Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 12

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Wienand

Biography of apparently non-notable chemistry teacher. Although listed as a professor at (non-existant) North Allegheny University, this page indicates that he is a high school teacher. I have no doubt that he is an excellent one, and I am pleased that his students like him enough to write an article, but he does not fulfill WP:BIO. Prod removed. Delete. bikeable (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, as shown by the 26 google results for a "Robert Wienand" search (9 for "Robert Wienand" + professor). The search "Robert Wienand"+"North Allegheny University" gives no results. There are no references and nothing in the article to show his notablity. IronChris | (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and into the wastebasket with this one. RGTraynor 05:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a satirical website. Tyrenius 05:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious nonsense - stuff like Markovnikov's Rule, Nucleophilic substitution etc, as mentioned in the article were figured out ages ago and isn't really original cutting edge resaerch, it's something you learn in first/second yr university.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sounds like a cool guy though; I'd like to have him as my chem teacher, but my current chem teacher is pretty cool anyway. DarthVader 10:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete actually, speedy A7. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Reyk _YO! 00:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move to WP:BJAODN. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banjax

Appears to be a non-notable company that does not meet WP:CORP. 1160 Google hits, 0 sites linking to it (aside from itself and a Wikipedia mirror), no Alexa data. Rory096 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom and per WP:VANITY, the author appears to be one of the key players, has done very few unrelated edits, and hasn't edited since Aug 2005. We may want to include the animated series, Gene-Fusion as well, I would support that. -MrFizyx 05:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nope. Not enough productions yet (only 3 cartoons), although they do have job vacancies for animators. Tyrenius 05:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nont-notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Niether the company or the couple of other definitions of the word at the top of the page seem notable enough for Wikipedia. Zaxem 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable company, as per WP:CORP.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I was going to say paper-thin weak keep, but then I discovered that the page is filled with randomcrapcruft. This page needs to be...er..."banjaxed", so to speak. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. A7. "Chief Cook" huh? ~Kylu (u|t) 20:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mars Return Sample Mission

I am unsure of this article's accuracy for the following reasons: it is entitled 'Return Sample' instead of the regularly used 'Sample Return', I cannot find any information on a joint ESA/NASA sample return mission and it was created by a suspected vandal known as John oh. --Marsbound2024 04:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the very first google hit from NASA's own website demonstrates that the mission is planned. But the fact that it's 8 years in the future, unfunded, and technically more difficult than anything so far achieved means that it's speculation upon speculation. NASA does have a right to think this far ahead, but it's a fairly obvious step in the progress of space exploration that anyone could have come up with. I agree that 'sample return' makes more sense. - Richardcavell 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Richardcavell. SushiGeek 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment how about moving it to Sample Return, or merging with NASA (or Mars or something), seeing as it's verified. Tyrenius 05:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is accurate and the long range plans of NASA/ESA though subject to change are obviously notable. -MrFizyx 05:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be expanded, here are a few articles[8][9][10] -MrFizyx 05:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well there has not been anything definitive about an ESA/NASA joint mission, just individual missions by either. Thus I recommended it for deletion since it is--as Richardcavell said--"speculation upon speculation." Until NASA or ESA actually announce a joint sample return mission, I don't think we should have an article that definitely states it is one and it is in the works; furthermore, its launch schedule spans two decades... this simply doesn't merit an article in my opinion since there is nothing to work with EXCEPT speculation. Thanks for all of your thoughts. --Marsbound2024 06:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystalballism. Vizjim 10:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MrFizyx. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think an encyclopedic article can exist for this topic without being speculative. There are substantial references (see above comment from MrFizyx) indicating that preliminary work is underway. ScottW 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename — Press coverage and NASA news always lists it as "Mars Sample Return Mission". Right now it sounds like we want return a sample back to Mars. ;-) Delete — topic already well-covered by sample return mission page. — RJH 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Archive - We'll eventually have to create a new article to describe such a mission, but right now I agree that Sample return mission covers the topic. However, I see no reason to delete it. Anyone involved in the planning of the topic would probably be willing to help build it, we just have to have it available for them to build. Chadlupkes 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or archive per Chadlupkes. Beno1000 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to NASA, as it is planned and is likely to happen, but WP:NOT a crystal ball and there's just not enough info right now. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: info is correct and relevant. Nick Mks 18:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because this type of mission sounds so ridicious, and a suspected vandal user like John oh can provide false information. mr.parks 17:12, 13 May 2006 (PTC)
• Strong Keep - this category of missions has had numerous detailed mission designs proposed and remains a major component of the human moon/mars missions program. The article needs to actually list out the current status, and prior proposals, in a lot more detail... but what's there now is just stubby, not wrong. Notable, encyclopedic, keep. Georgewilliamherbert 21:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to - The Information here may be somewhat similar to other information to the informationg given on other websites proposing a sample return mission but this information is very weak. Otherwise, if to keep the information. I want it to be merged with Exploration of Mars on the future missions section and to clean-up and make the information more acurrate. But this wil cause the article, Mars Return Sample Mission to be deleted. Plus, this information can be a hoax form John oh. mr.parks 16:39, 13 May 2006 (PTC)

• Vote early, vote often, but only one counts. NThis is a duplicate vote by user:mr.parks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Gottbetter

Similar to Gottbetter & Partners (also up for AfD), this page is essentially a non-notable bio. User:Chaser (T, C, e) 04:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SushiGeek 05:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Like the article on the law firm, this individual is not notable enough for an international encyclopedia. Zaxem 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Fails pretty much every test prof. test, google test... -MrFizyx 06:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aota --Knucmo2 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Dont delete adam gottbetter was named the Mann report's hedge fund manager of the year. isnt that notable? also, there are 17,600 hits on google for gottbetter. Olayak 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)k

• Seems more than a few of those are movie director, Franklyn Gottbetter. Google "Adam Gottbetter" for 189 hits, or ~48 unique hits, and some of these still aren't your guy. Sorry. -MrFizyx 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Jpgordon.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David S. Simms

How this one didn't get speedied back when it was created, I'm not sure. Google gets 18 links to "David S. Simms" and 13 to his company, all of which seem self-generated. The website looks unremarkable. It could possibly be speedied as a vanity article, but something seems odd about speedying a month-old article. BigDT 05:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. If you can't speedy delete, delete. SushiGeek 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and tagged - if you want a speedy, help us speed it up by tagging as such.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has it been speedied? I can't find it. Tyrenius 05:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it looks to have been speedied and can be closed out. BigDT 06:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Softek

Non-notable "Value Add Distributor". Appears to mostly be an ad, as well. SushiGeek 05:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertising.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "We work very closely with our Reseller Channel Partners..." Tyrenius 05:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanispamadcruftisevertisement vanity. Richardcavell - 06:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert for a company that fails WP:CORP criteria.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, use of the first person voice pretty much admits it's advertising. JIP | Talk 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Less than 100 emplooyees? This is adcruft to the extreme. But first person doesn't necessarily indicate no notability, but there is a high positive correlation between the ordinal of the person and the amount of notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New World Calendar

• Also nominating The principles of creating of the New Global calendar, which is essentially the same text as New World Calendar

These two articles are unsourced, unreadable essays on why the poster would like to do away with our current calendar and make a new one. This is obviously original research. Given the way that the essays are in paragraph format, they look like essays made up in school one day. They are not written in a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. New World Calendar has text up at the top that makes it look almost like a test page. Neither page has been modified since being created by their original user. BigDT 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced, unreadable and due to be, as Byron put it, "unknelled, uncoffin'd and unknown". Tyrenius 05:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as original research candidates.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per excellently argued nomination. Vizjim 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above, unintelligible OR; anything notable could go at calendar reform. Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bessborough Cricket Club

This cricket club competes in the third division of the Middlesex county league, and is thus three levels below first-class cricket. (see List of English cricket clubs). Not notable. I went to the website and didn't find evidence that the club did win the U-17 national championship. I found this claim unlikely, as the best 16 year olds in the country are usually better than a fourth-class cricket team. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Proof for the claims made in the article is required. Unsubstantiated assertions are not useful for researchers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable with just about 500 Google its.--Jusjih 08:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep we have non league football clubs such as Rushden and Diamonds, surely cricket clubs should be kept or deleted under the same criteria Jcuk 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment Rushden and similar are usually pro- or semi-pro clubs who pay their players and play matches in front of (sometimes) thousands of supporters, and who have the possibility (through cup competitions) of playing against the best professional teams in the country. To be honest, the top non-league football teams are probably equivalent financially and at an organisational level with some first-class cricket teams. There is simply no comparison between cricket and football in the UK (note that I like the cricket and I'm not having a dig at it). Badgerpatrol 02:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brunswick Village (Hove) CC

To begin with, the username which created this page is the same as the captain of this cricket club, so it is vanity. Secondly, it says it is a non-league club, meaning that is not even in the county league of Sussex, meaning that it is at least two tiers below first class competition. It claims notability on the grounds of having two Grenadan internationals - Granada has never qualified for the ICC Champions Trophy or the Cricket World Cup and the cricket team would be at a social level. As for the Sri Lankan, well, it could just be any Sri Lankan person, this doesn't neceassarily mean he's a good player.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No proof offered for any of the claims made in the article - names and records of significant players - table positions and a list of competitions won by the club or constituent sides?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 08:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too fishy as per the above. I've added appropriate headers, but there's enough speculation on notability for it to be deleted. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micklehurst Cricket Club

A cricket club in Saddleworth, a town in near Oldham which has 20,000 people, competing in the Saddleworth Cricket League, effectively some kind of local town competition. There are 13 clubs in this town - see List of English cricket clubs, so on average each club would draw from around 1500 people each. Given that a random high school has 1500 students to draw from, how is this more important than a high school cricket team. The claim to professionalism isn't necessarily that great - many sports teams pay $2000 for instance for a "star player" to play with them, but it isn't a full-time job, it's just to get a "relatively good" player. nnßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No claims as to notability for either club, league or their star player. A list of wins and table positions would be a minimum requirement as proof.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 51 Google hits are too low to be notable.--Jusjih 08:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The argument is grossly misleading. Micklehurst Cricket Club is not in Saddleworth. To my knowledge it is the only cricket club based in the nearby town of Mossley (population 10,000 - significantly more than the 1500 cited). Also, there are other flaws to the above argument: No team draws from just an allocated number of cricket fans. As well as potentially being relevant to a certain number of local residents, the club is relevant to all with a recent or historic interest in the Saddleworth & District Cricket League, at all age levels, as well as having relevance to all with an interest in the current Huddersfield Cricket League.
  SimonMayer 17:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep we have non league football clubs such as Rushden and Diamond's, surely cricket clubs should be kept or deleted under the same criteria Jcuk 20:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Duckdid 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Little-to-zero Web presence and no assertion of notability at all. -- Kicking222 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per SimonMayer Hornplease
• Keep per SimonMayer : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heyside Cricket Club

A cricket club in Saddleworth, a town in near Oldham which has 20,000 people, competing in the Saddleworth Cricket League, effectively some kind of local town competition. There are 13 clubs in this town - see List of English cricket clubs, so on average each club would draw from around 1500 people each. Given that a randoom high school has 1500 students to draw from, how is this more important than a high school cricket team. It claims "lots of success" without any substantiation.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No objective measure is provided of how successful this club is - a list of wins and celebrated players would be a minimum requirement to prove this assertion.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 41 Google hits are too low to be notable.--Jusjih 08:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 23:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonezetta

No Allmusic entry. I'd rather not speedy this since the same author has created a number of band articles and I feel that we should review in general the kinds of bands this person is describing. Chick Bowen 05:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Zaxem 05:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims of notability as per WP:Music, so better off on Myspace until they achieve notable status.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:MUSIC which usually requires 2 releases on a major or notable indy lable, or one of the other criteria. The only thing I can think of that come close on is what looks to be a national tour schedule, but thats ify since they appear to be just one of several acts, and NONE of this is asserted in the article. -MrFizyx 07:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect per M1ss1ontomars2k4 comment below. We need to have better coverage of some obscure music genres (these articles seem to attract new readers and editors), but Jonezetta will need to wait until a case can be made per WP:MUSIC.-MrFizyx 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. DarthVader 10:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is ridiculous. THIS BAND IS SIGNED TO Tooth & Nail Records! You may not know Jonezetta or this label, but the people who would view this article sure as Hell will. I hope you've heard of EMI. The EMI Group is a major record label and is one of the Big Four record labels. EMI owns EMI Christian Music Group which owns Tooth & Nail. I wanted to contribute information to Wikipedia that I previously couldn't find. If this article is deleted, than Wikipedia isn't what I thought it was: a website with information on virtually everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendrickjohnson (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Who? KleenupKrew 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They are signed to a major label. That should be sufficient notability to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.188.47 (talk • contribs)
• Delete The only- ONLY- assertion of notability is being on a somewhat important record label. That's not enough. And in addition, even the band's web site doesn't state if they've ever actually entered a studio and recorded an album. -- Kicking222 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• merge and redir to Tooth & Nail records. Kendrickjohnson, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertions of notability per WP:MUSIC. Might not take long, though... Grandmasterka 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and allow for later recreation if they become more notable. My crystal ball is broken, though, so I don't know if they will or not. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For those of you who are uninformed: Jonezetta signed with Tooth & Nail Records last summer. It was the most extensive contract ever offered by Tooth & Nail that I am aware of. They were on the Tooth & Nail tour earlier this year, playing the U.S. from coast to coast. Tooth & Nail chose to have Jonezetta play this tour before releasing an album, so by the time their first album is released, they will have a significant fan base. They HAVE recorded their freshman album. It is in post-production right now, as far as I know. It is to be released in August. My informed prediction is that there will be a significant need for this article by late 2006 and early 2007. I don't see the problem with having an article for an 'up-and-coming' band. There are thousands of bands on Wikipedia that I haven't heard of. People aren't concerned about bands they haven't heard of being on Wikipedia. They ARE, however, concerned about their favourite bands not having an article on Wikipedia. Kendrickjohnson
  • Kendrickjohnson voted twice, the first time unsigned above. Chick Bowen 02:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Harmon

Was speedy A7 but I think there's a claim hereTawker 05:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• very weak keep. Does have a page in imdb[11], and has worked with some very notable people. His personal achievements have left me somewhat unimpressed though. -MrFizyx 06:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Could be merged into Channel 101 but he doesn't seem stellar encyclopedia material. Best to delete and let someone expand Channel 101 if they see the need.Peripitus 09:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Equally unenthusiastic keep. Meets criteria, jjjuuusssttt... Vizjim 10:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I guess He has an IMDb page, and that's enough for me. Steveo2 11:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is very notable, and his page should be up. Yanksox 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'd argue with the "very" qualifier, but he's notable enough. DS 15:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Tempted to say delete as to how poor the article is,but if it gets clean-up and and expanded it is a keep. J.J.Sagnella 15:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Only claim to notability is Channel 101, and Channel 101 is barely notable enough for an article as it is. KleenupKrew 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this person is notable enough Yuckfoo 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 03:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment. I'm curious to know how you think that WP:BLP applies. It seems to be more of a guideline on how to write a bio. Where does it speak to which bios we keep/delete? -MrFizyx 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --JoanneB 11:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Harbottle

[edit] Original writer of the article

I give up - you are too good for me.

I was the original writer of the article. It was all a hoax. Congratulations to the nerds that live and breathe on Wikipedia who solved the 'crime'; you have done well young padawans. However, there was some truth in the article - very disjointed, warped truth, but truth nonetheless. It took you months to figure it out though it was a shamble though!

I claim responsibility for the false signatures and the citied texts that were just picked at random so that you would have to look them up at a library. I can guarantee that I won't be wasting my time writing bogus articles again. I am constantly using Wikipedia for study so it would be appreciated if my IP wasn't blocked for this harmless joke, and I can quote users who claimed that debunking this was 'fun'.

Top notch work to the fellow who picked up on the Notlob/Bolton comparison.

