Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 13

< May 12	May 14 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Kusma (討論) 03:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lina (singer)

~~Not very notable (has her myspace listed under ext. links) but is signed to Atlantic. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)~~<

Withdraw AfD. Ok, notable enough. Close, please. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand Notable. 10,000 hits on Google :) Dlohcierekim 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Dlohcierekim. The first Google hit is Amazon's listing of her CD which is on Atlantic Records, a major label. Gwernol 00:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Seems to have some notability, though the artcle needs improvement. Beno1000 00:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, first link is to an offical site with an easily verifable discography which seems to include more than one significant release. Kuru ^talk 01:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I have rewritten this article based on verifiable sources. She has an Allmusic.com article which shows that she meets WP:MUSIC by having a record chart on the Billboard r&b charts. [1]. --Capitalistroadster 01:09, 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 Merge and redirect to Repossession. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repossession Agent

Delete as randomcrapcruft that is also attack on repo men. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Repossession after making NPOV. The info is useful and would improve Repossession. :) Dlohcierekim 00:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Dlohcierekim. Beno1000 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Rename repo men (most well-known name) and tag for cleanup or rewrite or whatever. youngamerican (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge whatever neutral content there is to Repossession, as per most of the above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm planning to improve it in the future. Also, how is it NPOV and an attack on repo men? Got nothing against them, considering that I'm looking at it as a future carreer choice. Dan Knoop 04:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete no sources - OR, unless improved VERY quickly. Tyrenius 06:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and merge in to Repossession as the actions of the individuals in question are synonymous with the job. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No sources for the claims. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is, where'd this symbol come from? For about four of my votes, an image showed up, but before and since my votes have been fairly plain. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody should make some AfD templates that include the image. :-) — RJH 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge (into Repossession) and Clean Up, the article suggests these baliffs (as I know them), are thieves. DannyM 08:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per above. joturn e r 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Move to repo man and cleanup....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 19:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to repossession per above. Seems a fair summary to me, and I don't see many PoV issues in the version I read. Smerdis of Tlön 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete and create redirect. I fixed the original research aspect, what's left is barely worth having. Great film, though - Harry Dean Stanton can be brilliant on a good day :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's perfectly NPOV, certainly not "an atack on repo men". Perhaps should be merged into repossession. Cadr 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not now, it's not - I fixed it. But what's left is negligible and already covered in repossession. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 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 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ask Amberly Jane

This article is about an advice column written in a student newspaper. It was originally nominated for speedy but I changed it to prod as it didn't meet anyt of the speedy criteria. An anonymous editor removed the prod notice so it is here. It has no verifiable sources online see [2] as they are either the newspaper or Wikipedia and/or mirrors. Delete Capitalistroadster 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete possibly, Redirect. The The Stony Brook Press already mentions the column, and that is probably all it deserves. Gwernol 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No redirect needed, I think. --Jadriaen 01:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable student newspaper column. Zaxem 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No. 1 GHit is the wikipedia article — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 02:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, possibly merge into SBP article. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete No more notable than any other student newspaper column. If it wins major awards, picks up a national syndicate, etc., then I'll reconsider. --Ataricodfish 03:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge to The Stony Brook Press, where a section already exists for it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn newspaper. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If this was a major newspaper, I'd change my mind. But maybe this can be merged into the article on the campus paper? ---J.S (t|c) 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into the newspaper article. No need for redirect. Tyrenius 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge in to The Stony Brook Press and delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge to the newspaper. JIP | Talk 08:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable and only relevant for a very limited time period jnothman ^talk 11:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into paper and then delete. Decidedly non-notable -- AlexR 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete since the paper itself is probably going to get deleted too sooner or later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, parent newspaper already mentions the article; not sure there's much more needed than that. Kuru ^talk 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - a mention may be appropriate in the newspaper article but not a complete merge. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 19:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete sexcruft, don't merge. The paper is barely notable itself (bi-weekly student newspaper). Just zis Guy you know? 20:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge with The Stony Brook Press, no redirect. Rjm656s 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge in agreement with others above. --Dan 08:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete and smerge into The Stony Brook Press if felt necessary. LjL 21:28, 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 Move Found objects to Found object per new proposal after rewrite. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found objects

