot. As pointed out by Boud there are a lot of articles in Polish, also. Ben ^T/_C 08:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Another comment As Mikka points out, since the Belarusian, Russian and Polish press all using the term to a certain extent, I am downgrading my opposition to this article. Nevertheless, I still hope that this AfD nomination serves to provide a caution to Wikipedia editors that the subject is a neologism, and clearly not at this stage a topic that, say, a historian can classify as a real "revolution." 172 | Talk 08:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That these events occurred is not in dispute. What is lacking is verifiable evidence from reliable sources that this is the name by which they are usually called. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As any historian will tell you, the naming of events is central to the interpretation of the events being named. And naming is often very political. Americans, for example, are very familiar with the dispute over the naming of the American Civil War (aka the "War of Northern Agression" or the "War Between the States"). Regarding the topic of this article, while no one can deny that there is currently a demonstration in Minsk against the outcome of the election, the idea of a "Jeans Revolution" may be a mere slogan, and not a real "revolution." Currently there are only around 700 demonstrators in Minsk. The protest has been dwindling since Sunday. Since then, each evening has seen a progressively smaller gathering -- 5,000 on Monday, 3,000 to 4,000 on Tuesday. The hardcore group spending the whole night outside however rose from 300 to 1,000 on Tuesday. [55] So Lukashenko might be able to ride this protest out. (Personally, I hope not. But I'd bet on that.) At any rate, there is certainly room for disagreement on the question of whether or not the events taking place in Belarus are a "revolution." 172 | Talk 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. What is wrong with Minsk events covarage in Wikipedia? --EugeneZelenko 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP It is completely factual, it displays a NPOV, and just because it involves a current event, it does not mean it's "making the news" - you could say that about any article on Wikipedia that involves a current event. UKWiki 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm tempering my opposition to the article. Nevertheless, there are still some real concerns here. Reporting a current event is not the problem per se. Naming and framing the scene of a current event are huge issues in interpretation, which are of concern to an encyclopedia striving to be written from a "neutral point of view." 172 | Talk 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 172, you and me are on the same wave here. Let me repeat that it was me who nominated the previous version of this article for deletion, because it was really preposterious in 2005: it was not at all sure that this neologism would survive. Please pay attention: the term is not about a single "current event": the word "revolution" is kind of misleading here. Initially this guy with denim shirt in the air suggested the term "jeans resistance", which would have been more correct. But the "peer pressure" (to say it politely) replaced it by "revolution", which is definitely way above the heads of belarussian opposition. Still, after the recent events the term generated enough buzz to warrant an article. mikka (t) 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand your point. You've helped to clarify the issue. By keeping the subject of the article focused on the term, as opposed to the "current event," you've gotten the subject out of problem territory. Thanks for making this clarification. 172 | Talk 18:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and suggest this be closed per WP:SNOW. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW is thankfully not a policy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm unfamiliar with that "clause." I guess someone could argue that it is a corollary of "ignore all rules" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy," which are established policies. At any rate, I'll let other editors hash out that debate. Nightstallion is correct that the nomination doesn't have "a snowball's chance." Nevertheless, in this case, the discussion stemming from the AfD discussion here is helpful and relevant. While I've started to agree with Mikka's point that the term has "generated enough buzz to warrant an article," the boundaries of the subject in an article on a neologism are often very murky. For now the AfD has been serving to help us clarify them. 172 | Talk 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. bogdan 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --DDima ^(talk) 21:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• First step, keep Denim Revolution only as an article about the global fashion revolution about the rise of the denims and jeans wearing culture in the world, which BTW, is the more notable and encyclopedic "revolution". Second step, move this article to Cornflower Revolution, and continue the debate there to avoid confusing readers. In local poetry, the Cornflower is the national symbol of that country alluded to by the protesters, not denims. Please be cautious on relying on political commentators alone, for obvious reasons. Finally, there is no revolution unless the regime is actually toppled, which has not occured. (whether you are expecting it or not) I agree 100% that Wikipedia does not make the news, it only writes verifiably the notable events that reporters write about. I believe these two steps would be an acceptable consensus for everybody. :) --Noypi380 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. "Jeans revolution" might not be popular in the English-language press, but "denim revolution" certainly has been picked up within the last week. Look it up. Korny O'Near 12:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As a casual reader of news outside Wikipedia, I have heard this term used several times in print. It came into use well before this election week. I'm amazed we're even talking about this. Even assuming arguendo, which I do not, the standard for entries ain't that high. The only real question is should we should call it Denim Revolution? Huangdi 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mariah-Yulia 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Students in the US have been participating in this jeans revolution as a show of solidarity with Belarusian students. Someone in Washington organized the making of a giant denim flag to send to Minsk, and students at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa, painted squares of denim which were added to this flag. Today (25 March) we have asked the entire student body to wear jeans and join us in carrying a large white-red-white flag around the city. We have also participated in the candle memorials on the 16th of the month--please see http://www.svaboda.org/articlesprograms/diaspora/2006/3/d1809d59-78ba-4ef9-a6eb-6ba07bb4af6a.html and scroll down. Other opposition groups that include denim as a prominent feature of their websites include http://www.zubr-belarus.com/index.php?lang=2 and http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/

This denim movement is definitely present, and it is not isolated to Belarus.