                                                          Lawrence Wallace, 10:44 PM, 14/5/06

There is evidence that the claim to having invented jeweled watches may be a hoax, without this claim the man is not notable. Owning a storefront is not notable. Inventing jeweled watches is. However, after a bit of Googling, I'm not sure if this isn't a hoax. There is nothing on Google to suggest that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches except for this Wikipedia article. The man himself appears to be have been real. However, there is no mention on that website of a son, George Jr. Further evidence... after perusing the article history, the claim that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches didn't get added until AFTER Fang Ai Li raised the question of notability. It's very possible that someone added it in order to deflect her challenge.--Richard 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD was 'orphaned', so listing now. --JoanneB 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've 'searched inside' on Amazon in some books about watches and one of the books that was mentioned as a source, but no mention of his name. I share Richard's belief that this is a hoax. --JoanneB 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. 752 Google hits seem to be too low to be notable.--Jusjih 08:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

*Keep unless hoax demonstrated; Vote changed to delete below This may or may not be a hoax. There's certainly some specific detail (address etc) in the article, and three sources. It's certainly possible to prove/disprove the validity of the sources, at the least. I don't think this should be deleted without the three sources being checked, and I certainly appreciate JoanneB's efforts in checking one of them (knowing which one may assist other editors). To quote the article:

"(Born) (1810-1877) ... he was unable to patent his discovery and was henceforth never officially recognised for the huge contribution he made to the watch industry ..." 752 google hits under these conditions seems pretty notable to me (without checking the content therein), I must say. The article specifically makes the point that his contributions have been passed over and he does not have the general notability he deserves, so it's a bit disingenious to expect Google to be the arbiter of notability. NN not proven to my satisfaction. Of course, if it's a hoax, disregard my ramblings. Colonel Tom 11:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unless hoax demonstrated. (Changed vote below) First of all, as Tom says, the number of google hits should always be placed in context. For someone living today, 752 may not be a lot; for a man who died 129 years ago it's prima facie evidence of notability. Secondly, the man certainly was real; there's even a mugshot of his pickpocketing son. So it looks like this is a serious article; we cannot conclude it's a hoax unless all three sources have been checked... David Sneek 13:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment; I've left a message at the creator's talk page: User_talk:210.49.235.218. Hopefully, they can assist with verification. I must say, checking the article's progress, I'm inclined to discount this being a hoax, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. Colonel Tom 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pocket-picking, please. Or do we talk of picknosing children? ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, Now! Me mum was a pickpocketing nosepicker, and me daughter, while an accomplished nosepicker, is yet to learn the skills of pickpocketing. A pickpocket exercising their skills is engaged in pickpocketing. Just ask me mum if you don't believe me, JzG, but be sure to check your pickedpockets afterwards. Colonel Tom 12:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some comments:

1. The 752 (or in my latest search, 768) google hits are a bad indication of this person's notability. They consist of only 173 unique results. Even this would be alright, considering the context indeed, but please don't take that as 'prima fecie evidence': I've checked out the first 100 of those unique hits, and just 3 or so are about this George Harbottle, and the only information (other than the link to his grave) they give is that he once sold this spoon.
2. The fact that his grave is on the website David Sneek mentioned, proving that he exists, does not make him notable enough in itself: the question is, did he actually do the stuff he did according to the article (and that would make him notable), which we have not been able to establish any proof for so far.
3. One of the books that is offered as a 'source', A New England? : Peace and War 1886-1918 is on Amazon here with a 'search inside' function. The name 'Harbottle', however, yields no results. The other books that are listed as references sadly don't offer this.
4. Take a look at the article's talk page, especially at it's history. The discussion that is going on on the talk page, with several contributions from different people stating how notable he is, are mostly from the same (and one very similar) IP address. --JoanneB 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • The comment from that anonymous IP address was signed User: Wally, so I asked him to join the discussion. David Sneek 15:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, I guess, unless we can show it's a hoax, which [12] andm maybe [13] indicate maybe not. Note that there seem to be a number of George Harbottles. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is saying the guy may or may not have existed: I believe he did. That's not what makes this article a hoax. The question is, did he invent the jeweled watches? If we are not sure about that, there's a strong case to be made that this guy did exist, but was not notable. --JoanneB 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This page says jewels were used in watches from 1704. Britannica confirms The first patent covering the application of jewels in watches was taken out in 1704 Also persuaded by JoanneB's and Richard's comments and history of IPs playing around with this article. --HJMG 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — some of the suspect changes were defended on the talk page under my name. The person who added it was an anon user, the same that made many of the changes that were in question on the page. That person is also not me; I have made edits on my IP before (4.64.4.16) but these were not reflected on its history. It seems, then, that someone borrowed my name to make changes. I do not know why, but I felt that it might help to know at the very least that whoever is making some of the changes to this page has been engaged in some... interesting tactics. Wally 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — I'm starting to get convinced that Joanne and Richard are right. The information that would make Mr. Harbottle notable comes from the anonymous user at the University of Queensland ( [14] [15]) who seems to be an unreliable source. David Sneek 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be some evidence that this is a hoax, but a lot of evidence pointing to it not being a hoax. Until proved one, I vote Keep --Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You have every right to your vote, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'a lot of evidence pointing to it not being a hoax'? Of all the evidence presented above, I only see things proving the man existed, and a lot of strong proof against the rest of the article.--JoanneB 07:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is the responsibility of those wanting the article included to demonstrate that it is not a hoax, not the other way around. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Stifle, this would certainly be the case if there were no sources given in the article. However, three books are cited as sources. This article has asserted notability and provided sources, as required. It is the responsibility of those doubting the veracity of those sources to demonstrate that it is a hoax, not the other way around. Colonel Tom 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment The above comment is problematic. (I was going to same something a bit more acerbic but my co-Esperanzan is watching so I guess I had best tone down the rhetoric.)

To illustrate, if I wrote "George Bush was arrested for driving in the nude while high on pot during his senior year at Yale" and provided the source as "Yale Daily News March 17, 1972", would you accept that as a reliable source? Why or why not? Most of us don't have access to the archives of the Yale Daily News although I'd bet there is are Wikipedians who are on the staff of the Yalie Daily. To prove or disprove the statement about George Bush, it's likely one of them would hunt this charge down.

Whose responsibility would it be to prove the credibility of the statement? What if I provided as a source "Notable Alumni of Yale" (assuming such a book existed) but didn't provide a page number?. Whose responsibility would it be to prove or disprove the credibility of my statement?

However, what if the statement was made about George Johnson, Class of 1974? (I made up the name and graduation year.) Then what? How would you prove or disprove the charge without the help of someone who has access to the Yalie Daily?

Getting back to the article in question, I would assert that the level of sourcing is insufficient especially in light of the information that use of jewels in watches predated the birth of the person in question.

Now, in truth, this is an inherent problem with Wikipedia. The article in question doesn't cite page number so, even if I had a copy of each of the three sources, it would be an inordinately tedious task to verify that there was not a page somewhere in the three volumes that supported the claims in the article. Moreover, none of the cited sources are the kind that one could find in the typical public library so the bar for debunking the hoax is set unrealistically high. If this article is a hoax, the hoaxsters have framed the hoax in such a way that it is very difficult to debunk. If the hoaxsters are reading all this, they must be having a grand old time laughing at us and the time and effort they have made us waste attempting to debunk the hoax. --Richard 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've checked the Gotham book and there's no mention of Harbottle.
  

The story so far. . . . . The article is created with facts matching a cemetery website, citing two books, one with no apparent ref to any Harbottle. A week later a son is added with a story about his deportation to England and a crime at Notlob. (If this is the man then he would have been 76 at the time.) A few months on and someone questions GH's notability. Notlob is changed to Bolton, and a claim that GH invented jewel gears in watches is added, even though this invention had existed for more than 100 years before his birth. The same editor removes the notability query tag. A week later and the deportation story is changed. Next a claim about George/georging/criminal slang is added (no support in OED). Another book is added to the references, again with no mention of Harbottle. During this later stage of editing, fake signatures supporting the claim to notability are added to the talk page . . . . . --HJMG 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Chuckle... I think we should create a new tag Template:Gift because I now see this article as such. This hoax has been nicely crafted so that the research required to debunk it can be seen as fun in a perverse sort of way. For example, has anybody noticed that "Notlob" is "Bolton" spelled backwards? It's almost as if we had an eccentric uncle laying out a puzzle for us to solve. Do we get a treat when we're done?

Yes, yes, I know it's really not the sort of thing we want happening in Wikipedia. Not that we can condone or encourage this kind of thing and we must, of course, delete the little beastie now but, at least, the hoaxsters have had their fun and hopefully so have we. Take it in stride, we've been had. Happy editing to you all. --Richard 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's been a fascinating hoax, but I don't think we need to bother checking more sources. As HJMG's links show, Mr. H. did not invent jeweled watches. Apart from that, there is no claim to notability. David Sneek 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete And I call myself a Monty Python fan (re Bolton/Notlob). I had looked through the page changes, but not thoroughly enough, obviously. My thanks to all concerned for the effort taken in researching this. While I'm not in _complete_ agreement with your comments re onus of proof re verifiability, Richard, you've given me food for thought. I can see that I've contributed to dragging this hoax out, and for that I apologise. Hopefully, I'll learn from this. And yes, it was fun; I was fooled. If notability can be comprehensively shown in future (which looks beyond probability at the moment), then recreate. Colonel Tom 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an amusiing hoax. --Alf ^melmac 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iforest

This page is about a computer science project that four people wrote for a programming competition. I googled "iForest" and there are plenty of hits, but they seem unrelated to this project. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. There is no evidence, either in the article or elsewhere, of notability as per the proposed guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (software). BigDT 05:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Nepalese university students' project efforts.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nepalese university students' project efforts."? What does this mean? DarthVader 10:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 800 Google hits are not yet good to be notable.--Jusjih 08:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 15:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until about 15 yrs from now, when it might be notable. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] 729 (number)

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Metamagician3000 08:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More numbercruft, which could go on forever if unchecked. Prod removed. Delete. Grandmasterka 06:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is little significance whatsoever to this article and obviously should be deleted. I mean if there ever arises enough support, there might as well be a 'Wikinumbers' like 'Wikispecies.' For now and the forseeable future, it seems pretty clear that it should be removed. --Marsbound2024 06:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do not Delete I feel that this page deserves to stay on the grounds that there is no harm in its existence. Come on - live and let live people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrybob (talk • contribs)
• Comment all of Angrybob's edits have been to 729 (number) or this AfD to date.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. It is also widely renowned for being the square of 27, though it lost much of its popular support after the infamous "prime requisitioning" it undertook in the early 1970's. Today, it exists as a shadow of its former self, destined for numerical oblivion. Give me a break and speedy this thing. BigDT 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No significance to number stated in article to warrant its retention.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a joke article. JIP | Talk 07:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voodoochilli.net

Non-notable website. Its Alexa ranking is 1,605,401. The article says that it has a volunteer staff of "a web developer, an art editor and several administrators". Google has 590 hits, most of which look self-generated. None of the criteria in WP:WEB seem to be met. BigDT 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Richardcavell 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable website, as per WP:WEB and Alexa rank.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alexa rank Dr. Ke 07:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 10:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no where near as notable as, say, DeviantArt M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and vanity Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 22:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Galda

Delete Page on a not very notable keyboardist. The bands he has played for are notable, he personally is not. The article is a stub, and pretty much unexpandable. Dr. Ke 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete He is fairly unknown, playing only for a short time for the German Industrial group Das Ich. There is practically little if no information out there on him.--Refault 07:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Das Ich is sufficiently notable to merit articles on its members, and I don't know why you'd think this page is inherently incapable of growth. Nobody's expanded it yet, to be sure, but if that were the standard we'd need to nuke a hell of a lot of perfectly good stubs. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He is not a member. He briefly played keyboards. Dr. Ke 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Das Ich and Daniel Galda are two different entities. Daniel Galda is not very well known and has barely contributed anything to the music scene that could be called "encyclopedic." Das Ich on the other hand has.--Refault 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Das Ich article here lists him as a member from 1994-1999, a period that covers their first two studio albums, and the group's AMG entry name-checks him in the very first sentence: "With the Germanic vocals of Stefan Ackermann set to the electronic sounds of Bruno Kramm and Daniel Galda, Das Ich continues to reach out to an ever-growing audience with a diverse range of atmospheric textures." As such, I think it understates his importance to the group to say that he "briefly played keyboards". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who? KleenupKrew 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete I have to agree with the mentioned points so far for deletion. Vexidus 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW, the redlinked band "Kalte Farben" in his article also has an AMG entry and a release on a relatively major label. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A main project and its members may be notable, but how notable is a session musician? This article has been brought up not by merit but by grace. Allowing it refuge in Wikipedia would open a floodgate of stub information concerning band members and a deluge of session musicians. Even by merit, all information pertaining to band members should be found on their artist page. LaLutteAvecCecil 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Voting a definite delete here. Galda is not a very notable musician from my perspective, and there are much better known musicians lacking in articles. Schicksal 07:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hodges Health Career Model

Delete. Unable to verify that this "tool" is important or notable. It receives a large number of Google hits, but all seem to mirror Wiki or circle back to the official website: http://www.p-jones.demon.co.uk/. Can anyone find any verifiable information from some other source? -AED 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unlikely to be significant, given that it doesn't even have its own domain name (even Demon charge very little for that!). Has been linkspammed quite a bit, too. Just zis Guy you know? 13:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too much linkspam, too much vanispamcruftisement for one article M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope the following comments may assist: Please delete the article asap. As you note the site on-line since 1997-98 is attracting linkspam. A blog has also been set up using the model's title. The matter of a domain name has been addressed. My apologies if this article is a cause of concern. The site was orignally (and remains) a call for research into Hodges' integrative approach. The model is [IMHO] important and deserves publicity, but given the model's status I now appreciate Wikipedia is not an appropriate outlet. Webmaster: Hodges Health Career Model.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by H2cm (talk • contribs) 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nexus Online (M) Sdn Bhd

Delete - quite obvious spam for a not particularly notable company. Prod removed without explanation (of course). Wickethewok 07:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Deletion Should be flagged for speedy deletion due to aforementioned. It is indeed spam and someone should flag it for speedy deletion in my opinion. --Marsbound2024 08:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a speedy delete for spam tag or anything that I should know of? Wickethewok 08:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Here are two links that you can look at and tell me if you think it meets the criteria: Deletion Template; Criteria for Speedy Deletion; I think that it is OBVIOUS spam. --Marsbound2024 08:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, I think there needs to be a 'speedy deletion due to spam' tag... there doesn't seem to be one. --Marsbound2024 08:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• From my understanding, spam is not speedy deletable at the moment, though it has been debated on the CSD Talk page. Wickethewok 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam for a non-notable company, as per WP:CORP. I don't see how it qualifies for speedy deletion.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP agreed. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Guess I am just one of those who would debate in favor for speedy deletion of spam.  ;) --Marsbound2024 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Joelito (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MOVED OVER TO CFD. Third door on the left...you can tell because it's the one with dust on the doorknob. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category:Anti-Germanism

nationalist POV

The category:Anti-Germanism is useless beyond its purpose of nationalist propaganda. Listing a scientist like Daniel Goldhagen in this category proves that it is an introduction of POV, with the sole intention to polarize, not to categorize, no matter how argued upon Goldhagen's theories may be. -- 790 08:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• now listed at CfD. JPD (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Independent Sector Treatment Centre - Liberatore(T) 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment centre

Existing title is vague and inaccurate; article duplicates what is better described in (the correctly titled) Independent Sector Treatment Centre. Delete and redirect to Independent Sector Treatment Centre --Smerus 08:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Independent Sector Treatment Centre.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 17:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as nom. Beno1000 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Smerus, this doesn't need to be at AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK have redirected per Stifle's comment.--Smerus 21:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Linkin Park Album

Article refers to an album that has no set release date and no title. This article provides no information that couldn't be put on the band's page, and nobody will ever find this page to edit it once more information becomes available. fuzzy510 09:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, album is announced, major label band, has big-name producer, all it lacks is a title. Mentioned at the official site as well as Billboard. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Linkin Park page. Kukini 12:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment More useful information on this future album project is already available at Linkin_Park#2005:_From_The_Rising_Tied_to_the_future, so there is nothing to merge.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball, there is no deadline to meet. Why have an article when the title hasn't even been chosen? It's nonsensical. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Linkin Park article. Once there's actually something to write about, go ahead. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The proposed album doesn't even have a title yet. KleenupKrew 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the band's article until concrete details of the album are revealed. Aside from the subject not needing its own article, the article is terribly titled (which, of course, can be changed, but this is just another point of discussion). -- Kicking222 23:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per stubblyhead M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Info on band is important, but on the band's page Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to let everyone know who's saying to merge - I just went and looked at Linkin Park and saw all of this written in the article. --fuzzy510 03:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there's nothing to merge, and a redirect is unuseful. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Covered in main article, not enough content for seperate article. --Zer0faults 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was trash this article. Mailer Diablo 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bios theory