This is a poorly written stray from the main article Found art. The Talk:Found objects states that there is some misleading info contained in this. There is no info to merge. Suggest that this redirects to Found art Clubmarx | Talk 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Found art per nom. Gwernol 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Beno1000 00:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything that isn't in Found art, and is factually correct (unlike the part about Duchamp and urinals) and then redirect there. Jude (talk,contribs,email)
Merge to Found art per Gwernol. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Jude M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete wooly writing and Found art is much better. Tyrenius 06:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Found art, as per nom. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Found art. JIP | Talk 08:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, on re-read, this is abolute crap. +Hexagon1 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment This article cannot be merged, basically because from beginning to end it is inaccurate woffle, and putting any bit of it into another article would weaken that article. Could the people saying "Merge" kindly look at the article again and the talk page. The only thing for this article is a clean and total "Delete". If editors are not sufficiently acquainted with the subject matter to recognise the deficiency of this article, I suggest they do not express an opinion on what should happen to its content. Please read the nom. Tyrenius 10:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tyrenius that there is nothing salvageable here; simply turn it into a redirect. David Sneek 11:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge to found art, it is an element of found art and as such should not be seperate. Benjaminstewart05 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please specify exactly which content you think is worthwhile merging (that is not already covered in Found art), because I can't find any! I certainly agree a redirect would be useful. Tyrenius 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically the first paragraph or so, but I think that if edited slightly, all of it has a place under a seperate subheading in found art. But a redirect would be just as good if only a little bit can be merged, (some would have to be merged - look at the found art article. Benjaminstewart05 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- First para is covered much more accurately in first para of Found art. Found objects says,"pebbles, industrial cast-offs, candy wrappers" (these are not very typical examples, at least pebbles and sweet wrappers!), "but which are nonetheless found to have aesthetic appeal" (Duchamp specifically refuted this), "In the mid-20th century, Picasso led the way by using a basket and handlebars from a bicycle to create the armature for an appealing goat sculpture" (Picasso's She-goat was 1950, by which time it is hardly "leading the way" in the use of found objects—30 years too late; the handlebar was not used for this, but, with a saddle, to make a bull's head in 1943), and so it goes on.... Tyrenius 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete (and subsequently redirect). While it is an element of found art, there is nothing obviously worth merging. — Haeleth Talk
~~As per Tyrenius, Delete and destroy. I guess a redirect would be useful.~~ Vizjim 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote following rewrite (see below). Vizjim 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. TheMadBaron 19:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to found art. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten

I've added this sub-heading because I've attempted an overhaul of the article. As it was written, it only discussed found objects with relevance to art, yet they are equally relevant to music, so a simple redirect is not a good idea. However, as the article was previously there was no mention of music at all. The article is a perfectly valid subject for an article, though it needs to be strongly tied in with the related subject at found art, probably using {{seemain}} or similar, and needs to be moved to found object, singular, which is currently a redirect. It also needs, though, to be just as storngly tied in with music. If you've already voted, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your stance based on what the article looks like now. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the latest version, but again there's nothing in Found objects that's not already in Found art - the latter article includes a section on Found sounds in music. I'm still not seeing any compelling reason not to just redirect this page to Found art. Sorry, Gwernol 01:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case I'd suggest moving the information on found objects in music to this page - it really doesn't have much relevance to found art. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We are now assessing the article on a different basis. The main nom objections were: 1)poorly written 2) stray from the main article Found art 3)misleading info 4)no info to merge. None of these applies any more, and there are other considerations. a)should Found art also cover the music info (I would say no—there should be some equivalent such as Found music or Found objects in music b)Should there be a Found object article covering the range of uses: art, music, what else—theatre? architecture? interior design? etc. I think there is a strong case for this. I have left messages on the talk pages of both WikiProject Arts and WikiProject Visual arts and suggest the best solution now may be to hand the issue over to the project(s), so that any decision can be integrated in a wider arts approach, rather than assessed in isolation. Tyrenius 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