• Keep Yes, this is what the revolution in Belarus is being called (though it was Cornflower before the elections). With the mounting protests in belarus taking place now, I have no doubt that this revolution attempt will go on for a little while. Plus, this is also notable, since this could be one of the first failed attempts of a color revolution after what happened in Georgia, Ukraine, Krygzistan. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per above. Jareand 22:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep it is definitely a real term. Charter 97 uses the jeans / denim colour on their website. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Expand content; merge or rename, if needed If the title is inappropriate or incorrect, the article's contents should not be deleted, but merely renamed (to, for example "2006 Protests in Belarus" or similar) or merged into an extant article. The contents of this article, while contentious (as is the on-going event), and in need of strong editing, fact-checking and NPOV-watching, deserve an entry. Thank you. --NightMonkey 02:01, 26 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 Redirected to centimetre. No consensus about whether that should exist, but this should not: all other articles on metric units use the European spelling. Content is now at centimetre, can be debated on Talk there if people feel so inclined, but no admin action required anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centimeter

How notable are centimeters for Wikipedia to have an article on them? Would it be useful? If not, then this should be deleted. StarTrek 15:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Comment The article has been reduced to a redirect and then recreated at least 4 times now. It may make the most sense to make it a protected redirect. JoshuaZ 15:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no redirect. Centimeters are as notable as inches and should have their own article. Science3456 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable metric unit. James Kendall [talk] 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, notable I guess in that there are a lot fo them about, but actually there is not much to say over and above the fact that it's 0.01m. The rest is obvious :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to metre. A centimetre is not an "SI unit" as claimed, it is a factor of the SI unit of length, the metre. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've often seen this argued, but it isn't true. The SI system has seven "base units" and a system of prefixes to create further units from them. The base unit of length is the metre. The centi- is one of the standard SI prefixes, just as the milli- and kilo- are. So the centimetre is a perfectly valid SI unit. See [56]. Gwernol 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no redirect. Booking563 16:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: meter is a redirect to metre. So is centimetre. Kilometre has its own article, though, and Kilometer redirects there. The convention is to use the European spelling in all these - understandably, given that it is the Système International d'Unités. So: if kept, it needs to be moved over the Centimetre redirect. The major factual error has at least now been fixed. Just zis Guy you know? 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, according to policy we should use what the first contributor used. 64.192.107.242 16:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is pretty much a re-creation of the content which was originally at centimetre before it was merged and redirected in June last year (see history), that would be the European spelling. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and centimetre should redirect there. Gflores ^Talk 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all information then redirect, or keep. Turnstep 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or at the very least, merge to metre. Just because some people think units using funny, incompatible conversion factors that change across countries are better doesn't mean articles about other units have to be deleted. JIP | Talk 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Friends, what we have here is murkier than it looks. A Long Time Ago there were articles on centimetre and centimeter. Both were redirected to metre; centimetre was the older by a few monoths, but content was usually simila and was merged into metre before redirecting in June 2005 (if not before, if I fish around too much in the history I think I'll lose the wil to live). Both have been sporadically resurrected since, and the content of both is pretty similar. Booking563 (talk · contribs) and 64.192.107.242 (talk · contribs) seem to be working on undoing the redirect this time. Part of what is going on seems to be some kind of low-level campaign to Americanise the spelling (which is odd, since the US mainly uses Imperial measures of distance). Anyway, there are as I see it two available and consistent alternatives here:

1. Redirect to centimetre and resurrect the last non-redirect version of centimetre, which was not markedly different from what is here now