This is a non-notable pseudotheory. As discussed on the talk page, all papers are by the same set of authors. Google returns only 259 hits for "bios theory", and 186 with "bios theory" -wikipedia. However, many of these refer to computer BIOS's, and removing those results has proven somewhat difficult. "bios theory" -wikipedia -computer -linux returns 92 total results with only 19 unique results, but this may be too highly selective. Philosophus ^T 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Bios theory: little quoted theory" = Delete. Vizjim 10:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete - non-notable gobbledegook William M. Connolley 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Would Wikipedia be better with or without this article? I'm confident that we're better off without. The article uses a lot of terminology from dynamical systems, but in such a way that I, and even more importantly, editors like User:XaosBits whom I consider to be very knowledgeable on this subject, cannot understand them. There has been a lot of discussion about bios theory (see for instance Talk:Chaos theory and its archives), but it has not been possible to come to a clear explanation about what the main concepts (novelty and bios) mean. This makes the whole article unverifiable. I admit that this also makes it hard for me to judge the theory on its merits, and there are some papers published on this theory, but in my opinion these are too few and too new to make the theory notable. The combination of unverifiability (because it is unclear, despite lots of effort) and probably unnotability suffices for me to advocate deletion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Xaosbits is the only one that actually tried to improve the article (at least with very constructive critiques). Most other people just complained without trying to edit Bios theory, and actually tried to disaprove it, which is not the job of wikipedia editors. I don't think that because something is new it should be excluded from Wikipedia. Unclear does not mean unverifiable. Verifiable means that what is in the article can be found in the published papers. I understand that there are mathematicians here who like rigor a lot. However, Bios theory emerged from the social science oriented group, and people there do not use same rigor as do people in mathematics and physics. Bios theory has been published in Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and the Life Sciences among other journals. I think that it is arrogant to claim that people publishing in these journals are pseudoscientists just because they have different approach to science than hard science researchers. World is not just what we know. Knowledge is not just what we consider knowledge.Lakinekaki 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is incoherent. Despite lengthly conversations with the page author (Lakinekaki), a meaningful article was never arrived at. To rebut the above commentary: while lack of rigor may be acceptable in the social sciences, this article was making claims about mathematics and about medical science, where rigor is required. What I found particularly disturbing were claims made connecting bios theory to biological sciences, while demonstrating an utter (and willing!) ignorance of prior literature connecting chaos theory and the life sciences. I know damned little about such things, and was displeased to learn I knew more than the author. As to arrogance: this article and its author made the arrogant claim that bios theory was the king and leader of chaos theory, which was all the more galling given the protestations about rigor, clarity and hard science. linas 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Some users have claimed this to be gobbledegook, however we have at least 7 articles in peer review journals, 1 book published by a respectable publisher (World Scientific). One of the contributors to the theory is L. Kauffman, a notable mathematican who made important contribution to Knot theory (see Kauffman's CV at http://www.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/LKVita.ps to verify that he had indeed contributed to this study). To me this seems like more protoscience than psuedoscience. Sabelli et al are trying to find metrics which can destinguish between the patterns in heart rate and purly chaotic systems. Their concept of novality is one attempt at a metric which does seem to detect some patterns. The article does require a lot of work. --Salix alba (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Salix alba, I enjoyed reading Knots And Physics and I am familiar with link polynomials. Unfortunately, it is perfectly possible for the same person to be involved with both very good mathematics (Kauffman's bracket is very good) and very bad science! To take an even more extreme example, Isaac Newton. ---CH 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - its quite clear the wikipedia community is not prepared to bother to examine the rather interesting statistical technique of comparing shuffled and unshuffeled data. Lets not prolong this anylonger, and perhaphs we could get on with addressing the poor state of many mathematical articles See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 for where we could better spend out time. --Salix alba (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be interesting, but there's no evidence of the method or of interest in the article. You've had plenty of time to add real material — if there is any. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all "little quoted theories" (this gets around 250 ghits). Why delete little quoted theories? For the same reason we deleted Aetherometry: it's not sufficiently widely discussed that we have a decent pool of secondary sources from which to write a neutral and verifiable article. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Google hits are not a litmus test of notability. But it looks like this has been through several sorts of cleanup. A theory about brontosauruses or butterflies or ytterbium is one thing, and I might not presume to judge it nonsense because I did not understand it. A theory about "systems" is another thing entirely, and when its explanation seems to involve strings of abstract Latinate nouns that never seem to touch the ground, I'm much less inclined to be charitable. I have very little tolerance for this kind of writing in business related articles. This reads like the same sort of cruft, and it seems it's been given time to develop into something that reads better, and gone no further than this. Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems to be an ill-written article on an ill-defined topic. I get no sense of what "bios" is as something that distinguishes itself from chaos, either as a seperate entity or a well-defined subset of chaos. To me, the lack of mathematicians running to the defense of this article is most telling. If this was an accepted part of chaos theory, they would be here opposing this action. I also am disturbed by the defense of this article by Salix alba is in saying that "Sabelli et al are trying to find ...". Wikipedia is not a research journal, nor is it a crystal ball. Unless it is highly notable, Wikipedia should not be reporting on ongoing academic research. --EMS | Talk 16:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pseudoscientific gibberish and probable original research. KleenupKrew 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is probably original research, it's also pseudoscience, and it's a "little quoted theory" meaning that it admits it has little notability in the article. Beno1000 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain but comment -- a significant mathematical discovery, but no publication in mathematical publications? Cited only by a limited set of authors? You have to buy the main author's book to get the CD-ROM with the algorithm? Seems a borderline case, if we count the existing publications on the plus side. Unfortunately the article doesn't describe it's subject very clearly. The article quality should be deciding point. --Pjacobi 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per many of the contributors above. -- Kicking222 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as unknown, non-notable, ridiculous piece of randomcrapcruft. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete:

1. Results of a literature search and Google by User:XaosBits strongly suggest that "bios theory" (sic) is so obscure that deletion is amply warranted on grounds of non-notability alone,
2. I have listed serious problems with every sentence of the first paragraph alone, showing that the article is not only very misleading (for example claiming for "bios theory" insights which should properly be abscribed to chaos theory), to the extraordinary extent that virtually every caption and every sentence in this article is misleading and/or scientifically dubious; it is relevant to state that like User:XaosBits I am knowledgeable about dynamical systems theory,
3. the author of the article, User:Lakinekaki (aka the ameritech.net anon from Chicago) has concealed from the WP community the fact that in real life he is one Lazar Kovacevic of Chicago (note the listed email handle in the ARIN record for this website, exploreideas.com, which is registered to Kovacevic), who is employed by an organization called Chicago Center for Creative Development (CCCD), whose website is registered to one Linnea Carlson-Sabelli of Chicago, and which promotes the ideas of Hector Sabelli, who is described in the article as the author of "bios theory"; Kovacevic has further failed to disclose that he is a coworker of Hector Sabelli and a coauthor with L. Carlson-Sabelli and H. Sabelli of the first paper he cites (apparently very obscure), so that this article violates WP:VAIN,
4. Kovacevic may have also concealed a hidden agenda of his employer which has nothing to do with science; for example this file from the CCCD website claims "Biotic development illustrates how evolution may be expected to continue creating an attractor of infinite complexity rather than tending to equilibrium. This provides a mathematical metaphor for God compatible with contemporary science and with mental health principles." The appeal to the technical terms attractor, infinite, complexity, equilibrium (from dynamical systems theory), and of course the alleged "mathematical metaphor" are all extremely dubious.

All in all, this is one of the most disturbing examples of deceptive promotion of a very obscure crank theory which I have yet encountered in the Wikipedia. This article should be deleted without delay.---CH 01:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: too many problems, as listed in the Bios theory talk page.  — XaosBits 03:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research and dishonest to boot. In addition to CH's arguments, I was extremely surprised to see this article cite the well-known Chirikov (et al) for the statement "Bios is generated mathematically by feedback processes". A searchable version of the paper is here; note how it says nothing about "bios". Melchoir 04:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  I apologize for this. My mistake. I wrote this from my head and have wrongly interpreted what I read. The right quotation from the Bios book is: Biotic patterns are also generated by a number of nonlinear equations described by Chirikov4 and others, and investigated as a model for deterministic diffusion without remarking on a new pattern distinct from chaos, or on the concept of biotic feedback.[16]Lakinekaki

• Delete Little quoted, little known theory. Details which would be notable either make no sense or are not accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Arthur Rubin and WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete : OR. - GWO

Hello! I just discovered error in the isometry (novelty) definition. Maybe that's why the article didn't make sense to you! Please read it here User:Lakinekaki/Bios_theory#Isometry_recurrence and tell me if it makes any difference for you in understanding the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakinekaki (talk • contribs)

I think that the idea that this page contains errors that noone else can notice only further makes the case that it is trivial if not OR. --EMS | Talk 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

People did notice it. Definition didn't make sense to anyone, I just don't know how I didn't see it earlier!Lakinekaki 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On his user talk page, Lazar Kovacevic now admits his real life identity . Lazar has had a great deal of time to improve this article but despite long outstanding serious objections has made little improvement, and now he wants to ask for more time since he just discovered an error in the definition of the only bit (as he admits) where "bios theory" can claim some novelty, the so-called "novelty" (and even this is not so novel; I could give much earlier citations of similar notions). Wikipedia users should not write articles on very obscure theories to which they have contributed and then try to "correct" their own paper after other WP users point out serious defects! Lazar, please see again WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:VAIN.---CH 04:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean On his user talk page, Lazar Kovacevic now admits his real life identity . Look at histories of my user page and user talk page, and you'll see for how long are those comments and links there. Your detective work surprised me since there is the first link on my userpage that speaks for itself. It guides to complexity paper where my name stands next to bios paper, and my email is lakinekaki@yahoo.com. It gives the whole thing:

Quantum bios and biotic complexity in the distribution of galaxies Hector Sabelli, Lazar Kovacevic * Chicago Center for Creative Development, Chicago, Illinois 60614; email: Lazar Kovacevic (lakinekaki@yahoo.com) *Correspondence to Lazar Kovacevic, Chicago Center for Creative Development, 2400 Lakeview Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614

If I ever had secret agenda or intention do deceive, would I ever put this link on my user page. I don't understand why you did detective work, when I made things so obvious. Lakinekaki 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You can accuse me for WP:VAIN, but the only reason I put one reference with my name is because there were 5 other names in that reference, and some editors wanted to see that there were more people involved in bios, and not just Sabelli. Lakinekaki 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, immediately - with extreme prejudice I have no specialist knowledge of chaos theory and was using wikipaedia as a first resource. I have just spent one hour following the debate about this article. Why has it not already been deleted? Its continued existence brings wikipedia's reputation into decline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs) 12:43, May 16, 2006

  Kindly be advised that a global open content encyclopedia like this must (as things now stand) be taken with a grain of salt. It should be used as a way to get a sense of the subject, and as a resource for other resources. As for deleting this article: There is a process involved with it, which is working. It will take several more days before enough time will have elpased and the admins will rules on this request. This page will then be removed (as there is a consensus to do so). However, each AfD action needs to be ruled on individually, as there have been cases of deletion being requested for individual articles. (Note however that if this page reappears quickly that it can be speedily re-deleted.) --EMS | Talk 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as nonsense made up in college.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dixon's rule

Made-up nonsense rule. Zero related google hits on "Dixon's rule". {{unsourced}} and {{prod}} removed without comment. Weregerbil 09:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the nonsense. Vizjim 10:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - college student lark Peripitus 10:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What, are you kidding me? Steveo2 11:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. Kukini 12:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Marked as {{db-nonsense}}. Speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 {{nn-band}}. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rattlin' Bog

Non-notable band, no claim approaching WP:BAND. Nothing on amazon.com, google hits seem unrelated (a song by the same name). Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 10:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No claims for notability as per WP:Music - albums, singles, chart positions, notable members, tours.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Zaxem 10:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; There's an impassioned (and out-of-place) preface to the article stating, if I may summarise, that Folk bands are unique in that their importance cannot be crudely determined by the standards wikipedia requires. Having played in 2 folk bands and with many folk musicians (none of whom are worthy of an article here, obviously including myself), it is my considered opinion that WP:MUSIC / WP:BAND applies to folk bands just as much as it applies to other forms of music. This notability hasn't been asserted or implied in the article, and Google returns me no hits related to the band that I can see. I certainly wouldn't question the impact the band may have on their dedicated audience, but that impact alone does not make any band worthy of a encyclopedia article. (I love the song of the same name, by the way.) Colonel Tom 11:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Colonel Tom. --Metropolitan90 13:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; following Col. Tom's cogent comments, I'm a folkie myself. That being said, the concept of notability embodies notability to the world at large. A practitioner of an art form doesn't automatically become notable just because few people care about the art form. It's sad that more people will watch the next American Idol ep than have ever or will ever attend a folk concert, but them's the breaks. RGTraynor 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. The tone of the article also smacks of vanity (or maybe just rabid fanboyism) IMO. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a non-notable band. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Computerjoe's talk 08:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berel Wein