For found objects in music there are of course musique concrète and sampling (music)... I agree that it would be a good idea to have a more general discussion on how to organize this subject, also because I don't like it that common terms like readymade and objet trouvé redirect to the far less common found art. Personally I think it would be best to have an introduction at found art, which links to articles on found objects in music (musique concrète), in plastic arts (readymade) and film (found footage - we don't even have that!). David Sneek 10:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination for delete - Because of the rewrite and the other issues that have been brought up, it seemed like this should no longer be deleted. However I don't think the plural form Found objects is the right place, the singular Found object seems to be better. Right now, Found object is a redirect to Found art. I'd like to propose:

- to Move the Found objects page to Found object

- to redirect the Found objects page to Found object

I'd add this comment to the talk page of Found objects as well. Clubmarx | Talk 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal. Tyrenius 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I too agree with this suggestion, and further suggest that if a separate article on the use of found objects in music is created, then Found sound might be the best name - that too currently redirects to Found art. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep now - CNichols 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and agree with above proposal. -- T.o.n.y 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the proposal above. Ziggurat 02:26, 18 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 and protected from recreation by Marudubshinki. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myg0t

OR, GHits are a bunch of junk links. Also shows up in Wiktionary; should probably be deleted there too. Deleted and undeleted more times than I've edited my userpage. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I'm undecided between G1 or A7 though. I'll be nice and say A7. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and protect this page has had two previous AfDs, both of which were a clear consensus to delete. Obviously the page's creators don't respect those decisions as it has been re-created numerous times. --Hetar 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall two previous AFDs, though I can't find them. Speedy delete as per above, based on criteria G4. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete because this page definitely had at least one AFD. Must protect as well. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Abstain, but don't speedy! This article was undeleted on WP:DRV; see the debate as it was just before delisting. See also the most recent lines of the log. Melchoir 04:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination). Perhaps we should apply {{deletedpage}} after re-deletion. -- PFHLai 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup & Keep page is a mess now, but highly notable. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ謚慕ｨｿ 04:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete and protect against recreation. This group appears to be non-notable. It is a small group (111 members are claimed) of vandals that got two minor news mentions. They like to get attention, disrupt the activities of others and embarrass people. They get a fair amount of hits on their website, but not that many and just getting a lot of hits would not make them notable. If they reached the level of borderline notability, I would say delete it so that they don't get recognition, but they don't even get that close. Also, it is likely that members and opponents will continuously vandalize the article and since they are not important, Wikipedia loses more than it gains by having it. -- Kjkolb 05:04, 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 00:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DchozN

NN per WP:BIO. Googling finds the first 10 entries all penned by the subject himself, either on his own site, or gaming sites of which he is a member; not verifying notability. Appears prolific, but not necessarily notable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are exactly that. Your own narrow subjective opinion on a person the e-sports community has already deemed a forerunner, not to mention bringing digital editing of competitive gaming events to cable television in the near future - a huge step forward for the e-sports community. Because User:pd_THOR does not seem able to grasp the concept of e-sports nor what they are represent in terms of bringing a growing sport to a more mainstream crowd; as well as User:pd_THOR only bothering to look through the first 10 out of 100+ results not only shows his incompetence to thoroughly investigate a matter, but should bring about questioning regarding all said user's past article editing history.

- Hyungjin 21:13, 12 May 2006

Delete but do not block for later recreation. I agree that Mr. Cho is certainly prolific, possibly even noted in his particular sphere of interest, I don't see that he is particularly notable as per Wikipedia policy. Most of his Google hits are articles by him, but none appear to be about him other than those which are autobiographical. Having many of his contributions in the past few hours, I see there being future possibility for him, and would like to suggest that the article be left open so that in the future, if he becomes notable enough for inclusion, it may be recreated.