2. Redirect to metre as centimetre currently does and this did until recently.

Either of these works for me. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I should say: either of these works for me in a way that faffing aroun d with the spelling so we have one article on metric units with American English spelling does not. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. TreeFrogz 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into metre. It is a fraction of a unit, and centimetre. Wikipedia should use the spelling conventions of places that use metric units for reasons other than buying drugs. youngamerican (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge minuscule content and delete. Everything is (or should be) covered in metre and related articles like 1 E-2 m. Is there really some educational value to saying "One inch is approximately 2.5cm" and not explaining that it is exactly 2.54cm???? Slowmover 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, Delete, Redirect, and Protect per nom, as with all other fractions of Metre. --Mmx1 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT article should sit at centimetre as it's the proper spelling because American spelling doesn't count in this case, since Americans abhor metric. 132.205.46.156 22:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT NOTABLE because it is the base unit in the CGS version of metric. (centimetre-gram-second). 132.205.46.156 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• RENAME to centimetre and keep 132.205.46.156 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to centimetre as most common name. Capitalistroadster 22:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Um, did you read my comment above? Just zis Guy you know? 08:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Centimeters are important in mathematics... even in American schools. Brun8 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No move to centimetre or redirect to metre. Quintillion 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is the user's third edit on wikipedia. --Mmx1 04:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to centimetre for consistency with European spellings for other units of measurement. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to metre. BryanG 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and leave at centimeter. Consistancy between the articles on units of measurement doesn't necessarily have to be. FroogolShopping 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect and protect the redirect so we don't need to keep dealing with this. If this can't be done, it certainly should not have the US spelling. JoshuaZ 04:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Measurement used by most of the world.Tombride 05:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are the people who are voting keep aware of the conventions for measurement articles? JoshuaZ 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the obvious reasons, this sure is a strange nomination. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sort of strange/ No admin action required, for sure - it should just be returned to how it was, which was a redirect to metre. But it does seem that a lot of people have not read the prior comments. Just zis Guy you know? 08:14, 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. W.marsh 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roswellbc

Contested prod. Article about an unreleased game with pending beta release at some unknown future time. The tone of the text also makes the article appear as possible spam. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allen3 ^talk 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nomination. --Soumyasch 16:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising on an unreleased game. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. --DMG413 00:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.Bjones 14:01, 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. W.marsh 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WATB

Slang dicdef. I proded it, creator deproded, has been taged for transwiki to Wiktionary, but i doubt it will pass their criteria Eivind^t@c 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Allen3 ^talk 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be neologism --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I am an active editor and I use the Wikipedia as my first source for extraneous imformation. I see this term being referenced, search for it and the article doesn't exist. The search interface doesn't send you to the Wiktionary. I suspect that many people are looking for the meaning of this acronym at the moment as it is in heavy use at Eschaton and firedoglake, among many other places. When you try to find a term that doesn't exist in the Wikipedia the SUGGESTION is to START THE ARTICLE FOR IT YOURSELF. Done. Wouldn't we rather have a page come up where there was none? The Wikipedia is RIFE with neologisms... It's silly to delete something that serves a purpose once it is established in the Wikipedia. Must KEEP. --AStanhope 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete WP:WINAD and nn protologism. Feel free to AfD those neologisms you mentioned too. Esquizombi 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why would one want to delete other neologisms that exist in the Wikipedia? I don't understand. --AStanhope 17:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article shows little to no hope of ever being more than a simple slang definition. --Allen3 ^talk 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms Esquizombi 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dictdef (tried to look for it on google to verify but got lot of unrelated hits) RJFJR 16:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism Computerjoe's talk 17:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. It's in current use in the lefty blogosphere per Astanhope, but I'm not sure this is old enough to be transwiki'd, and it definitely doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Maybe Urban Dictionary could use it. Alba 20:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encise 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD. —LrdChaos 18:02, 26 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, default to keep. Stifle 14:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-metrication