It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Poorly written yes, but better to tag the page for references etc... and wait for someone knowledgable to expand and make encyclopediac. I can't read through [172K Google hits] but can see at least a dozen books by him.Peripitus 12:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep absolutely! This is not the first time a poorly-written article has been written as a first draft about a famous person. Rabbi Berel Wein is unquestionably one of the world's best known Orthodox rabbis. The reason there are commercial links attached to his name is that he is an international lecturer and celebrity (doesn't Madonna have commercial links?), he has written many books, and he is sought out by many people for his popular tapes and CDs. He had an important career and history as a noted rabbi and yeshiva dean not related to his later commercial successes. This vote is uncalled for and the nominator obviously knows less than nothing about the subject of the article and its related content. People should stick to their areas of expertise and not stick their noses into subjects just because they do a Google search and use that as their standard of whatever it is they think they have learned. IZAK 12:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously Rabbi Wein is a well-known man, and having information on this website is helpful to people who want information on everything. The fact that a Google search would turn up "commercial" results speaks to the fact that Rabbi Wein is contemporary: his writings are just coming out. Lets have as much information as possible Drboisclair 12:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
• Keep X 3. (1) As an author alone he qualifies (having over 5000 book distributed). (2) As a well known influential rabbi, he is also notable. (3) He is also VERY notable as being an orthodox rabbi and Jewish historian, and one of the few people qualified to give an authentic orthodox perspective on historical issues. For any one of the above reasons he is notable, with all three there is not question. Jon513 13:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Amazon shows [17] that he's a notable author, and as such deserves a Keep SPEEDY KEEP. Vizjim 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a good deal more notable than many of the Southern Baptists we are unable to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• (A) First of all, justified afd. I'd like everyone to take a step back and pretend that this Rabbi (who I've never heard of living in Israel) was someone else, perhaps another clergy from another religion. Would the article, written as it is, be acceptable, credible, and justified to pass afd? I've seen other similarly 'famous' people and organizations deleted. (B) If someone is not going to take the time to fix up the article in the very near future, then delete. 1) We have no evidence of 5000 books written, 2) "There, he founded a synagogue, and later, a Yeshiva, which he ran for 20 years" names please?, 3) "VERY notable", "well-known"? Please add external links to non-puff articles written about him to prove this. (C) The unilateral removal of the afd tag is very suspicious of that editor's intentions. You can't have it both ways, this is a world encyclopedia, not some private tribe initiative. If this Rabbi Wein is so famous and well-known, then leaving this article as is and just slapping an 'expand' tag on it for 'someone' else to do the work eventually, does no justice to wikipedia or Rabbi Wein. At least bring it up to this standard Tony Robbins. Only if, that is done, keep. Perhaps cut down the stub into a short paragraph with fact-only and referenced info until it can be expanded.--Shuki 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Gosh, no, I can't find evidence of 5000 books written. Amazon.com has a mere 120 hitsfor Wein's books. I don't care if he's a Jew, a Biblethumper, an agnostic or a mushroom-worshipper, that's notable output just on authorship alone. Strong Keep. RGTraynor 15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Shuki: Rabbi Berel Wein is famous in the English-speaking Orthodox world, he made aliyah about ten years ago, and in Israel he spends most of his time writing English Torah books and articles as well as lecturing at the English-speaking baal teshuvah yeshivas, so maybe that is why you have not heard of him (though it's hard to imagine that someone who writes English as well as you do should not have heard of Berel Wein?) Your suggestion, actually more of a THREAT, that: "If someone is not going to take the time to fix up the article in the very near future, then delete" is utterly ridiculous because that is NOT the way we do business on Wikipedia! (See my comments below). No-one said that he had "written" 5,000 books! Read what Jon said above: "having over 5000 book distributed" (don't you read and understand English?) In fact that is a very low figure because I would estimate that probably it's more like 50,000 or 100,000 of Rabbi Wein's -- probably more. He has his own publishing house called Shaar Press as well that works with ArtScroll. The name of the yeshivah he founded, which is still ongoing, is Yeshiva Shaarei Torah of Rockland and his synagogue was Congregation Bais Torah of Suffern, New York [18] No-one said the article was perfect, but that alone is NEVER a reason to delete it, and anything similar on Wikipedia, where editors invarioubly come along and improve factually correct articles (hopefully!) IZAK 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Speedy keep, in fact. Unjustified AFD. Do not use AFD to enforce content quality. Sometimes "commercial" links can obscure the fact that someone is widely published. Rabbi Wein is a collumnist for the Jerusalem Post, a prominent former member of the USA Orthodox Rabbinate and the author of four highly respected popular works of history. He is regarded as an authority on the history of the Jewish people. JFW | T@lk 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly notable personality. If an article needs cleanup, clean it up. HKT 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rather famous, well-selling author. The fact that Amazon carries over 120 of his works says that he's notable, not "commercial". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Kukini 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I now see that it was perhaps an error for me not to check on Amazon first, but not knowing much about Judaism, it seemed highly suspicious to have someone who ran "a Yeshiva" (no name) for 20 years. I can point out a number of figured who will come up with many links but about whom we don't have an article. That being said, it is hardly vandalism to verify whether the contents of an article do indeed merit inclusion on Wikipedia, and what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaos come across it. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator? If so we can end this as a speedy keep as there have been no votes to delete.Jon513 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Err ... what's suspicious about running a yeshiva (which is nothing more offbeat than a religious school) for twenty years? I agree it's hardly vandalism to verify whether the contents of an article merit inclusion -- I do it all the time -- but disagree that advocating the deletion of an article is superior to basic fact checking, and disagree strongly that filing an AfD is a good way to improve articles. For my part, I can't see how an argument like "looks like a vanity project" trumps a lack of proper sourcing. RGTraynor 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's suspicious to run a yeshiva, but maybe the problem is that the article failed to identify the yeshiva by name so the fact could be verified. Anyway, keep as the subject's status as a Jerusalem Post columnist supports notability. --Metropolitan90 01:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • PZFUN: Apology accepted, but a serious question remains about your methodology concerning the best way to "clean up" poorly written articles. In over three years of editing Wikipedia articles I have never heard your rationale that: "put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaos come across it." HUH?! Where did you get such a weird idea from? And you are an admin yet? If you really believe that, then I suggest you stop doin such things right now, before you cause more harm than you may realize. Do you have any idea how Wikipedia started? There were mostly poorly written articles on NOTABLE subjects that were improved over time -- meaning YEARS! Nobody needs you to do "shock therapy" and cause chaos to get other editors' attention. You will only get yourself in more trouble, and complaints filed against you for being a ROGUE ADMIN! Kindly take a few steps back next time, and let this episode be a hard-learned lesson to you. Here's a simple rule for you: When in DOUBT (especially when you know that you know nothing about a subject) please consult other earlier edititors of articles. You could have consulted others who had contributed to the Berel Wein article and this mess could have been avoided.IZAK 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've only been on wp for six months, and in that short time, I have NEVER, EVER seen such a public chastisement of a fellow wp contributor, which IMO was totally uncalled for especially following an apology. IZAK, your claim that people shouldn't mess with subjects they don't understand is so lame and poor at the same time, irresponsible too. There is absolutely no reason to prevent other editors from wanting the improve the wp project in general and not just stick to 'goyish' things they know about. I've seen many, many improvements to Jewish articles made by goyim, baruch hashem they don't think like you. I would have liked to place this comment on your page, but after rereading your relentless 13 line undressing of PZFUN, I couldn't let that pass while his blood was spilt. Vandals even get more respect from the community. You had absolutely no right to continue past the third line of that comment in this forum and should have taken it 'offline' with PZFUN on his talk page, for his public kavod, for wp standards of relevance to article talk page, and to this hillul hashem of a dressing down. Who are you to tell others to "take a few steps back"? Rogue admin?! Is this how Rabbi Wein would have reacted? --Shuki 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Shuki: First of all I don't need mussar from you. You are now the one who is introducing the detestable word "goyim" (which some regard as a slur) and in your florrid imagination ("I couldn't let that pass while his blood was spilt"???) you are interpreting and attributing words to me that I neither said nor meant, so cool it. I get along well with many editors (as long as they are not obvious anti-Semites). But you fail to address and realize the radical departure from Wikipedia editing policy that User:PZFUN was openly advocating and which I was vehemently objecting to, namely, that he thinks it's ok to tag articles written in a sub-par fashion with VfD tags to get the "attention" of other editors instead of sticking to the accepted conventional and required "article needs improvement" tags. This is something that is dangerous to all of Wikipedia not just Judaic subjects because it would seriously harm the development of articles about important subjects that very often are started in a very amateurish way, but which do improve with time (it sometimes takes years). But what User:PZFUN openly advocates, and he chose to illustrate this with the Berel Wein article (I dunno, maybe he thought no-one was looking...), is to "throw a bomb" at the article and have it voted out, in a rather inept way, as I have already explained. So save your misguided and pathetic "righteous rage" for a better cause because as far as I am concerned, any intelligent editor, especially an admin, should know better. IZAK 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Poor research combatting poor research. Continued on your talk page. --Shuki 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Without wanting to insert anything into your edit, the correct way have cited this should have been Afd tag removal from Berel Wein ... by this comment. IZAK 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly notable enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Keep very notable author. Does not look like a vanity project. Looks like a badly researched AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Very well known individual. Article desperately needs to be cleaned up though, so it doesn't look like a vanity project.
• Keep Seems very notable Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and remove all those unnecessary tags! - Rabbi Berel Wein is a major Jewish figure well known in the Orthodox Jewish world. I stand among tens of thousands (and perhaps far more) in owning some of his books. Nesher 23:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Mazel Tov to IZAK on the cleanup and expansion of this article. As per my previous condition above, keep. --Shuki 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Shuki: On a kinder note: Thank you, but really, we do not generally really extend "Mazel Tovs" on Wikipedia, because this is not a kumzits, we are gathering of Encyclopedia editors. IZAK 12:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a gathering, it's a community. and FWIW, as much as I want to punch out IZAK right now, I also want to invite him for a felafel. --Shuki 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well now Shuki, let me ask you, is threatening me with physical violence any worse than Wikipedia:No legal threats for which you can get blocked on the spot on Wikipedia?! Actually, I think it's worse, and makes a mockery of your words of advice to me to be "kindler and gentler" to others. Kindly refrain from making such comments, even when in jest (since humor is hard to read in an Internet discussion such as this), another editor may not be as charitable as me and may actually take you seriously and ask for protection from your threats etc. Hey, what does "FWIW" mean? I am not familiar with all your jargon. As for eating, why do you think a falafel is the solution to life's problems? Maybe cholent is a better solution? IZAK 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per everybody above. I think it's about time to remove the AfD tag, no? And also to kindly chill out. IZAK, a very established and well-respected user, just got blocked a half-hour ago over a matter that should not have come to this. Please let us all move on and work together to make Wikipedia a better place. --DLand^TALK 05:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi DLand: I was unblocked very quickly by another admin. Thank you for your words, I agree with you. IZAK 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah

It is not clear why Striver created this article, since all the events in it have already been exhaustively covered in Saqifah and Succession to Muhammad. Both those articles pay a great deal of attention to the Shi'a view of things and give many links and quotes. All that is gained by having a "Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah" article is the opportunity for one Shi'a to state his views at great length without having to face any criticism. Striver has a long history of creating poor quality Shi'a-POV-forks. Here we go again. Zora 10:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I created this article to detail the Shi'a view of the event. It is in no way covered in this detail and depth, not in the main article, and not in the Succession to Muhammad article. Neither of those articles desribe how the Shi'a portray where the the people where, what they did, and why they did that, and we all know that Shi'a have a different presentation of this particular event, as well as other event, compared to Sunnis. "Without having to face any criticism" is incorrect, articles describing a patricular viewpoint have always a "criticism" sections to them, see for example 9/11_conspiracy_theories#Criticism, a spin out article created to present a minority view in detail, and it has a large Criticism section. A lengthier explanation of the justifications for this article and the relevant wikipedia policies that support and even demand the creation of this kind of articles, clearly proving that this is not a pov fork according to wikipedia policies and definitions can be found here --Striver 11:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, content fork of material that could be/is already covered in other articles.--Jersey Devil 13:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

JD, where can i read Where Abu Bakr was before he got to Media? Where can i read whom accompanied them? Where can i read whom helped Ali? Where can i read the Shi'a view of each of this specific issues? Nowhere you said? Oh, thats right, you can only do that in this article. --Striver 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you cannot find out about this information anywhere else, how does anyone know about it now? Plainly one does not have to come to partisan religious slants on articles to find out. Certainly I don't see any articles with competing Catholic-Protestant-Jewish-Islamic-Mormon-etc. POVs on common events. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think his point was not that you cannot find it anywhere, but cannot find it anywhere else on Wikipedia. I have no strong opinion about this myself, but as for multiple articles expressing alternate religious views, there is the sequence Jesus, Judaism's view of Jesus, Jesus (prophet in Islam). --Saforrest 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so, but that's an analogy akin to comparing the notability of an article about George Bush to one about the president of a high school science club. Now if there were multiple articles on (say) the Wedding at Cana, that would be noteworthy. RGTraynor 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If Striver really wants to know about the aborted expedition of Usama ibn Zayd, I can consult Ibn Ishaq and Tabari and give some references. But he didn't ask for more info, or make any attempt to improve the quality of the two existing articles. He just made the breakout article. IMHO, breakout articles should "bud" off established articles. When a section is getting extremely long and argumentative, and threatens to unbalance the entire article, then you say, "OK, let's make this a breakout article" and everyone says, "Yes, that makes sense" and it is done. Zora 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a POV fork. - Irishpunktom\^talk 14:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice - Point Of View, and can't be anything else. Vizjim 15:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote. I've just spent some time researching this and have come to the conclusion that I'm not qualified to come to a conclusion. Vizjim 08:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. KleenupKrew 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator states and examination makes it clear the this is a POV fork. Dr Zak 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not just POV, but inherently POV. -- Kicking222 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this page is inherently POV. Come on, look at the title! M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The title isn't really the problem. One could have articles like Catholic views of the Eucharist, Protestant views of the Eucharist, Orthodox views of the Eucharist and so on if the main article on the Eucharist had gotten too large and unwieldy to include all the denominations and their interpretation of the rite. Indeed we have such articles. This case here is different, however. Someone split off from an article to present his and his own viewpoint of history. Such behavior makes it impossible to police articles for correctness and impartiality. Dr Zak 02:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This info was in fact in the main articl, see here [19]. But it was claimed to unbalance the article, so i moved it to a break out article. As Dr Zak and RGTraynor has stated, the article in it self is not pov, we already have as stated Jesus, Judaism's view of Jesus, Jesus (prophet in Islam), but also Christian views of Jesus, and even Mormon view of Jesus. For more info about wikipedia policies that prove the article title is not pov, see here. --Striver 18:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, this event is not some random event, the "George Bush to one about the president of a high school science club", this is the MAIN event that caused the Shi'a-Sunni split, so it fully natural that Shi'a and Sunnis have widely different views of the event. If you look through it, you will se that the article is well sourced from Shi'a sources, and also Sunni sources that Shi'a have drawn other conclusions from. And no Zora, im not talking about Usamas expedition, im talking about the entire event, such as why did abu Bakr not inform anyone, why did Umar inform Abu Bakr in secret, why was a grave digger following them and such. This point of views are some times not even recoqnized as factual by Sunnis. --Striver 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, i strongly reject and feel insulted by Zoras "the opportunity for one Shi'a to state his views at great length", specialy since i have heavily sourced most, if not all statments in the article. This is NOT only my view, all sources i included show that this is the offical Shi'a view. --Striver 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Shi'a POV is well-represented in the Saqifah article. Including Abu Bakr's failure to tell Ali about the meeting. Striver, if you want Umar telling Abu Bakr secretly, it can go in there, but you're going to have to reference it. That part isn't in Ibn Ishaq and I don't have the relevant volume of Tabari. The bit re "gravedigger" is neither in the main article NOR in Striver's article, so it's bizarre that you're claiming that the omission of this factoid/rumor/whatever is a fault in the main article. As for much of the other material you've included in your version of Saqifah -- it's not covered in the Saqifah article because it's covered elsewhere.

Striver IS creating a parallel Shi'apedia full of badly-written, sub-standard articles. Here are the currently existing articles that start with "Shi'a view of ...":

• Shi'a view of Abu Bakr
• Shi'a view of Abu Huraira
• Shi'a view of Ali
• Shi'a view of Hasan ibn Ali
• Shi'a view of Muawiyah I
• Shi'a view of Umar
• Shi'a view of the meeting at Saqifah
• Shi'a view of the Sahaba

In none of these cases were the articles created by an organic budding. They are Striver creations and to a great extent, they remain Striver's private domain. They are badly-written, confused, and above all, repetitive. They are evidence of a failure to collaborate. Please, let's not reward this sort of behavior. Zora 19:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the difference:

Main article:

It is no accident, the Shi'a claim, that the meeting at the saqifah happened while Ali, Fatima, and Muhammad's immediate kin were preparing his body for burial. Abu Bakr and Umar left without notifying Ali of the meeting. This was a deliberate ploy to cut Ali out of the deliberations.

Shi'a view of article

While Umar and Abu Bakr where in Muhammad house, a Ansar called out Umar personaly and informed him of the meeting in the shed of Banu Sa'ida. Umar called out Abu Bakr and informed only him about it. Shia believe this to be another proof of the complicity. Umar and Abu Bakr left for the meeting without mentioned it to the Banu Hashim or anybody else present in Muhammads house, and instead left them to tend for Muhammads body. Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah joined them on the way while they were going to the meeting.

Shia also point out that Umars desicion to abandon the funeral preparations and walking to a political meating does not support the notion that he was emotionaly devatated to the point of derangment a few moments ago [12].

The main article version is only a summary, it omitts the details of the Shi'a view, that first Umar was called out, then he called out Abu Bakr. it Also does not mention about Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, the grave digger. It neither comments on the Shi'a view of Umars action, that Shi'a view this as proof of his earlier grief being a charade. The reference is here. The Shi'a have a lot to say about the matter, just see here [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. This kind of information , even one tenth of it, can not fitt into the main article without getting undue weight. Its not only about Umar on that moment, its about all the details that the Shi'a view article has, that is not present in the main article.