In addition, I think Hyungjin's comments are bordering on personal attack (See also: Straw man), and are inappropriate for this forum. Sorry, Hyungjin, but I think you were a bit over the line. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per pd_THOR and Kylu. Zaxem 04:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per pd_THOR, until he becomes more notable. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete while not very notable.--Jusjih 13:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 14:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete for now, per all the above. — Haeleth Talk 14:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:38, 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 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Howell (and Gary Howell/Temp)

Not-notable local politician and owner of a business that fails WP:CORP. He also has a few media citations, but all together this is still a not notable biography. It also seems that the article MAY be a vanity article for User:71Demon based on similar information on his user page. If so, I would be ok with userfying the article. youngamerican (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete vanity article. Beno1000 01:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete A7 (Vanity) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn bio, corp, and vain. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable and vanity. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanispamcruftisement and perhaps A7 M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete if he gets elected then perhaps keep but until then --MarsRover 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. But with no predujust against recreation if notability is achieved. ---J.S (t|c) 06:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete If he is elected then he may satisfy the criteria for WP:BIO, "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.". (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 08:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, irrelavent and non-notable DannyM 09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I added Gary Howell/Temp, the copy-vio temporary subpage. +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity, nn. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not vanity. I don't see this as a vanity page. He is a public figure and even is considered a celebrity in some circles that is well known in auto racing, racecar building, business, and is a nationally recognized expert on credit card fraud. The wikipedia page about vanity articles says, "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia" and "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." Just because someone is not famous outside of the auto racing industry or credit card fraud legislation advocacy doesn't mean that their page here is vanity. You can find articles about this man in the wall street journal, on the web pages of the CBS evening news, DIY network, IMDB, and Car & Driver magazine just for starters. Looking back at the revisions of this wikipedia entry for Gary Howell, it does look like it was updated to include new info about him and also "vandalized" a few times. If he is famous enough to have his wikipedia entry vandalized, then he is famous enough for this not to be a vanity page. Christopher-B 17:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's first contribution to wikipedia. 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Its not my first contribution. I had another user ID and forgot my password, so I created a new one. Christopher-B 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rjm656s 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep [non-registered user: Jeff Hartsell] Keep: Gary Howell has been in the auto racing industry for quite some time, and is known for bring innovative parts and great customer service to the front lines. He has also been a great help in building legislation for credit card fraud as well as pushing the government to help protect small businesses. He's been recognized in many journals, tv and books, so therefore it should stay. -Jeff Hartsell; owner of GlacialGraphics.net

User 24.35.21.53 (talk · contribs)'s first contribution to wikipedia. 69.4.137.153 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I understand the irony, no need to point it out. :) 69.4.137.153 01:14, 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 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheHabboWWE

Untranslated entry after two weeks at WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. No vote Kusma (討論) 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The language of this article is unknown. This appears to be about a wrestler. More than that I can't say.--Bachrach44 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Swedish. "TheHabboWWE started as a little organisation(?) in the Internet hotel HabboHotel." It's clearly not about a person, but is something about wrestling: "Year III began with Backlash, where Eddie Guerrero became WHC for the first time (last four words are in English)." But if it's notable, it needs rewriting, never mind translating. ColinFine 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like untranslated Swedish fantasy rasslin' to me. I doubt our friends at the Swedish wikipedia would want this either. youngamerican (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Did a speedy translation, so now you all can enjoy the pure awfulnes of this article. Hulk Hogan Delete nn e-wrestling federation --E ivind ^t ^@^c 02:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete junk, thanks for the translation! Kusma (討論) 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable and junk. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopædic in scope, tone & content. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Siva. -Jcbarr 08:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable website, Habbocruft. I couldn't even read all the way through the article. JIP | Talk 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn website, WP:CRUFT. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 14:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per (aeropagitica). --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable website (and article is not an encyclopedic article!) --Sunfazer | Talk 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - "small assoxiation on the internet hotel" sounds it admits it's non notable. Flammifer 18:40, 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 No consensus -> Keep. Deizio talk 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Battlefield 1942 mods