This was on prod, but it seems controversial to me. There have been some POV issues, and perhaps there's no need for a separate "anti" article, but I think there needs to be a discussion on this. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Original PROD deletion reason by me: No references, no evidence of notability or a coherent organisation; appears only to be presentation of personal POV, not an organisation in the wider world - that is, there's no evidence given in the article that it's actually anything other than a POV rant - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. You can't get rid of a whole movement, and the associated controversy, by just slapping an AfD on it. I think it's a bad idea to ever slap an AfD on a long article with lots of editors over a long period of time; those editors have said that it is in fact a good article.--Prosfilaes 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What movement? There's no evidence given in the article there is in fact a coherent movement - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and cleanup, POV warring is not a justification for deletion, no matter how severe. That aside, the article does not cite its sources, so it needs some sources. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I marked this as PROD because there's no evidence even named in the article of an organisation. This article doesn't describe someone's attributed views at all - it's pretty much a POV rant arguing the issue itself. There's no article there. If there is, rewrite it to address the apparent lack of a reason for it to exist, don't keep it in the hope one might appear one day - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with a meteryardstick, this so-called article is an obvious POV fork of metrication, is completely unreferenced original research, heavily laden with crackpot theories, and is a rough equivalent of an open-source blog. I say this as a mile-per-gallon American, I might add. — Mar. 22, '06 [16:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete: I'm tempted to simply say "nn, delete", but since that is one of the AFD habits which annoys me most…this article completely fails to establish what it is actually about. There is nothing about the history of "Anti-metrication" or who espouses it, it is simply a rant against Cro-magnon reactionaries who prefer old-style units. The fact that it also fails to cite any references is simply the icing on the cake. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Woot. Total lack of sources, only anecdotal evidence, there are kilos of reasons to delete this. If there does exist a valid article somewhere under there, let it be presented to DRV once this one is gone. - brenneman^{L} 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd happily withdraw my original nomination (does this count as my nom, as it was brought here as a contested PROD?) if they could just, uh, point me at an organization of this name. Or one doing such a job. That's notable enough to have third-party references. I don't ask much. Really - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• If you DELETE this article, you need to DELETE the METRICATION article also... Otherwise you are DEFINITELY biased in your POV. This article keeps being being re-written in a pro-metric biased POV (EXAMPLE: "because of perceived flaws in the metric system", tell me that's not biased! When the flaw exists in the Imperial system it's a flaw... When it exists in the metric system, it's perceived!?!?!) The fact of the matter is, any article dealing with this subject is going to be controversial and if Wikipedia deletes all controversial articles, then it's a pretty lame source of information. And it that's the case, I want to see Metric System, SI, and Metrication deleted also because they are all extremely biased! arfon 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC) - KEEP - This whole argument is Assinine! This is an article descibing the Anti-metrifcation movement and it's reasons. It's assinine to expect anything BUT A anti-metric POV on it! It's a biased POV when you describe the movement and then add words to make people think that the movement is wrong and it's people are stupid. arfon 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see why the metrication article can't also contain information on anti-metrication. And we don't delete articles because they're biased. The issue here is mostly with the lack of verification. See WP:V and WP:OR. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't talk nonsense. What if your friends heard you saying stuff like this? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You have spectacularly misunderstood WP:NPOV, and aren't too strong on WP:V either - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article just needs cleanup. Seano1 17:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As I asked, what is there to clean up? There's no coherent group the article is actually about. If I'm wrong, please show it in the article! - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources cited; pure OR. It started off being biased original research: why a few editors think anti-metrication is silly. Then it became truly absurd original research: why one editor thinks anti-metrication is our only saviour against the Devil's Units. There is the potential for a good article here, if we had, say, a well-sourced description of the history of metrication and those silly people who opposed it — but this isn't it, and in any case there's no reason why it needs to be here and not as part of Metrication or, if necessary, a better-named spinoff. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep obviously needs several tags (cleanup, sources, POV etc.) but this article does capture a genuine set of arguments that those against metrification use. I wouldn't call it a "movement" because there is (AFAIK) no organized group with this agenda. Some record of these arguments is worth keeping in an encyclopedia. fuddlemark's (MarkGallagher's) suggestion of incorporating some of this material into an "Arguments against Metrification" section of the main Metrification article has merits and may be a good compromise. Gwernol 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you can find anything resembling a verifiable third-party source for this stuff - 'cos at the moment it is actually a few individuals' ramblings - it would be most welcomed - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I can find references to the British "Metric Martyrs" who are metrification resisters: [57], [58], [59] etc. My personal POV is that these are loonies, but I think they do deserve coverage. The more I think about it the more I think merging this into the Metrification section makes sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwernol (talk • contribs)
• Delete While I believe the movement itself may be notable (meaning: notable if cited) I don't think a POV fork of Metrication is called for here. Opposition to metrication is already discussed in that article. If the discussion in metrication is not sufficient, expand that rather than creating a new article. --Craig Stuntz 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a POV fork. The resistance to metrication is clearly an issue (though poorly described and completely unsourced here) that needs to be discussed within the Metrication article. Fan1967 18:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork. Verified, NPOVed arguments can be merged to metrication but Merkin redneck arguments basically saying "I don't like anything from yer darn-tootin' ferrin Yoo-row-pean Communist countries" have to be deleted. JIP | Talk 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, I agree with you, but please avoid the over-generalization based on the occasional American Idiot. Most of us aren't cowboy rednecks, just like few Arabs are terrorists, none of the Jews that I know are involved in an international conspiracy, and most Finns are not---um---whatever the Finnish stereotype is. Oh yeah, delete, btw. youngamerican (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that. But anyone, especially Americans, insulting the metric system makes me angry. I stand by my delete vote, though. As for Finnish stereotypes, the Swedes call us silent and impolite, the Estonians call us heavy drinkers, and everyone else calls us Nazis. JIP | Talk 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I see where you are coming from. i am a bit sensitive on over-generalizations of America and the idea of collective responsibility for the mistakes of my leaders and/or dumb things said by the fringe. I get a little touchy since, when I lived in Europe, I had to spend about 2 hours a week defending myself from drunken accusations made by people that did not approve of NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia or the music of N'Sync. As for a reason for why I vote delete: pov fork, nn movement, and other reasons given. youngamerican (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, looks like a POV fork to me. I agree there's not enough salvagable content here, so delete or just turn it into a redirect to metrication. Friday (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:POVFORK per the above votes. Sandstein 19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• SOURCES HAVE BEEN ADDED - Lack of sources is no longer an excuse to delete. 207.200.54.134 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I did not notice this vote until I saw it in the contributions list of arfon. I invite people to look at his/her contributions and those of the similar user 207.200.54.134. The metrication article still has plenty of room for more information and I do not think each article describing a process needs another describing an anti-process (whatever that might be). I am watching the comments and considering whether to vote to delete. In the meantime, please look at the edits being made to Metrication by those two user accounts. bobblewik 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Re-Comment - I freely admit that I am both 207.200.54.134 and Arfon. I quite often forget to log in. Deleting FACTS should not be a vote, this should be a discussion as to the merits of the article. I bet if I went to Slashdot, I could scare up enough people to vote to shut down the whole wikipedia! 207.200.54.134 00:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC) aka user:arfon