The articles i have created are celebreated by the other Shi'a editors, they have given me awards for it. That proves that Shi'a view those articles as doing a good job at represening the Shi'a view accuratly. It is only to bad that we dont have more Shi'a editors that can put up articles about the Shi'a view of events. Whenever there are widely different views on the matter, wikipedia dictats that sub articles are to be created to deal with each one in detail, i have already mentioned Jesus, see also Moses and Musa (prophet). There are many articles of the "Shia view of" since Shi'a dissagree with the Sunni view on many aspects, and hence they have their own article to not dominate the main. Just from the answering-ansar links i just gave, it can be easly seen that this article is higly debated. The same is true for the Shi'a view of Umar, all that information can not be put into Umar without giving it undue weight. See here for Wikipedia policies about that: Im sorry if my english is not perfect, but as my awards show, its better than not having the articles in the first place. --Striver 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to give a contrast to your list:

• Christian views of Jesus
• New Testament view on Jesus' life
• Christian views of women
• Christian views of Hanukkah
• Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah
• Anglican views of homosexuality
• Unification Church views of homosexuality
• Christian views of slavery

As can be seen, there are "Christian views of" articles for all the controversial subjects. The Sahaba, ie Abu Bakr, Abu Huraira, Ali and such are very controversial in the Shi'a-Sunni world. So is the Saqifah event. It is true that i am the one writing most of the Shi'a articles, but that is not due to me not geting along with the other Shi'a editors, its due to the simple fact that i am the only active Shi'a editor. And hence, its natural that me, the only active Shi'a editor, created most of the articles. I really wish there where more active Shi'a editors, and i am sorry i dont have a better expertice of the english language. --Striver 21:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Normally in such a case I would agree w/Striver's logic - but this article is so intrinsically linked to the whole Sunni/Shi'a issue that these POV's should both be covered in same article, otherwise it would be a POV Fork.Bridesmill 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Im all for having the Shi'a pov in the main article, but as soon as Zora starts deleting info saying its nonsense or it unbalances the article or other such things, ill readd them to the break out. i dont really care where the info is, just that it is there. As i showed, i had it on the main article to start with, but it was deleted for being to long, so it needed a break out article. --Striver 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, regaring Zoras false allegation that i only try to make a "Shi'apedia":

• Sunni view of Abu Huraira
• Sunni view of Ali
• Sunni view of the Sahaba

I try to cover both povs, if i get around to do that, but of course do i prefer to cover my own pov, specialy since im the single editor. --Striver 01:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Even Zora keeps professing that all POVs should be always covered. And 2 years of experience on WP editing has shown me, striver, and Zora, that it is impossible to keep the Shia, Sunni, and what Zora calls "academic" view of things peacefully under one article. Sooner or later, one version will start forcefully eclipsing the other versions as being "factual", expanding the article out of proportions, and subsequently causing the trimming of the article at the expense of one version or the other. It has happened 150 times on these Shia articles, and Zora is always the party involved. Therefore it is totally reasonable to have seperate articles for each view, and then link them to one another. That way, the peace is kept, and all versions are fully presented. If there are overlaps, all the better. They would only illustrate that the Sunni vs Shia views do share many commonalities. Besides, how would you truly claim to know about Islamic idea, history, and culture if you refuse to acknowledge the views of Sunnis and Shias each. Youll just be missing out on the information, or to put it better: deleting yourself from knowing this information. Or perhaps, the Shia view is merely intended to be silenced? Why else make such efforts to delete information? Ive always said deleting information is always a bad idea. Let the reader judge which view is the correct "factual" view.--Zereshk 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Striver, if you feel the main article is not NPOV, then collaborative editing, not creating your own sub-article, is the solution. Yes, I know just how frustrating that gets, but these kinds of forks, in my opinion, are detrimental to Wikipedia's procedure of acheiving NPOV articles through collaboration. Two POV articles on a subject are worth far less than one NPOV one. In other words - this is information that, to the extent that it's verifiable, should go into the main article. --Hyperbole 02:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you say that both versions are POV. I do not agree that either version is Pov, i did not creat this since the main article is pov. I created this since the main article did not represent the Shi'a view in a detailed enough maner. And it can not do it witout giving it undue weight. I agree that two POV articles is a horrible way to solve something, howver, i do not agree that either article is pov, rather that it reports about different POVs. Could you please explain to me how either article is POV? Thanks. --Striver 09:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Jesus and Christian views of Jesus: two perfecly NPOV article reporting about different POVs, the Chrisitianity view can not be merged into the main article since it would give it undue weight. Same here. --Striver 09:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep I agree with Zereshk and Striver--212.6.32.3 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

coment Could anyone answer this: Why are the "<Islamic denomination> view of x" articles pov forks in your view, while Christian views of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus not POV forks? Thanks for answering. --Striver 09:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are POV forks. The information in those articles is largely redundant with Jesus and should be merged. If this causes Jesus to become overlong, forks should be based on content (e.g. Chronology of Jesus) and not on POV, which simply encourages one-sided editing. Jews should be contributing to editing Jesus - they should not abandon that artice in favor of working on Jewish view of Jesus. That would present us with two substandard articles. (I'm not saying that this editing problem currently exists, but it certainly has the potential to.) --Hyperbole 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPConvert

prod was removed by 80.41.159.84 without comment; advertisment Optimale ^Gu 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no place for adverts here Peripitus 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Kukini 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertsing, per WP:CORP. --BrownHairedGirl 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete completely non-notable. At least it doesn't sound TOO much like a ad. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince George’s Park Residences

Article does not assert the notability of this building. It may be the largest student residence in NUS, but surely there are larger student residences in universities elsewhere. Delete.

(Note that the article was previously deleted after its first AfD, but this re-creation is almost certainly different from the first. It's still not notable IMO.) Kimchi.sg 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN per WP:SBW (So Bloody What?). Seriously, who cares? It's a dorm building. Colleges tend to have them. They're not quite as non-notable as the sidewalks outside, but pretty durned close. (Plainly I need more tea this morning.) RGTraynor 14:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per RGTraynor. (is SBW policy? if not, maybe it should be.) -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; nah, I made it up on the spot, and the essay I'd write on it wouldn't likely be fluffy enough for the WP:CIVIL-hawks. Even so, AfD would have a lot less business if more editors made a NPOV judgment as to the likelihood anyone would care about a particular subject. RGTraynor 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're looking for WP:WTH. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. According to Wikipedia precedence, we keep dorm buildings if some girl got caught on photo performing a striptease there. In the absence of any releant evidence of that I was about to vote delete. Personally, I'd be willing to keep a dorm if it had an interesting history or some architecture of note, but this one seems to fail on those grounds as well. However, with 3,000 rooms in 30 blocks, this is pretty large - a whole neighbourhood rather than a single building. It would have been kept if it had been a village. And I also think I have seen much less notable American dorms around here, so it gets a few additional keep-points to counter systemic bias. u p p l a n d 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The existence or nonexistence of air conditioning and private bathrooms in a college dormitory is not encyclopedic material. To counter systemic bias, we ought to delete American dorms rather than keep foreign dorms. --Metropolitan90 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not because I am the one creating this article. PGPR is the largest student residence in NUS, occupying a significant percentage of the total area of 2km² of NUS. It can be considered to be a university village, as students can find most of the things they need in PGPR. Furthermore, the wikipedia article on NUS has links to this article, as well as to articles on other NUS' student residences, which are definitely not as large as PGPR. Some of these articles, such as Eusoff Hall or Raffles Hall, have been alive for months. There is apparently no reason why this article should be deleted. Mdanh2002 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Thanks for raising your objections, but we don't decide whether an article should stay just because other similarly non-notable buildings have articles as well. To spare the AfD crowd the pain of having to vote on these also, I'll merge and redir the others into the main National University of Singapore article (which is surprisingly lightweight). Kimchi.sg 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAI. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is something of importance merge it into National University of Singapore. Vegaswikian 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into National University of Singapore, while removing absolutely non-notable information, like rooms size and furniture, room categories, and the like. LjL 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future-Disco

a curious combination of original research and POV seemingly based on an out-of-context quote by Camille Paglia and attributed to Madonna. A new style of music invented by Madonna, and of which Madonna is currently the only exponent, it would seem. Rossrs 13:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Pak21 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's based on a comment made in advance of the album's release. Nobody's making such claims for the new genre now. Sort of past-tense crystalballism, if you will. Vizjim 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, at least until it gains some verifiable mainstream popularity. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Stubblyhead. If it gains popularity and if this term sticks, then there could be an article. But not yet, and (as per Vizjim), it doesn't seem likely that it will happen.. --BrownHairedGirl 17:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete future implies not yet the time for something. disco implies long past the time. This article is both. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete with references, I could be convinced otherwise Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Although I think the article needs to be edited and/or re-written i do not think it should be deleted. It comes off too much like a fan article on Madonna but there is some truth to the idea of this style/genre catching on. There is a remix by DJ Eddie Baez for Oakenfold featuring Brittany Murphy "Faster Kill Pussycat" that is titled "Eddie Baez's Future Disco Mix." This may very well be a genre of dance catching on. I don't think the article should be deleted, just edited. MJWMikeinrdgpaMJW
• Delete - Yeeesh, that's a bad article. Looks just like a second article for the Madonna album. No one refers to this as a real genre. The "style" is prevelent in the dance music community, but no one calls it "future disco". Sounds like a description Madonna may have used once during an interview if the interviewer happened to ask "so how would you describe the album in one word?" -- eo 02:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• You hit the nail right on the head. Madonna was asked how to describe the sound of her album and she dubbed it "future-disco." If anything there should be an article as a sub-genre of dance called "Nu-Disco." This style of dance has been around since the late 90's and some notable examples are Stardust "Music Sounds Better With You", Modjo "Lady (Hear Me Tonight)" and DJ Spiller "Groove Jet(If this Ain't Love)." Perhaps an article should be done on Nu-Disco with a mention of Future-Disco being another term for the genre. Just an idea.  :-) MJWMikeinrdgpaMJW

The tracks you mention above are really of the french house genre, for which an article already exists, albeit a very skeletal stub kinda thing that is begging to be expanded. -- eo 23:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate to mention "future disco" as another term for the genre, if Madonna is the only one using that term. Rossrs 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deeeelete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_video_game_collector_and_special_editions

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

• Delete Seems kinda pointless and is probably more suited for a category than an article.198.138.210.102 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Can become a very good resource for many people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.149.3 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Has potential to be quite the useful collector's resource.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.57.169 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Does have the potential to grow very large, but could be a good resource to a collector for rare or hard to find titles. 0:27 May 14 2006
• Article is poorly formatted listcruft. ES2 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Indiscriminate. Has the potential to grow pretty much indefinitely. Just zis Guy you know? 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is listcruft. Afonso Silva 13:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate listcruft, POV to boot (what constitutes a "collector's" or "special" edition other than a label marketing departments slap onto the box?) RGTraynor 14:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft material - in what way is this article useful for a researcher, either in terms of content or layout? None, so far as I can see.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

delete this cruftiness. Grutness...wha? 15:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, utter cruft. Very surprised to see that this wasn't one of Nintendude's. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. Voice of Treason 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, doesn't include a lot of information that anyone would really want. But, I'd propose a Category:Games that have been re-released as collector or special editions. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, is the author a sock of Nintendude? Stifle (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, WHAT YOU ALL SAW before (5 lines, zero formatting) was just a placeholder, sorry. I think it is immensely more useful now. Deusfaux
• Keep I think it's useful, and in response to what "RGTraynor" had to say, a special, or collectors edition of the game is one that contains extra features and is only produced once. any copy created after that would not have those special features or bonus items.
• Keep It is a good resource for collectors and others interested in games
• Keep i think this could be quite useful
• Keep Useful. Also, agree with above against what "RGTraynor" said. 12:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG delete List Cruft. Unmaintainable. Almost every game put out in Japan comes with a collector's version. If this stuff is notable it can be listed on the game's main page. --Kunzite 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This will only be a NA release list. And by myself in one night I've already covered the majority out there. There is only a handful released each year for all platforms. They are NOT like S.E. dvd titles. Deusfaux 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep still How is this unmaintainable? Look what I did by myself in an evening - and there's but a handful more out there to record. Yes NA releases only - or should I title the article to reflect that? One stop reference page for collectors/vg aficiandos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deusfaux (talk • contribs) .
• Delete Listcruft —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.27.223 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Very handy, and much improved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.199.239.197 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep There is no reason to delete this. Keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanius (talk • contribs) .
• Delete This should be moved into a category, which would be much easier to maintain. However, until that change is made I will continue to add to this page. Lews Therin 19:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This could be a very useful resource for a lot of people. BlazeHedgehog 20:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is very useful information for a lot of people who would like to know about special versions of games. It isn't anywhere near being linkcruft. FyreWulff 22:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note I've completed the conversion of this page into a category. It is available at Category:Games with special editions Lews Therin 00:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note I just want to reiterate that 80% of the "delete" votes were made before 10% of the pagework was done, and since it has been, the majority of input has been to keep the page. If anything I have learned not to put up unfinished work Deusfaux 10:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You may find the {{inuse}} tags useful for when you are working on an article. You can also put a notice on the appropriate Talk page indicating that you are in the middle of fleshing out the article and would therefore appreciate people waiting until you finish it up before jumping in with an AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this list; it's pointless. Quotation from above: "This is very useful information for a lot of people who would like to know about special versions of games" -- but if somebody's interested in a particular game they can look up that game. -- Hoary 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• So you think people should just visit hundreds of games pages at random to discover whether or not said games have L.E.'s? That seems so counter-productive/inefficient and makes the assumption all those pages even mention any such L.E. or what they might include. Deusfaux 04:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Computerjoe's talk 09:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Across the Bay

Completely non-notable blog, no sources. I almost Csd'd it, but it claims to be "the first Lebanese blog" so I am listing on Afd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability, A7. I don't see anything about a "first Lebanese blog" myself, but I'd figure that a genuine "first" Lebanese blog would be written in French, myself. The Alexa rank is over 4.5 million. However, I'm not so sure after digging a bit deeper through Google. Surprisingly for such a poor Alexa ranking, a directed Google search turns up a lot of hits; this blog is quoted in a lot of places and on some serious sites. This fellow sounds genuinely respected. RGTraynor 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A fair number of google hits, got a nod from PBS in regards to the situation over there. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but it really needs some cites -KC's point is well taken. Here's a cut and paste I posted from a disscusion re: Badran as a source from Talk:Juan Cole.