It might be big, but it is also unencyclopedic. For one, most of these mods are non-notable and dead. Also, a list of mods in itself could be considered advertising, as it has little encyclopedic value.--Zxcvbnm 02:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment:It has immense encyclopedic value as a record of of dozens of notable 1942 modes, and as a wider historical value of the rise of mods as historical, cultural, and social event. Bfelite 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There may be a problem with deleting so soon. Mant of the deleted articles in the recent months that were sequentially nominated by Zxcvbnm, were not just deleted, but merged to this article, or the existence of this articles was given as a reason for deletion. Deleting this so soon would be a violation of the results and reasons for the earlier AFDs results. Bfelite 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would point out List of Half-Life 2 mods recently survived AFD Bfelite 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete listcruft with no encyclopedia-worthy content. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A listing of information about mods tens of thousands of people have played, have been featured in numerous magazines, and involved a community in the millions far from being cruft. 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete blatant listcruft. Aplomado ^talk 05:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft and a collection of external links, neither of which is encyclopædic. Better off on a games website. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't know enough about this stuff to give an opinion, apart from to be impressed with the amount of work that's gone into it, and a question as to whether there are users of wiki who would find it interesting... or not? Tyrenius 06:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the definition of cruft on Wikipedia is "a selection of content (that) is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Aplomado ^talk 07:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's my question - how wide is the interest in this particular subject? Judging from your answer, not very. Tyrenius 07:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Millions of people have played these mods, thats far from a 'small population'. BF1942 is had millions of players, and has one of largest most notable modding communities in the history of gaming. Its like deleting an entire cultural movement. Bfelite 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as listcruft. DarthVad e r 14:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. This level of detail might belong on dedicated forums, websites and wikis, but so many of these mods are dead.... I'm an honourary admin on a BF site, and I can't even be bothered to copy this before it gets zapped.... TheMadBaron 19:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft... Beno1000 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, perhaps trim, so that we have somewhere to smerge all the nn individual articles on mods. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: All the nn mod articles have already been deleted--Zxcvbnm 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

commentI couldn't care less anymore. Just noting that some go through many mod-pages, proclaim that the mods could be listed 'here' only, then go here and want this page deleted. Zarkow 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this a serious problem as MODS that were deemed NN to have there own article, but be part of a list were left here. Bfelite 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It is a very nice list, much better than most of the listcruft that we see on here. Unfortunately, this isn't gamefaqs. Suggest that the creator copy it over at gamefaqs prior to deletion, if it isn't there already. (Might be a licensing problem with doing that, though, now that I think about it.) ergot 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no single creator, the article has been edited by dozens of people over several years. Bfelite 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep --W++ 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep These type of games seem to be a major cultural phenomenon, and it's fascinating to see the intensity that goes into it all. A record for the future of youth (sub?) culture. Tyrenius 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or at the very worst merge. Contains dozens of highly notable games featured magazines, game sites, and thousands of google hits. Bfelite 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I should add, it is likely a violation to AFD at this time anyway, because many of the smaller mod articles were merged here when they were AFD, or this was given as reason for deleting them. Bfelite 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as listcruft. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 02:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think its list cruft when tens of thousands of people have downloaded these mods, they have been featured in numerous publications, and have been actively supported by Electronics Arts (such as via a posts on the official websites and a community helper). Bfelite 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep And style along with the "list of Halflife 2 mods". BF 1942 is one of EA's most popular games and basically created the modern squad fps genre. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep This has a large mod-base. It is quite notable. .... 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, most of lists in Wikipaedia have lots of not-notable entries and a few that make them encyclopaedic. However, contrary to most lists on wikipaedia, this one has a real header, a pic... This project would not benefit from such a deletion. //Halibu tt 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep', this mods have been notable and is one of the most played games in the world. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep... only on the grounds that it is massively culled down. While the mod culture of BF1942 was very extensive, that fact does not justify listing each and every mod that was ever conceived. A large number of these mods were never released - they should not be listed - we dont list songs never recorded, or books never published, etc. An issue which probably has no democratic solution is that there is no hard and fast definition of a mod. I could edit a couple of textures, call it a mod, and release it. This mod would deserve absolutely no recognition in an encyclopedia. My suggestion is to find an agreement on the minimum number of verified downloads that a particular mod has had, and only include those above it in this article. Remy B 08:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Further to that... any mod with no reliable sources (there are many) should be removed purely on those grounds. See WP:V and WP:RS. Remy B 08:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is an encyclopedia, folks. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or merge to Battlefield 1942. Zaxem 09:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You would actually prefer this huge mass of content to be dumped into the Battlefield 1942 article than stay where it is? The notability requirements for entries in a list in the main article would have to be very strict - the Battlefield 2 article only mentions about 2 mods for example. Remy B 10:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. The topic is encyclopaedic and interesting. bbx 10:19, 18 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 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paperback Rhino