  • AfD is not a vote! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• SO LET ME GET THIS RIGHT - There is an article (version as of 19:47, 22 March 2006) which so far no one has shown any incorrect information in that people now want deleted because it deals with one-side of an argument and therefore has a POV!?!? arfon 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a case of having a POV. It's a case of being a POV. If you removed the POV stuff, you'd have nothing left. And, at the moment, the POV stuff is so absurd as to warrant nuking from orbit before anybody reads it and comes away with the impression that people who believe this stuff edit Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "the POV stuff is so absurd as to warrant nuking from orbit" Really? which part? You're not very specific. 207.200.54.134 17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Damn straight this is an informative article. POV is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. If this is a notable topic then there should be an article about it. Ashibaka tock 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, POV is a deletion issue when an article may be a POV fork. I don't think anyone is suggesting that opposition to metrication shouldn't be covered at all. To me the issue is where and how it should be covered. Can you think of a really good reason why opposition to metrication should not be in the metrication article? --Craig Stuntz 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV rant, original research, irreparably biased. Don't get me wrong: If this article was about the anti-metrication movement (if there is anything resembling an organized movement), and if it was written to provide information about the history of that movement, its supporters and opponents, their attempts to influence legislation, standards bodies, etc., it might be salvageable. Or it could describe how the transition to the metric system was accomplished across the world, to what extent this caused confusion, consumer price increases, etc. However, as it is, the article is at best a blatantly biased and incomplete comparison between the metric system and a narrow set of alternatives. Best to scrap it and start over somewhere else: I'd much rather see a properly sourced article on the history of metrication. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Centikeep notable sillyness. Eivind^t@c 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strike that. Kilodelete as POV fork of metrication. Eivind^t@c 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Re-iteration of this vote concept- Deleting FACTS should not be a vote, this should be a discussion as to the merits of the article. You guys are looking at an article that is about one side of an argument and then you get mad when your POV (e.g. "perceived flaws in the metric system") is corrected with facts. Now, you claim that an article about one side of an argument has a POV!?!?! OF COURSE IT DOES!! IT'S ABOUT A MOVEMENT ON ONE SIDE OF AN ARGUMENT!!!!!!! DUH!!!! 207.200.54.134 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (aka user:arfon)
  • You have utterly misunderstood WP:NPOV; in fact, you've misunderstood it more spectacularly than anybody before you. Well done. What you're proposing is called sympathetic point of view, and although there are projects out there that follow this idea (Google for Wikinfo), on Wikipedia it's anathema. Please go away and read WP:NPOV and don't return until you've understood it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• There may well be room for an NPOV on anti-metrication based on verifiable references. However, this is not it. We have articles based on various forms of political, religious and social points of view. This does not mean that they should either advocate or denigrate the subject of the article. Rather, they should aim to present the reader with information based on reliable sources and written from a neutal point of view. Delete unless rewritten to meet such standards. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• FIXED POV - Article now REPORTS (3rd person). Opening paragraph may be considered by some to have a POV but it is 100% FACTUAL, changing it will make it POV. arfon 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not 100% factual, and it is not completely sourced. The stuff about French wine, for example, reads like you've made it up ("could only be explained by"), as does "unit confusion" (a case of "many people believe" = "I believe", or WP:WEASEL). The sources themselves are very sad indeed; one of the best is an ABC Radio interview with an English teacher (!) who rattled off a few "facts" he heard somewhere. The vast majority of sources (certainly every one I looked at) came from someone who was not themselves an expert, and who cited no sources of their own. So: it is still biased, still original research, and still unlikely to be wholly factual (although nobody has argued for deletion on that particular criterion). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I followed the Metrication article to source it therefore, it's sourced the same way. If the sources are inadequate for this article, then it's just as innacurate for metrication and MANY other Wikipedia articles.
    • "It is not 100% factual" point out the errors, don't just make a broad statement and expect me to accept it.
      • The article states that the fact that French wine wasn't immediately switched from 720mL bottles to 1L bottles "can only be explained by" popular resistance to the Metric system (that the English once had a measure of a similar size is apparently relevant, although the article hints but won't say why). It also says that the bottles were later increased to 750mL, and includes all this "information" in a section about how Metrication inevitably causes traders to try to rip-off their customers ... by reducing the size of their measures. This not only fails the laugh test, but is self-contradictory besides. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • French Wine- This is wikipedia, a group effort, the French Wine information was written by someone else.
      • Fair enough. It's still crap. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Unit Confusion- "reads like you've made it up" or not, the unit confusion information is one of the anti-metric arguments.
      • Fair dinks? One of the arguments they really, truly make is "it's too easy to confuse mills and litres"? Crikey. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "The vast majority of sources (certainly every one I looked at) came from someone who was not themselves an expert, and who cited no sources of their own." So how do you become an expert in metrication? Is a PhD in Mertication required or will a Night-school certificate suffice?