"Actually, maybe we should hold on a sec re: Badran. A google search shows independent sources identifying Tony Badran as author of "Across the Bay" [27], he's got some fairly heavy hitting endorsers listed on his blog Paul Berman, Martin Kramer, Reason (magazine) editors Michael Young and Charles Paul Freund, and he is an "Research Fellow, Levant" at The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. I don't know if the fact that his PhD is "pending" is the only salient point here." Armon 18:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per above. It's tagged for needing sources etc, so let's see what happens. --BrownHairedGirl 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. KleenupKrew 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per KleenupKrew, but it might be the first Lebanese blog. That's too hard to verify, however. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing suggest that this is more notable than many thousands of other blogs in existence. Not encyclopedia material. Zaxem 01:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. cited on a large number of respectable sites. Isarig 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Armon, Isarig RGTraynor's observations. Obviously needs better sourcing, but a current lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. JoshuaZ 00:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you're looking for cites, that's easy. Just do a Google search. Let me cite but a few examples: Michael Young (the first to cite Across the Bay) in Reason Hit and Run, Martin Kramer of MartinKramer.org, Judith Weiss of Kesher Talk, Joshua Landis of Syria Comment, Lee Smith (in several Slate articles), Charles Paul Freund in Reason Hit and Run as well as a Daily Star op-ed, The Daily Kos, HNN, and many more. They all cite Badran as the author of the blog following Michael Young, who knows Badran personally. Finally there is a citation by Badran himself in a research article he published in Mideast Monitor in February, available online, where he identifies himself in the byline as the author of the blog. Just by way of example. 15:29, 15 May, 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anderson_Agostino_&_Keller_PC

NN adcruft. Only editor is "Aaklaw", pretty obviously an employee.ES2 13:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as adspam. RGTraynor 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable law firm, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. Author is employer of subject. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Which CSD criteria is this? DarthVader 23:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. DarthVader 23:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. DVD+ R/W 23:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7/7 Truth Movement

No secondary sources, original research; link farm for conspiracy sites. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable and verifiable. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It certainly is worth keeping, I cannot seriously believe it would be considered for an AfD!I know the website is moved after a hack and is being put on a free hosting site temporarily, but it will be back, under different titles but this is the main. References to the actual title is [28] [29] What is happening to Wikipedia? Do the government have a hand in it? LOL In fairness, I was warned about this. I say keep, it is extremily notable and verifiable and is only growing. As with 9/11 Truth Movement it is not "official" but is a loose knit group happy to be under this title. I believe THIS is the temporary site, I will check with my contacts. FK0071a 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment- According to his user page, User:FK0071a is a member of this group. :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As the article says, "The 7/7 Truth Movement is informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious", which I translate, probably unjustifiably, to mean "The 7/7 Truth Movement is three men and a dog with an internet connection who argue with everyone they meet and don't get on terribly well with each other, either". They certainly don't seem to have had any influence whatsoever on the national debate. NN conspiracy nonsense. Vizjim 15:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - true, however, this doesn't seem to apply to the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I do not see that up for an AfD! Also, under Alex Jones the 7/7 Truth Movement are making a documentary along the lines of the 911 In Plane Site and 9-11: The Road to Tyranny [30] documentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FK0071a (talk • contribs)

• Keep, just as real, verifiable and encyclopedic as the 9/11 Truth Movement [31] --Striver 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, a MySpace link to a blog! That is sure notability proven! User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Sherlock it is, especially as it is Paul Joseph Watson's blog stating about the documentary being made. In addition, PrisonPlanet.tv (which you do not subscribe to) states the obious with all kinds of references to counter Wikipedias Communistic bias FK0071a 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If this article is deleted I will nominate the 9/11 Truth Movement for deletion. That article's existence is not proof of anything: it has not been nominated for deletion and its legitimacy has not been discussed. Vizjim 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Has the 9/11 Truth Movement been referenced, other than references to their web site. The web site might be notable, and the "movement" not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Save us all the trouble and read WP:POINT first. TheProject 18:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. How would following precedent be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? I think that this article ("7/7 Truth Movement") should be deleted. I think that "9/11 Truth Movement" should be deleted for the same reasons. However, I will see what the consensus here is before nominating multiple articles on the same basis. Entirely in keeping with WP:POINT: in fact, that's the point of WP:POINT! Vizjim 15:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This page does not give an opinion but merely provides an explanation itto the movement. it doesnt at any time give any give an opinion top the validity of the statement. It is also verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeychild222 (talk • contribs)

Comment- User:Monkeychild222 created May 11, 2206 and has four edits. :) Dlohcierekim 00:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As a link farm and OR. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kilo-Lima above; no verification that there is a formal organization other than people holding a common viewpoint. --mtz206 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, three Google hits for "7/7 Truth Movement". User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very small number of google hits for the term. If the article is kept, the term will perpetuate. Wikipedia shouldn't be used in this way. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Vizjim. --Nydas 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence provided a notable movement exists, fails google test spectacularly. Non-notable club, CSD A7 applies. Weregerbil 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonotable by many standards. --Mmx1 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

to creator of article: Welcome to wikiland!

To others:

A 7/7 truth movement is emerging. So far, the most comprehensive introduction we have seen is at Julyseventh.co.uk. This well-organized compendium includes a discussion of possible scenarios, a growing timeline, archives of news stories, many links to other 7/7 skeptics, the widely-distributed "77 Unanswered Questions About 7/7," by John Doe II, and a section on the relevance of 9/11. [32]--Striver 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --mtz206 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant this: A 7/7 truth movement is emerging. You know, it is up and comming...--Striver 11:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it is comming? Isn't that speculation and original research? gidonb 20:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Worth keeping.Jordy 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What a world we live in. Any nobody with an extreme opinion and a big mouth can put up a website and suddenly be "notable" enough for an encyclopedia article about themselves. KleenupKrew 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The 7/7 Truth Movement is a collection of groups, individuals, and researchers questioning the official account of 7/7 who disagree to varying degrees with the mainstream media account of what occurred during the July 7th, 2005 London bombing attacks.This smells like a neologism for a number of conspiracy theorists, the only thing the have in common being they believe in a "7/7" conspiracy. Dr Zak 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have never heard of this 'movement' and I live just a few hundred yards from where one of the bombs went off. Nothing has appeared in the local papers nor in the national press. The lack of sources is very telling. David | Talk 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment Yes David, so, just because the controlled media doesn't respond means that their is nothing going on? Laughable! I live hundreds of miles away and have heard of this movement greatly, so where do we stand now? What a joke this is becoming. FK0071a 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a venue for the wider fringes of conspiracy theories. David | Talk 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. At the moment, they are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists. When we have reliable, verifiable

material available about them, then an article about them might be warranted. That time has not yet arrived. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is your problem that the information that they are supporting is not verifiable or that the existence of these conspiracy theorists are not verifiable. If a group of people have enough verifiable information about their existence, does it matter that what they present is not factual in order for the article about them to be factual?DanielZimmerman 03:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously the subject is notable. However, it seems that the group is not. At most, merge with Rumours_and_conspiracy_theories_about_the_July_2005_London_bombings. ScottW 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Valiantis 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and all above.--Jersey Devil 01:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all reasons given above. CalJW 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/rename/merge - The article links to other sites where people question the veracity of the events on that day. I would be ok with combining this page with other pages that deal with conspiracies pertaining to that day. DanielZimmerman 03:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others above. gidonb 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, verifiable, as much as the 9/11 version. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Striver. (I know he said Keep, but "emerging" means it doesn't exist yet.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. 1652186 18:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ScottW abakharev 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable yet. Merge and redirect per above suggested merge destination. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This specific organization has not done anything notable, even though they may be discussing notable things. --M@rēino 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as it does not appear to be verifiable judging from the inexistent number of Google hits and lack of any actual references on the article. LjL 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - waste of wikipedia space. This is NOT a serious organisation nor a serious article. It's ludicrous that anyone with access to an internet connection could just create such a storm in a teapot. Nesher 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Ezeu 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fighter McWarrior

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

871 Google hits. If this is not a hoax (which several people think it is), then it is clearly not independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the article for Fighter McWarrior, I am adding the following three characters to this AfD, which are all part of the same webcomic:

• Black Mage Evilwizardington
• Thief, Clan Khee'Bler
• Red Mage Statscowski

–Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This is one of quite a few character articles related to the webcomic 8-Bit Theater. Not a hoax, just a not particularly notable webcomic character. There is a shocking amount of text devoted to that comic on here. If this article is deleted (and it probably won't be), then these should be as well, with relevant information merged back into Characters of 8-Bit Theater:
  • Black Mage Evilwizardington
  • Thief, Clan Khee'Bler
  • Red Mage Statscowski

  — AKADriver ☎ 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have expanded this AfD to include all four of the 8-Bit Theater main characters. The Characters of 8-Bit Theater article has been ballooning for quite some time, and apparently has spilled over into these new articles. That wasn't the proper response. The characters article should have been pared down instead. We're writing encyclopedia articles here, not Cliff's Notes. I can't think of any instance where an individual webconic character merits its own article. (Yes, we have a few, but I plan on merging all of them into their parent articles in the near future). –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not entirely opposed to two separate 8-Bit Theater characters articles — one for the light warriors and the other for minor characters — but I'd prefer it if the contributors of the Characters article instead exercise some discipline. Contrary to what you may think, an exhaustive article covering fine details is not ideal. Unless you're already a fan, just reading an article like that is a real slog, let alone trying to keep it proofread, verifiable, and appropriate in tone. If an article can only be managed by dedicated fans, it is not useful. For once, notability is not a concern, but there certainly is an issue about respecting WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have expanded this AfD to include all four of the 8-Bit Theater main characters. Is this entirely appropriate? WP:DEL doesn't go into detail about it, but I think that each page should have its own discussion. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment For closely related articles, yes, it is appropriate. See WP:AFD#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as part of my belief that notability should play no part. Thanos6 16:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Question Oh! How come? :) Dlohcierekim 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Far as I'm concerned, if something exists (whether as a real thing, or a fictional thing in a work of fiction) and it can be proven, that in itself is notable. Thanos6 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm? As has been said many times, "I exist. Then why can't I have an article?" Because this is an encyclopedia, not a phone directory. Ifnord 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And who says an encyclopedia shouldn't define every possible thing? Thanos6 07:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

From the page What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Ifnord 16:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

With infinite storage space, there's no reason that should be true. Thanos6 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure w/ have infinite storage space-- hence the strain on the servers. The idea of potentially infinite storage space not withstanding, Wikipedia is still not an indescriminate collection. And the issue in my mind is still notability. :) Dlohcierekim 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, major character from a notable comic. If these articles have spilled out of the characters article, then there's clearly an interest in having more information about them available. -- stubblyhea

d | ^T/_c 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article "Charachters of 8-bit Theater" is entirely too big so I decided to move the top 4 chars to have their own article as to shorten it and neaten things up. Btw ne1 who still thinks this is a hoax, visit http://www.nuklearpower.com/
  In addition, many Articles concerning fiction have seperate articles for majore charachters, so there should be no problem with keeping these. -AK.

  It would have been better just to trim all the cruft out of Characters of 8-Bit Theater than to continue expanding it by splitting off the character articles. — AKADriver ☎ 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Or have an article on minor characters. This character is of no conceivable interest to anybody other than existing fans. Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  The article is too big because there is a belief that information on every single miniscule thing in the comic is needed. "In Episode 862, Fighter looked to the left in panel 3." We need to seriously trim it, I think. --R. Wolff 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Abe Dashiell. -- Dragonfiend 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into the Characters and either make a minor characters article or just take a chainsaw to it, but it isn't a hoax. Kotepho 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I don't think that webcomic characters should have their own pages, but there's a lot of information to go back on for new readers. It should be streamlined and shrunk. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Reorganize Combine these four articles into one entitled '8-Bit Theatre, The Light Warriors,' being the focuss of the series, an abundance of information is unavoidable... But I find the trivia amusing... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KefkaTheClown (talk • contribs) .
• Merge back into Characters of 8-Bit Theater. I don't have a problem with articles on individual characters, but I'm not sure there's enough information to justify splitting off the article. As mentioned in Black Mage Evilwizardington, the difference between comedy and canon is often ambiguous — therefore an ideal description of each character would be two or three paragraphs explaining their personality, backstory, and role in the plot. This would fit comfortably into Characters of 8-Bit Theater. Feezo (Talk) 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into Characters of 8-Bit Theater and then trim the cruft out of that article per AKADriver -- Hirudo 14:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki all to Comixpedia or possibly merge to the one article. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  Or Wikipidea can stop being gay and abolish Transwiki. As for mergeing everything to one article; no way. That would make the article extreremely huge.-AK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.250.30 (talk • contribs) .

• Merge back into Characters of 8-Bit Theater, per Feezo and Hirudo. Due to the nature of the comic, a biographical approach (as is being taken now) will just lead to longer and longer articles. As far as I'm concerned, the character information on the main 8-Bit Theater page is all that is necessary. If someone wants to know everything a character has done and every little quirk about that character, they can read the webcomic, or simply post a question on the webcomic's forums. - Kalarchis 20:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then propose Characters of 8-Bit Theater as non-notable webcomic for deletion as well. Ifnord 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Major characters of a well known comic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge back into Characters of 8-Bit Theater. -Sean Curtin 06:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into Characters of 8-Bit Theater for all the reasons stated. --R. Wolff 08:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• I suppose we should also delete all single-charachter articles from all other fiction as well? No says I! Deleteing, Mergeing, Transwiki, or anything else should not be done! -AK Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.250.30 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep How did this page get challenged for deletion, anyway? There's no issue here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.156.108.174 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep If we expect internet publications such as Wikipedia to become a respected medium alongside print media, then we should follow that same ideal with internet publications such as webcomics. If a manga series can have seperate pages for main characters even when the series itself is not that popular, than a popular webcomic such as 8 Bit Theatre that has defined so much of Final Fantasy fan culture deserves the same treatment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.131.235.58 (talk • contribs) .
• Merge, Trim, and Keep' to Characters of 8-Bit Theater] The overall subject is notable. If the individual characters increase in notability, we can recreate their individual articles. AN encyclopedia article need nt recount every move a character makes. :) Dlohcierekim 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete, Delete - Throw them back into their character articles and trim them up. The fact that the article on the mage is longer than the article on Alyx Vance, is not a fault of the Alyx Vance article. It is the fault of editors putting in every bit of stupid trivia there is into the mage article. Noting what every character has done throughout their sprite tenure at the comic is not for an encyclopedia. Yeah, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. - Hahnchen 15:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am transwikiing these to the Final Fantasy Wiki, and you can access these pages from there if you'd like. So far, Fighter and Black Mage have been transwikied, and I plan to work with the others later.

Crazyswordsman 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• They're all transwikied now. Anyway, I vote to merge 'em back. Crazyswordsman 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If we delete these articles, why not delete Dennis the Menace? Although I do confess it'd be a good idea to trim them down. Trivia like "The representation of his cardinal sin: Hubris, represented by a serpentine creature with a human face" for Red Mage is just silly.Crimson Shadow 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly, you have all these other charachter articles floating all over wikipidea and there not getting deleted/merged/transwikied. Keep -Admiral_Kelly
  • Comment - Maybe it's because series like Dennis the Menace and Street Fighter have had more cultural impact than any of these ever will? - Hahnchen 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How can you say that? Yes, the Beano and Street Fighter have had an impact. But if you're going to claim that a webcomic wont have the same impact purely because it's a webcomic, then why on earth are you contributing to the web-based Wikipedia?Crimson Shadow 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily Redirected. Eivind^t@c 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mar

Content merged into MAR Rmcii 14:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Guises of The Morrigan

This page is about a non-notable book. It might be a candidate for redirect to a page about the authors, but the fact that they self-publish makes me suspect they published through a vanity press. (I also suspect that the authors themselves created this article; its original text consisted solely of marketing copy.) I feel bad about doing this, but I don't see that this book meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and our role as an encyclopedia is not to give people free advertising. QuartierLatin1968 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:VAIN; Amazon sales rank of over 600,000. RGTraynor 15:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Failed google test. :) Dlohcierekim 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the record; see above. QuartierLatin1968 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Recent, self-published work. WP:VAIN, non-notable. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Chipmunk and a Lizard

This was a disputed prod. The editor who removed the prod without comment doesn't seem willing to engage in discussion. I've given my reasons on the talk page in hopes of getting the article to improve, but there's been no response. Anyway, the reason I suggest deleting is that there are no sources and no indication of significance for this website, and the alexa ranking shows no data whatsoever. This seems to fall far short of WP:WEB, and if no reputable third-party sources are talking about this, we can't do much with it either. Friday (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN; a mighty twelve unique Google hits and no Alexa ranking. (That aside, I wasted three minutes of my life going through some of the strips, and it's bloody lame. I need to go wash my eyes out with Diet Coke now or something.) By contrast, I follow two semi-daily webcomics. Something Positive is a reasonably popular strip, and has 27,000 Google hits, an Alexa ranking of 12,761, and its edit history on Wikipedia is several hundred deep. Questionable Content has 72,000 Google hits, an Alexa ranking of 8,243, and likewise edit history on Wikipedia is several hundred deep. RGTraynor 15:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment While I appreciate the NN suggestion, the above suggests to me that an important criterion is that the proposer simply didn't find the comic funny and hence not worth propagating. This is possibly the only difference between the aCaaL comic and other, Wikipedia-featured, web comics. There is a following for the web comic, albeit not a huge one. Also, it is clear that Google does not find all related webpages, as the missing link to http://www.harpingchipmunk.me.uk/chipmunk-lizard.shtml exemplifies. Cream-T 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I commend to you the words "That aside." There are a lot of painfully unfunny comics out there (anyone laughed at Family Circus this decade?) that are notable by way of circulation and verifiability. This one fails; if Google didn't find all the related webpages of one webcomic, it would logically not find those of ones far more notable. Traffic a thousandth of Something Positive still sucks. RGTraynor 20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not it at all. I find Hitler horribly unfunny, but we have an article on him. This is about verifiability, and (for those who believe in it), notability. Friday (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? Do the people who know about webcomics think this should be kept? I'd certainly welcome input from folks who have better knowlege of the subject matter. Friday (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's just a notification that we have added this AfD on own list of pending deletion nominations. If the individual members of the WikiProject have opinions, they will post them here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - And, as much to the point, a lot of (usually insignificant) webcomics get written up as articles, a lot get AfDed in return, and no one wants to see any deserving ones fall through the cracks; I remember Sabrina Online, which was legitimately one of the earliest known ongoing web comics, getting AfDed a month or so back. RGTraynor 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but for the record, the Sabrina AfD was an obvious case of bad faith. Someone was irritated that his furry comic of choice had been nominated, so naturally he plopped an AfD notice on the most popular furry comic. I killed that AfD before it went anywhere. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Now would be the time for someone with knowledge of the subject to make the case for keeping it. Generally, a comic strip with only 330 Google hits is considered not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If there is significant information that would counter this, now is the time. :) Dlohcierekim 16:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Incidently, their homepage is all but telling people to vote and keep the article.--Nydas 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hi, I'm Jonathan, one of the creators of the strip. I understand the grounds cited for deletion (except that the strip isn't always lame). But if it counts for anything, my partner and I have been posting the strip every weekday for four years now, we have a readership, and we are committed to keeping the strip going. If you need to delete it now, I'm hopeful that one day a Wikipedia entry will be warranted (i.e., the strip will be more widely known). When we stumbled upon the entry last night, we just thought it was nice that Wack'd About Wiki had written up something about the strip. (I see now that some additional notes were added by another attentive reader for us to thank.) (Sorry about the "ballot-stuffing" scare. We thought it was neat that someone put us on Wikipedia and wanted to tell our readers. When we saw there was a little controversy this morning about it, we amended the note to tell them that it might not be here forever.) JTh 20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: non-notable web comic. I see no evidence of significant print publication, or third party sources. --Hetar 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination (lack of reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:WEB) -- Dragonfiend 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and “Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so. :) Dlohcierekim 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no Google hits, and author doesn't seem to particularly care either. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per RGTraynor. Author doesn't seem to care about this article, so why should we (or anyone else, for that matter?) M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Does repeating a comment make it more valid? And I think the "author doesn't care" argument is not only a dubitable interpretation of the author's intent, but even more so a dubitable reason for deletion. Cream-T 07:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons listed. DVD+ R/W 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Jonathan here again. Obviously, we hope the article might be allowed to remain to stay, though we realize this is looking unlikely. Watching this discussion has been a little rough and there are a few things I wanted to get across:

--I want to make sure it is understood that my partner and I are not the Authors of the Article.