Is this anything other than a Vanity article? There's nothing encyclopedic about it -- no dates of founding, no info about the founders (none of whom have Wikipedia entries), no dates or locations of significant performances. The mention of it in the Iowa article seems to be only a pretext to have this stub of an article. This group might be of interest to some University of Iowa students, but I see no evidence that it's known outside the undergrad student/improv comedy communities. BuckRose 02:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Small local theatre troop made up of college students from Iowa City. Not really notable enough for an encyclopedia. Zaxem 04:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 05:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete No real hits per Yahoo! [3] besides Xanga, college sites, and unrelated pages for books. Based on article and Yahoo! search, no more noteable than other college acting groups. --Ataricodfish 06:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable group of improv actors. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable yet -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete I was wondering if their web site might make a case, but even that has virtually nil info on it. Tyrenius 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, vanity article, per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete total nn vanity. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is not a vanity page, but rather an entry to gather and spread the history of the group and how it works. The article is still in progress, information is added constantly as it becomes available. Further, the article meets the Wikipedia rules for admissibility: "three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights)." The website gets new information every couple of days as well- news about the growth of the group and whatnot. The group has been invited to improv festivals and conferences across the country, as well as performances with other professional outfits (e.g. Comedy Sportz). Allow some time to flesh out the article. No reason to delete the entry. --Asquiar03 18:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - "composed of 11 freshmen and three sophomores" [4] sounds like it may not exist any more in a few years. 90 google results is not notable. Flammifer 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Small theaters are important. The number of theaters in small cities and small towns of the United States is shrinking and I think its important to acknowledge those that do exist and continue to exist. Piercetp 00:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good argument for creating an article about Riverside Theatre, Iowa City’s only resident professional non-profit theatre group, now celebrating its 25 year -- not for keeping this article. BuckRose 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- What's the difference between that theatre group and this one, Iowa City's only regularly performing improv group? Understandably, Paperback Rhino has not been around for 25 years, but everyone has to start somewhere. And the group has been around for 4 years, much longer than Flammifer predicted based on that 3 year old article he read. Paperback Rhino shows no signs of stopping either, as the group only continues to grow. --Asquiar03
- Look at [5] and you may see a few differences. Permanent building, regular season, paid actors, Shakespeare theatre built in city park. I wish PB well, but it hasn't achieved significance yet.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of basic visual arts and design topics

This has been a mess for a very long time. Other lists linked on this page are no longer there. This is in no way a list of basic topics. There are many 'A' entries, and then it peters out. It started to be a comprehensive list of topics (which would be strange to do with such a big subject.) There may be a need to explain visual art/design basics, but that should go to improving the main Visual arts page.

Also, there only link to this page is List of basic topic lists. - Clubmarx | Talk 02:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete It doesn't do its job anyway of helping a beginner. No guidance. Tyrenius 06:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kevin 08:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Wot, no Cubism? Case proven. Delete. TheMadBaron 20:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Misleading title and content. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone above. As a side note, I'm getting tired of needing a specific piece of information and having the first half-dozen search results all be lists that would have worked equally well as categories. ergot 18:49, 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 Speedied. Tawker 03:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clover hill golf course

Article is very POV and seems to be mostly advertising.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7 (no assertion of importance of subject matter). Metamagician3000 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Algera