    • 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, let's just say it's not by setting up a Tripod website transcribing rumours you think you may have heard down the pub, although the music was very loud, and you'd had a few of ... strewth, what'll we call these glasses once they outlaw pints? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with metrication and Redirect. Haikupoet 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. A totally new, completely rewritten article that neutrally reports published sources can be re-created without prejudice at any time. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I would merge and redirect to metrification. There was a big push for metrification in the U.S. in the 1970s (which obviously failed,) but as far as I know (or can tell from this article or the metrification article) it didn't fail because of an equally organized movement on the other side. Thus, I see no need for this separate article. Grandmasterka 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In its current shape, it's a POV fork. bogdan 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The main points of this article could be turned into a single paragraph and put under Metrication#United_States. Pengo 11:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This article deals with more than the US, the British Metric Martyrs are very much involved. 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• So far many people have said that this should be deleted due to it having a POV but no one has specifically pointed out what parts are POV (and are not factual). What parts are POV and are not factual???? If POV is all that is required to get an article deleted, I call for the deletion of every article that mentions the metric system and the US (because they are all POV and full of crap!) 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the article espouses a point of view (that is, it not only explains the side, but takes a side), is not why it's being discussed for deletion.

The fact that it exists separately from the Metrication article (apparently) so that it can use bias is. Even if the information is correct, that is also not the issue, but rather, it's verifiability. Information has to be backed by outside sources, not original conclusions. See WP:OR.

If other articles are biased, simply fix them. Don't complain about things you can fix yourself. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly the article offers insight and provides links to such groups. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.242.93.35 (talk • contribs) .

• SO FAR, there has been many calls to DELETE this article and yet NOT ONCE has anyone, who has claimed that it's biased, pointed out one single instance of POV (let alone any that are untrue). Every claim for deletion just says POV without any examples... The "DELETE DUE TO POV" claims have included such descriptions as "it is simply a rant against (sic) Cro-magnon reactionaries who prefer old-style units" and contains comments like "But anyone, especially Americans, insulting the metric system makes me angry" which pretty much shows that the DELETE requests are coming from fairly baised people... arfon 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not biased, simply non-American. Here, metrication is a non-issue, and it's kinda scary to find even one person who passionately believes that it's a Bad Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• As for merging it with Metrication, will just start this all over again when metric sympathetic people re-write the section and anti-metric people re-write it again. The claims of the section being POV will return. arfon 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article seems to have difficulty deciding whether metrication (or is that 'metrification'?) is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. It wallows like a rowboat in a typhoon, and laughable POVs such as "Another significant effect of metrication is that, on its introduction, it divides generations from each other, creating mutual incomprehension between children and their parents. This could obviously assist the sort of cultural revolutions which accompany invasion, subjugation, the fall of monarchies or the breaking of ties with former colonial powers" suggest a full rewrite is necessary. Denni ☯ 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "...whether metrication (or is that 'metrification'?)..." - The article was originally Anti-metriFIcation until an editor decided that Mertication was easier to locate in searches. The explanation is on the talk page. arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "laughable POVs such as 'Another significant effect of metrication is that, on its introduction, it divides generations from each other..'" Believe it our not, I agree with you on that one! It is wrong, it seems to be the opposite. Old and Young (in Britian) tend to agree on anti-metrification (yes, I can provide a source). I'll go in and fix that part. (no, I wasn't the original author of that contribution). arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see that source. It's bound to be a laugh, if nothing else. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "This article seems to have difficulty deciding whether... ...is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing..." -That's what happens when you go far a NPOV. arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, no, it's not. If you have problems with NPOV, may I suggest you Google for "Wikinfo", a project specifically designed to attract people with your opinions? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, clean up, add sources and revert to its former name: Metrication arguments and counter-arguments. The article has gone down-hill of late but it's not unsaveable. I believe it was a mistake to move it to Antimetrication: such a title invites POV. There is opposition to metrication which is worth documenting and there's enough to warrent a seperate article rather than merging back to Metrication. Jimp 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or barring that, Merge with Metrication. Anti-metrication movements have been significant in some countries undergoing metrication; anti-metrication arguments (if not an organized movement) have been particularly successful in the USA, considering that moves in the late 1970s for the US to go to the metric system have been completely derailed, making the US the only major country not to use metric measurement. —This unsigned comment was added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. Although the article has issues, I think it's not beyond fixing. I also think this is probably too much to cover in Metrication--it looks like a POV fork now, but it would be acceptable as a content fork. Probably move back to old name per Jimp. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I did a little NPOVing and made some citation requests for statements that looked like they might be OR. Some of them might be supported by the references, but it needs footnotes or something so the reader knows where to look. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems sort of biased to have a whole article on metrification and not one on the counter. Seems like alot of people just don't like a differing opinion and want this article gone...Citizen1984 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This comment is the first contribution to Wikipedia from Citizen1984 (talk · contribs). --Craig Stuntz 14:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • It's really not unfair, considering that Metrication has a section on opposition, and no one is advocating removing that. We don't have to have an article on anti-everything--it's usually more sensible to cover opposition in the main article, unless it's just too long. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I second what Nickel Shoe says. Metrication is a significant process with enormous cultural, historical, scientific, technological, etc. importance. It therefore deserves an article. The opposition to it is also significant. The question is whether there is room in the main article to cover this opposition. It seems that there is not. Thus we have the article Anti-metrication (which, as I mention, would be better renamed). It's not a question of fairness because neither article should be taking sides. Jimp 15:40, 26 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 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vbus

Delete. This has got to be some kind of a joke. A software package to design cartoonish buses? My limited understanding of Polish allowed me to confirm that the article is not a hoax, but the software package it refers to may well be a hoax. Even if not a hoax, definitely NN. Lots of google hits, but none of the ones I've seen refer to this software. Prod was removed. I think there's some computer hardware piece called "vbus" - but I am totally clueless - perhaps someone can advise on a proper redirect here. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not a hoax, a genuine bus simulator. Search for vbus and the web site "vbus rulez.pl" to differentiate from computer bus - 1670 Google hits. Those include several forums looking for bus simulators, so I guess whatever floats your boat. That said, I don't know if that makes it notable or not, so won't vote (yet). GRuban 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's cute, but NN. James Kendall [talk] 16:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• I feel a vague tingle when I think "somewhere in Poland, somebody sat down and said 'the world needs software to design cartoon buses.'" Unfortunately for the author, not a lot of people have thought the same thing, or this product might be notable. Delete. Lord Bob 17:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Please go onto http://vb.aplus.pl/forum to see that it isn't a hoax. It isn't software to design cartoon buses, but a bus simulator. There are many people in Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia and Slovakia who use this program. I am against the deletion of this article. andrwjrvhunt 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you please explain to us why and how it's useful, how many people use it, whether any big bus companies use it to design their buses, etc. Also, where can we read articles about it, besides the forum? Thanks, - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a small project, so not that many people know about vbus. I amn't the author of this software. It is a BUS SIMULATOR. You also can't design buses in it. Searching for VIRTUAL BUS in google finds Vbus. (polish page). Again, Don't delete YOu can find an article on http://www.freegamez.de/gratisgames/anzeigen.php?id=6778 please see also: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=vbus.rulez.pl Andrewjrvhunt 09:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Andrew, do Bus companies use your software? If so, which? If not, what use does any individual have out of this softwar? Thanks. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 12:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't my software, Bus companies have their own sims (with cabin etc.) The reason it exists, is because people wanted to have a free bus simulator. (just like there are free Train/tram simulators). Vbus is the most advanced free Bus simulator. Andrewjrvhunt 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Update: The Vbus website gets on average 300 first time visitors every day. [60] This means that there must be quite a number of people (more than 5000) who play Vbus. I myself know people who play it, but aren't on the forum. There is also an article [61]. (written in polsih0Andrewjrvhunt 13:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Forum has some 700 registered members, so likely fails the proposed standard WP:SOFTWARE. Sorry. Sandstein 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein. Eivind^t@c 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems interesting, but makes no claim of notability. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)