--I want also to apologize for having edited the Article, as a related party. I did feel a little funny about it after I saved my changes. (I went in to fix some spellings and clarify the identification of the masks two of the characters wear.)

--It was a coincidence that I found the Article in the first place, a few days after it was posted. I was at Achewood for the first time in a while and clicked their link into Wikipedia. While I was in Wikipedia, I thought I'd check to see if anyone had done anything about our humble strip. It was a lot of fun to find out someone had, but in light of what has followed, I might rather it had come and gone without my knowing about it.

--Sorry the Author hasn't been back to defend his putting it up; 11-year-olds are pretty busy people, I guess. 8^)

• Comment: Sorry, Jon, it's not that I'm busy, Wikipedia has been down at my house and as we speak I'm using recess time to defend the article from AfD. This is my favorite strip, it has a following, and I didn't know about Google, try Yahoo and you might find it's more...acurate. I'm find a way to keep the article. Heck, I've already came up with a solution! --Wack'd About Wiki 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

--We get the most visitors on our page on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and I would have been curious to see what contributions may have been made to the article if it were still there by then. Maybe none, but it would have been fun to see how a Chipmunk and a Lizard article might have evolved in the community environment of Wikipedia.

--We don't have the hugest readership, but we do have a following. It's not the worst-looking strip, either, and it's in for the long haul. So it just seemed to us like the kind of cultural artifact that would be included in the world's largest encyclopedia. That's why I feel a little confused and a little chagrined by the discussion. But as I said before, if the Article is dropped now, I'm hopeful its return will be warranted sometime in the future.

Anyhow, thanks for reading.. JTh 02:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You might want to check out Comixpedia, which has a MediaWiki-based encyclopedia devoted specifically to webcomics. It's pretty damn spiffy. We even use the same license, so you can copy and paste the version that's here directly over there. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is now a version on Comixpedia here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• It looks nice, Abe, spiffy even! Thank you for taking the time to copy it over.. JTh 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really understand what reason there could be for deleting this article. It describes a current work of fiction in a clear and straightforward way. The work it describes is an honest and sincere human expression. Neither the article nor the work it describes is self-serving or vainglorious in any way. A wonder of Wikipedia is that it can catalog our culture with unprecedented breadth. The comments about how the work has not yet caught on with a large number of people seem beside the point. What matters is that the article describes a legitimate bit of the world.VtPerry 22:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The reasons are founded in that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with narrowly defined pertinent entry criteria: verifiability and notability. The clarity of the subject's prose has nothing to do with it, nor does the putative honesty or sincerity of the expression therein, nor the level of (or lack of) vainglory, That the work has not caught on with a large number of people is exactly the point. The most idiotic, meretricious and slovenly artwork imaginable, fit only for subhumans, merits articles as long as enough people care about it. That's what matters here. RGTraynor 22:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete- Irrelevent. No evidence of prominence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ted87 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment: I moved aCaaL to one of my userpage subpages, so you can edit it without worring about AfD. Problem solved. --Wack'd About Wiki 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at author's request  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Technological Evolution

Non-notable book; vanity Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the heck, why are you calling it a book? This article is about a scientific theory. The book (actually only its title) is only mentioned for reference purposes. Have you read the theory? If you have read this theory and know the science behind it, then please give reasons why it is not notable. --Orchard-garden 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article is not currently concerned with the theory, it appears to be a listing of the chapter titles of the book.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable per Google search for title. :) Dlohcierekim 16:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will delete this article. But any information on this theory will NEVER appear on wikipedia. I am the author of this book, and I was an undercover agent of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I used to design next-generation weapons for them. If anybody will ever try to refer to my theory in Wikipedia, you have given me the mood and the reason to DEMAND deletion of all info concerning this theory and this book. Boys, I am a weapon designer, I know how to be bloodthirsty! No to Wikipedia. --Orchard-garden 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense and non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 152.163.100.68(smartest, most clever, most physically fit ruler in the world)

Possible nn-bio, hard to confirm, seems to have bad POV issues--152.163.100.14 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Dial Group

Reads like advertising and only gets 19 google hits. Indrian 15:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable per above. :) Dlohcierekim 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP. --BrownHairedGirl 18:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 23:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ant Farm (group)

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This Google search [33] and this book on the movement [34] seem to demonstrate notability. Vizjim 16:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . Seems notable. This google search produced ~70,000 Google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although the article does a poor job of asserting it, it the group has notability (mostly by virtue of the Cadillac Ranch. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the group has enough notability Yuckfoo 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect all to Roadway blogging. --Ezeu 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeway blogging, Vehicular blogging

Two articles, with associated linkspam, about non-notable/neologistic concept. The creator's only source is the FreewayBlogger website, which I suspect is his, with an underlying political POV being pushed. Delete. · rodii · 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yikes, just noticed he also made Car blogging and Truck blogging at the same time. I'm tired. · rodii · 15:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Graffiti. ForbiddenWord 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . The article itself does not push a POV. The site appears notable w/ ~40,000 Google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article isn't about the site, it's about "Freeway blogging" the concept, which has exactly one known practitioner. Let's say I decide to sit in a tree and yell about fascism (or communism, let's be fair here), and call it "Tree blogging." Can I start articles here about Tree blogging, Shrub blogging, Plant blogging and Forest blogging (the latter two of which just say "see Tree Blogging")? · rodii · 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment well if its just one guy, he's had remarkable success at propagating the idea and the term. See [35] for thousands of sources that use the term. This seems like a notable concept and term and one that people will come to Wikipedia to find out more about. The article needs to be expanded and sourced, but it looks notable to me. Gwernol 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "Freeway Blogging" per Dlohcierekim. Gwernol 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge freeway, vehicular, car, and truck blogging into one and keep it. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "Freeway Blogging" per Dlohcierekim and gwernol, and delete the others (or merge if there is no consensus for delete) --BrownHairedGirl 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : I created both pages and I am open to merging freeway and vehicular blogging into one page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panem (talk • contribs) .
• Comment from panem: I have performed the merge.

• Comment. Please stop adding confusion to this issue. We now have five articles in this cluster: Car blogging and Truck blogging have been turned into redirects to Vehicular blogging; Freeway blogging and Vehicular blogging just say "Please go to Freeway and vehicular blogging"; Freeway and vehicular blogging contains an awkward merge of those two articles plus a section on "Billboard modification." If the consensus here is to merge (OK by me), where to merge it to? · rodii · 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment And now one more, see Roadway blogging. Accurizer 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all blogcruft to a single blogging genres article. Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all of them into blogging. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge : should all be in the blogging subject (not notable). Lincher 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge but not to blog. This is a neologistic use of the term "blogging", which is a is a web-based publication. As presented, they are free speech or political signs. The location in which they are placed does not seem to define what they are. Accurizer 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can find no reliable source whatsoever for any of these. If one emerges, then merge them per JzG. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speed Keep per obviously. Rob 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaganomics

Delete because no pertinence in short article--neither Mrs. Carney or Elton John have anything to do with Reaganomics. Alethiophile 15:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. The user Alethiophile vandalized the article to include the text mentioned in the nomination. Vandalism has been reverted and user warned. Gwernol 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that Alethiophile's "vandalism" was accidental - inclusion of an earlier vandal attack - but the AfD nomination is incorrect. The vandalism should have been reverted, not used as an excuse to nominate the article. Gwernol 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a very notable and valid topic. --cholmes75 15:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP Vizjim 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a valid encyclopedia topic & must have been nominated in error.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Good grief. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per aeropagitica :) Dlohcierekim 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. As much as I disagree with the subject, it needs to be included here. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women in Dragon Ball

There are PLENTY of character list pages for Dragon Ball already. This one is just pushing it too far. Plough | talk to me 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft, fancruft, cruftcruft. Vizjim 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Uhhhh, OK Delete as above :) Dlohcierekim 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone Metros232 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501^talk 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete this is further breaking down the character list, ie just women Bikes302 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, randomcrapcruft. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not listcruft. Actually, the article can be more than just a list of characters, it can contain info about Women in Dragon Ball, that's a notable subject. More, if we have lists of Namekians and things like that, this one is also valid. At least the content of all that lists could be merged into a main article, but never deleted. Currently, the main article is just a list of links to other lists, therefore, deleting them would be disruptive. Along with that, the nomination doesn't state any good reasons, it seems more like a personal opinion on the subject. I'm not saying that this is the better way to list the characters, I'm just saying that I find no good reason to delete it. Afonso Silva 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands, it's clear listcruft, and I can't imagine anything more useful than "There's not a lot of girl main characters in DB". Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can't imagine anything better, that's lack of creativity. Right now, your lack of creativity is not a reason to delete articles. Afonso Silva 12:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see something that's not a roundabout way of saying "There's not a lot of girl main characters in DB". Wikipedia's not a place for fan interpretations. And it's not nice to insult people. Danny Lilithborne 13:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per List of Dragon Ball characters, we have List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball, List of Humans in Dragon Ball, List of animal characters in Dragon Ball, List of Namekians in Dragon Ball, List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball, List of Jinzō'ningen in Dragon Ball, List of Majins in Dragon Ball, List of Deities in Dragon Ball, List of Dr. Slump characters in Dragon Ball, List of other Aliens in Dragon Ball, List of dragons in Dragon Ball, Z Fighters, Dragon Ball Villains and Women in Dragon Ball. Shouldn't all these become categories instead of lists? -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I've moved the article to the right place: 2004 World Rhythmic Gymnastics World Cup Final and deleted the errorneously titled one. --Ezeu 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships

According to this page and World Gymnastics Championships, there were no world championships for rhythmic gymnastics in 2004. cholmes75 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• How odd. The championships took place in 2001 and 2005. Maybe the author was getting confused with 2005 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships, though the venue is different? Anyway, Delete, obviously. Vizjim 16:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weird. Delete —Mets501^talk 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Huh? This randomcrapcruft is either a product of an insane individual a good faith editor who probably got confused, or it is a hoax. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment it seems to be the 5th Rhythmic Gymnastics World Cup Final (not 'Championships'), which took place in Moscow November 27 - November 28 2004. The list of competitors looks like it was taken from here. --BillC 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfied to creator, User:Cdubia. Just zis Guy you know? 19:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Dubia

Delete. Pure vanity, no independent verification of notability SteveHopson 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable --Ed (Edgar181) 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. I did find a website, though...[36] Kukini 17:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable - self aggrandisement . Velela 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the information that was entered is to simply share information about the artist. Feel free to visit the site [37] to verify more info., as well as search in google. I'm unclear as to Stevens comment and his validity based on his lack of experience? The other points that you all have raised are credible though. Dubia's work is fine art based, has exhibited in museums and galleries around the globe, been in several publications and is coming out with a book entitled "Welcome Home." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdubia (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 21:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 12 hits on google :) Dlohcierekim 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Birmingham Sound

Delete. Listcruft of non-notable bands. Was prod'ed but notice removed. discospinster 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Would have been better if links were to Wikipedia articles, instead of to outside sites. Looks like link spam. :) Dlohcierekim 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. They "play many different styles of music" and "each band has their own original style"... so what is the "sound"? Anyway, these bands are local-ish to me, and I deem them non-notable. · rodii · 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article doesn't define the characteristics of the Birmingham Sound & all of the bands linked-to exist on Myspace, so WP:Music violations individually & the article is pretty much a redirect page to Myspace, so WP:NOT violation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aeropagitica. Gwernol 19:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete truely unnotable. Perhaps you could also merge it into the Birmingham article or something. Not notable enough for a WP Music Article per WP:MUSIC. --XenoNeon (converse) 17:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gwernol M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Grandmasterka 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Grandmasterka states, WP:NOT a link farm. Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtica

• Delete. Per user's statement on the talk page (moved from the article page) - CobaltBlueTony 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Kukini 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the discussion on the article's talk page. If, in fact, Wikipedia wanted to be a travel guide, or wanted to catalog every bar in every city, this might be appropriate. But it doesn't, and this isn't. Fan1967 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mushin^talk 19:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete take it to Wikitravel. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JzG. Amalas =^_^= 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7. Royboycrashfan 04:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Das contras

Delete. Band does not show up on AllMusic. Speedy tag removed. No albums mentioned, and no record label. discospinster 17:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not assert notaility. :) Dlohcierekim 19:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Should really be speedied under CSD A7, since it doesn't even assert notability. DarthVader 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete It's one thing for a band to have no notability, and it's another for an article ot not even attempt to show notability. This article basically just states that the band exists (yay, some concerts and a couple of EPs), and nothing more. -- Kicking222 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless some useful info is added soon M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for reasons listed above, especially lack of content. DVD+ R/W 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious speedy delete. An ad for a band that makes no attempt at notability. Grandmasterka 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elim Christian Centre

Churches are not notable. Denni ☯ 17:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found Elim Christian Centres in Wells, Cheltenham, Northampton and Chelmsford - and that's just the first page of Google results. As far as I can tell they are not linked. Delete as not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep but rewrite. Churches are in my mind just as notable as high schools, and despite repeated requests, nobody has bothered to tell me why that isnt or shouldnt be the case. Jcuk 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Most churches do not deserve articles for the same reason most schools do not deserve articles: Wikipedia is not a primary source. I have no issue with articles on schools (or churches) where multiple people, independent of one another, have produced books or documentaries about the institute. That is not true of this or most churches. Denni ☯ 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently distinctive to merit an entry here. Wikipedia isn't the Yellow Pages. Dr Zak 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Noteworthiness aside, the entry is a copyvio from [38]. The "we" gives is away. It always does. Dr Zak 11:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Jcuk on the issue of the notability of religious centers, but this article contains so little encyclopedic content. Rewrite or Delete. --Eivind^t@c 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I know, religious congregations are considerably more numerous than high schools. (I didn't support the idea that all high schools are notable anyway, although that seems to have taken hold on AfD.) --Metropolitan90 00:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Zaxem 00:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not because of notability issues (which I reject) but because it seems to at least violate the reason behind WP:AUTO (notice the writing in the first person in the article). DanielZimmerman 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but allow rewrite - If schools are notable, so should churches be provided it is not miniscule. However the title should include the location of the church. Elim is a denomination with many churches, many of which use 'Elim' as part of their title. The present article appears however more like an advert for the church. Peterkingiron 00:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheddar deLeon

Youngest concert promoter in the Phillipines... but my math suggests she's still 15 or so, and I don't think that organizing a one-off concert is grounds for notability. google for cheddar deLeon OR "de leon" -ponce -cheese gets me a few hundred hits, the relevant ones of which appear to be blog entries. Delete. bikeable (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Punkmorten 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Eivind^t@c 23:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justice City Recovery Center

Webcomic that's only been around since January and has just over 30 strips. As far as I can tell it's referenced in a few blogs and some of the webcomic lists, but not really enough to maintain an article that complies with WP:V and WP:NOR. It seems like a good candidate for Comixpedia, but it's a little early for for us. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article asserts absolutely no notability at all. -- Kicking222 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Comixpedia. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like there's already a version of the article for this comic on Comixpedia. It's shorter, but doesn't have the tone and pov problems this one does. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples on density

Each example it lists is covered in their appropriate articles, and the buoyancy and density articles explain the phenomena in detail. Also, there are no other articles linking it. --Zoz (t) 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessarily duplicates information in other articles. Denni ☯ 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Dr Zak 21:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hindus

From Hindu: "As of 2005, there were approximately 970 million Hindus." Sounds like a category would be better. Just zis Guy you know? 18:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How 'bout List of christians and List of Muslims? List of people by belief... (I see veganism is a religion too.) I'm not a great fan of classifying people by religion; it is hard to verify and means different things (especially in places where religion = legal system, conversion = death penalty). But consistency with lists of notable practitioners is probably desirable. Weregerbil 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It should remain. I agree with Weregerbill, there are so many lists like this on wikipedia and List of Hindus is just one of them. - Holy Ganga ^talk 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The existence of one bad article has never been a persuasive justification for having another. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I never said that. I said i agree with Weregerbill. Consistency with lists of notable practitioners is probably desirable. List of some very Famous and important Hindu, Muslim , Christian , Atheist etc. personalities is not a bad Idea. - Holy Ganga ^talk 20:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To have a category is fine. These lists have to be maintained by hand, and they are potentially vast - especially this one. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, too broad of a category to be a useful list. Catamorphism 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep per my normal list/category argument. Maybe rename to "list of notable hindus" Jcuk 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Which argument is what? That it is better to have a list where they can be added without editors on the original article noticing, to allow for POV claims to be surreptitoously made? Oh, wait, it's that they could be cited, isn't it? But not one of these is. And indeed hardly any lists have citations. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment resorting to being rude and sarcastic is hardly a way to sway people. You know fully well my argument is that Wikipedia guidelines state categorically that lists are just as useful as categories.

• Delete. Too broad to be useful. Dr Zak 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• My suggestions in order of preference:

1: List all list-of-SomeReligion in one AfD and get rid of all of them. (FAT FRIGGIN' CHANCE!)

2: Keep all. Can't make an exception for one (rather major) religion.

3: Start picking religions; Christianity and Islam allowed, Hinduism disallowed. (FAT FRIGGIN' CHANCE!)

Are there other alternatives? Per "FAT FRIGGIN' CHANCE!" (or WP:SNOW) I'm thinking keep unless workable alternatives suggested. And make it a rule: any redlinks in list-of-SomeReligion will be removed, no mercy, no questions asked, absolutely no exceptions. Weregerbil 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as useful list. Possibly rename to List of notable Hindus. Capitalistroadster 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - how could this or any of the lists be useful? "I'm bored -- I wonder who's a Hindu?" I feel all these "List of 'insert religion here'" (and many other similarly broad lists) are useless and care quite handily handled by Categories, and if people want to indulge their list fetish the category pages work quite well. That said, I abstain from voting on this one as I feel it's an issue that needs to be addressed at the policy level, not AFD. I agree 100% that we can't be picking religions here; but I can't in good conscience vote keep, either. 23skidoo 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Weregerbil - if List of Christians and List of Muslims are accceptable, then there is no justification at all for deleting this one. Whether any of them is useful, is another point entirely.Staffelde 23:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I have no idea why "List of Christians/Muslims" is not deleted either. Of course, an AfD nomination for either would have a bunch of people up in arms, but you have my vote. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How about deleting the List of Jews? One set of fireproof underpants won't be enough! You'll have my vote for any "List of Practitioners of such-and-such a religion. Dr Zak 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to list of notable Hindus. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete together with the others mentioned above (and note that List of Jews is actually a list of lists of Jews. Yikes. -- Hirudo 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Categories maintain themselves, lists do not. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Weregerbil --Dangerous-Boy 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless all lists classifying people by their religion are deleted! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep as long as it is made absolutely clear, as on the other "lists by denomination", that only people who are notable for being Hindus should be listed, not people who are notable for some unrelated reason. dab (ᛏ) 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all the lists of denomination and replace with List of figures in Christian theology, List of figures in Jewish theology, List of figures in Muslim theology, etc., etc. There is absolutely nothing notable about all these people's religion unless they played a role in the development of the religion.--M@rēino 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Replace with Category:Hindus if possible. --Slgrandson 16:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Neutrality. --Hetar 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Ranking of Brazilian Football League (WRBFL)

Admitted original research. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, maybe I had the wrong wording for this as it does not constitute an original research. I was in the process of finishing the article first so it could be linked to (if you've noticed it was not) ans sources were not mentioned (it is based on RSSSF Brazil statistics). The aim of the article was to propose first the overall placing of clubs in that period (something which is not available anywhere AFAIK, especially by CBF) accordeing to these sources and a ranking sytem largely based on the official cbf rules. There may be minor tweaks but the idea was to propose a consensual solution and not an original research. Please could you recommend how to do this in wikipedia policy. Mpbb 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. --Ezeu 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Martell

Non-notable person—Preceding unsigned comment added by RupertMillard (talk • contribs)

• Merge with [[Grizzly-polar bear hybrid] Genius_by_DESIGN ... :) thank U for this great educational forum :)
• Merge with Grizzly-polar bear hybrid—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.48.67 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 May 2006
• Merge as above. (I am the nominator, but a bit slow as this is the first time I've nominated something.) RupertMillard (Talk) 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Deletion. Would be better if this page can be improved. For all we know, Jim Martell, may be in a few years, be regarded as the first person to conclusively get a specimen of Grizzly-polar bear hybrid.Krooks 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. He may be regarded as notable in the future, but that's not an argument for keeping the article now. What's not pure news just duplicates what's on the animal's page. Electrolite 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - In my view , any person, just because he is a hunter, cannot be termed as an "Non-notable person. Selfish animal abuser. " There have been several hunters in the histroy of man kind, like Jim Corbett, who have killed animals not only for pleasure but also for sport. Anyway, till any strong evidence of Jim Martell's animal abuse is presented, I would like to strongly oppose the request for deletion.Jordy 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Above vote was actually entered by Mail2amitabha (talk · contribs) at 18:50, 12 May 2006. There is a User:Jordy, but that user has been inactive since July, 2005. I've also reordered the comments to the order they were entered. - Fan1967 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Apparently the user copied his vote from the article talk page, picking up his nickname (Jordy) but not username from his signature. Fan1967 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I did copy my comments from the article talk page. And I donot have any clue on who is User:Jordy.Jordy 20:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - the only claim to notability is that this person shot the bear, we probably cannot find anything more encyclopedic about this person anyway to warrant an article. Merging simply means that the content will be kept in Grizzly-polar bear hybrid instead of being spanned over two articles. --HappyCamper 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. The same story is basically already told there, and quite frankly it's the bear that's notable, not the hunter. Fan1967 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Fan1967--the bear is notable here, not the hunter. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 19:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. Shooting stuff shouldn't make you famous. --Sheldonc 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Seems to have been a legitimate news story in Canada, and it is well-cited. --Zpb52 19:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  It is a legitimate news story, but the bear is the subject, not the hunter, and all this information is duplicated at Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. — AKADriver ☎ 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Grizzly-polar bear hybrid; nothing notable about this guy that isn't covered there already. Catamorphism 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. He's not notable outside of the context of this news item. KleenupKrew 20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep. The article contains valuable and well-sourced information, but it can probably be merged. --Jannex 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I seriously don't think that this man is worth note, like was said earlier, its the bear thats the important thing. fslav88
• Merge per above. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per HappyCamper Ben 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. If he kills something else rare, then maybe he's notable enough for a standalone article. ScottW 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merege and redirect As said befor it's the bear not the hunter that's the story. Airport Manager 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry I was in the wrong browser. I knew I'd do that eventually. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - article seems to be only about the incident with the cross breed bear, so it should be merged with the article about that bear. DanielZimmerman 03:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per HappyCamper Miguel Andrade 20:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for reasons already cited. Balok 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The bear is encyclopedic; the hunter is a footnote. Bearcat 03:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support merge or deletion, for reasons amply discussed. Just out of curiosity, how many one-of-kind animals do you have to kill to be notable? Durito 05:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 32 large animals, 64 middle-sized animals or 96 small animals ;) Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per reasons cited Cogitus 10:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge because right now it's just duplicated information. If he causes the extinction of any more living species, he'll have earned his own page. Dybeck 11:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - completely NN. In a week he's out of the news and totally forgotten. --P199 21:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - everything notable is or should be in the hybrid article. TastyCakes 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per many good reasons given above. - Torgo 19:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact I would also advocate that per above, this article be retained only as a redirect to the hybrid page. - Torgo 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

• Merge for reasons cited above. Michbich 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 18:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discraft

Delete and Redirect to Ultimate Players Association. Minor company, fails WP:CORP. Bypassing prod per discussion with creator, Liface, who believes the company meets WP:CORP, see article Talk:Discraft for a distillation of his position derived by me from my user talk page. They make discs for Disc Golf and are the official provider of the very minor "World Ultimate Club Championships". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - first of all, this company should not be merged into UPA because it is not a part of the UPA. They are business partners, and that is it. Discraft is basically THE company for any disc golf and Ultimate discs. They also sponsor a number of disc golf events.

Here's some important pieces about the company, if you're too lazy to go to the talk page:

• http://www.wucc2006.org/?p=article&id=19
• http://www4.upa.org/files/media/releases/040803.pdf
• http://www.odeo.com/audio/86721/view
• List of Discraft products sold on Amazon --Liface 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, but you need not have. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Discraft seems notable enough to me. Phiwum 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Google search produced ~600,000hits. :) Dlohcierekim 19:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Make that 639 unique Google hits [39] - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very large publisher of Ultimate discs, which is a very large sport. Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mbalaa

"A crocodile in northern Lesotho". No google hits apart from wikipedia clones, the Latin name is not given, and no mention on any other page on wikipedia. I doubt that this animal exists, and I think that this article in its current state is unverifiable. Eugene van der Pijll 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unless verifiable sources are found and added to the article. Gwernol 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per gwernol. :) Dlohcierekim 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless references are provided --Ed (Edgar181) 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gwernol --Zoz (t) 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Northern Lesotho?? That's a tiny area, and in a country that has a negligible amount of water (see Lesotho.) This is a hoax, or a very misguided sub-stub. Grandmasterka 04:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax; the only crocodile in the region is the Nile Crocodile, and Lesotho is several hundred miles outside its range. Humansdorpie 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator & Humansdorpie. — mark ✎ 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Images merged to main article. --Ezeu 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billie Piper discography

This is just a list (an incomplete list, at that) which is repeated in the main article Billie Piper. In addition, the albums themselves already have their own pages, so this article provides absolutely nothing of any value. fuzzy510 19:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge into main article. (Keep pictures if at all possible. <grin>) :) Dlohcierekim 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. — RJH 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Category:Billie Piper albums provides all of the information that this page does, with the individual album pages containing far more detail, plus the pictures too!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Everything needed is on the Billie Piper page and the album pages. And as a sidenote, she's in a television version of The Canterbury Tales? I weep as an English major. Metros232 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually it was reckoned to be pretty good. Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete redundant per category Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful into the main article. I don't think she was prolific enough to warrant her albums being listed separately. 23skidoo 14:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indians

Vast, close to unmaintainable, has the potential to be even vaster - India is, after all, the second most populous nation on Earth, accounting for - what, 15% of the entire population of the world? Something like that, anyway. Use categories, please. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Categories are better for this sort of thing. BrokenSegue 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep rename to list of notable Indians Jcuk 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, close to unmaintainable. Dr Zak 21:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as List of notable Indians. Lists are useful and do things that categories can't. It seems unlikely to me that Wikipedia has articles on all the notable Indians that exist or have existed. This allows us to develop a list of people that we need to create articles on as well as people who already have articles. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, make a category if you need it so much. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or turn it into a category, as above BigDT 02:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There are many other similar articles, including List of English people, List of Nigerians, List of Spaniards, etc. However, List of Indians by state already exists, so maybe they should be merged. I disagree with categorization, for the reasons given above by capitalistroadster. --Joelmills 03:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless I get to add myself. I dont see why not, really, nothing in the article says I can't. Hornplease 05:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI think it needs to be cleaned up drastically but I would not like it to be deleted.It does contain some very useful information and it may be the first point of contact for anyone wishing to know about the Indian notables.(Vr 08:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
• KeepWhy consider this for deletion?It does contain useful information and for people like me non -Indians quite informative(KenClarke 08:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

• KenClarke (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of Vr (talk · contribs)

• KeepBy all means clean this up but I would not like this to be deleted.(AnneOswald 08:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

• AnneOswald (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of Vr (talk · contribs)

• • Comment I think these last three votes might be all the same person. Can an admin check, please? Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I've blocked KenClarke and AnneOswald as sockpuppets of Vr. There is a checkuser pending, but I think the contribution evidence is enough. Petros471 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not know what sockpuppet means until I read this.I can assure you that I have only one account;infact I had another VR which was inadvertant at the time of my signing.I use the Institutional internet at teh university where I am a postdoc and had not heard of Aneosawald or kenneth clarke.(Vr 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

It is now checkuser confirmed. If you wish to discuss this further please message me on my talk page. Petros471 10:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per arguments in similar lists. -- Hirudo 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainable list which is redundant to a category. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Indians by state i.e. keep and tidy, but in this case there already is a more managable format available. // Habj 01:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Far too large a list to properly maintain. Zaxem 11:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheeseburger In Paradise

This page was prodded, but has undergone expansion since then. [40] I'm nominating it to carry out the prod and determine whether the song is notable enough for its own page (I can't recall what precedent is now about articles for songs vs. albums), but at the very least the information could probably be merged into Son of a Son of a Sailor. (Or perhaps the article could be made to be about the chain of restaurants, if that is considered more notable.) No vote. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion - Webpage should be improved rather than done away with.Jordy 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Reasonably well-known song, could be expanded to include restaurant chain. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Son of a Son of a Sailor per nom. Very few individual songs are encyclopedic. KleenupKrew 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Quite a famous song, and also a fairly large restaurant chain (as well as a dish and cocktail served there). I'm getting 267,000 Google hits. Yeah, it's notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tom harrison -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the song is notable if it has a chain of restaurants named after it. Please note there is an ongoing discussion about song notability at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines/Songs. I would reserve judgement until that is done. Aguerriero (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Hey, I rewrote it. It's one of Buffett's most noted songs, so it should stay.--69.145.123.171 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Having articles for individual songs (especially hit ones) is standard Wikipedia procedure. wikipediatrix 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Man, I hate this song. But it's a signature song of a well known musician. So keep, but cite some sources. ScottW 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep to cover both the song and restaurant chain (35 locations in 17 states are sufficiently notable for an article). I'll try and improve the article during the AfD period unless other people get to it first. --Metropolitan90 00:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made some changes. --Metropolitan90 23:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice changes. I like it. I mean, I still hate the song. But the article is much improved. ScottW 03:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 03:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, extremely notable song. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable song for anyone, especially those who have been to La Select . Vegaswikian 19:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ngagkpa Lama Kunga Choedak:Luis Riesgo

Though I mean no disrespect to Lama Kunga Choedak, I feel this page is not notable; vanity page Zero sharp 20:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Send to nirvana per nom. Sandstein 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable per google. :) Dlohcierekim 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 00:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Joe 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)