Someone tried to speedy this awhile ago and was invited to AfD it. Didn't happen but I'm listing it now. Nothing given about notability. Google, once again, is no help. Crystallina 03:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn bio. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity, A7 M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 05:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Apparently NN, and bio per artist's website, [6], is no more helpful in determining N. --Ataricodfish 06:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete I think it meets CSD A7, won't retag as previous tag removed -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD A7 Tyrenius 07:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. -Jcbarr 08:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Samir (The Scope). --BrownHairedGirl 12:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. The article is too short.--Jusjih 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. DarthVad e r 14:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Totally nn. Should probably be given an award for being the shortest article in Wikipedia. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 15:50, 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 proof that I can't even get my own submissions deleted. Good night. — May. 14, '06 [10:39] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Gnaa, Nigeria

Self-nomination: I wrote this article. I don't see any potential for expanding this, due to the lack of verifiable information on this non-notable town. Furthermore, it's only been a target for vandalism and editing disputes with regards to the target of the gnaa redirect. — May. 13, '06 [03:31] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Keep. While it may be a substub for a while, it's a real town, and deleting it will just further systemic bias. --Rory096 03:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- The Gnaa redirect is just a content dispute, no reason to delete an article because of a dispute over whether a redirect to it should be going somewhere else! --Rory096 03:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Rory, particularly the fighting systemic bias part. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Protect Article The town looks insigificant but based on population there are towns with less population here like Yountville so I can't legitimately give that as a reason for deletion. I think the article should be kept protected because of vandalism (an example). Also, if deleted it might be recreated. DyslexicEditor 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as all real places, like cities, towns, neighborhoods, villages, etc are always notable. Carioca 04:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep for most of the reasons above. There may be more verifiable information in future to allow expansion from the current stub. There are Nigerian wikipedians. Maybe it should be semi-protected. --Bduke 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and protect. Grand master ka 04:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article is notable and has a potential of being expanded. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep other equally unnotable real places are kept. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the latter places have verifiable information pertaining to them. — May. 13, '06 [04:51] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Keep, providing that there is verifiable information available about this place. I would welcome Freakofnurture's advice as a respected Wikipedian on the sources that he used to write the article and whether he remains confident of the town's existence. If they exist, I vote to keep real towns,villages, suburbs and other communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nada. Note also that the only result (outside of Wikipedia mirrors and Gay Nigger Association of America press releases, e.g. [7]) is this dubious link. I haven't ruled out the possibility of elaborate hoaxing. — May. 13, '06 [05:40] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
  - That doesn't seem so dubious, that site has information on a lot of places... Also, there's this link, which actually does seem to be rather unreliable. --Rory096 05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Go back down the URL to [8]. It is clearly not a hoax. I checked some of the other places in Nigeria that I know and some here in Australia. It is an amazing site for geographical and weather detail. --Bduke 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Also, while Google didn't get a match, it didn't get one for Ajav, either, which is apparently a nearby town. --Rory096 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    - Indeed, it didn't get one for the entire state! [9]. --Rory096 06:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- You mean a GNAA hoax? Mind you, that would be right up their alley, given the relative closeness of the words "Nigeria" and "nigger". CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as we have articles on even the smallest of towns. -- Kjkolb 05:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
keep notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-13 05:44
Keep, real places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 08:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable to me, it's been mentioned in one of my geography lectures! (and this was before I knew of the GNAA --Sunfazer | Talk 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- So you're sure it exists? Do you have any more information on it? It would be nice to have it be bigger than a substub. --Rory096 19:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Sunfazer, see also WP:CSB. — mark ✎ 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep all real cities, regardless of their size, so long as they are verifiable. [10] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 20:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Except the fact that it violates WP:V, except for the GNAA press releases part. — May. 14, '06 [05:39] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Comment. For verifiability see:

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/NI/0/Gnaa.html
http://www.fallingrain.com/world/NI/a/G/n/
http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.2245072/Gnaa/
These are verifiable proof that Gnaa in Nigeria exists, therefore WP:V isn't violated. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:15, 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 12:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Vs. Blue Roleplay

Non-notable spinoff of the forums of the Red vs Blue website. No Google hits. Prod tag was previously removed. — TKD::Talk 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - We're not really a "Spin-off". A spinoff is moreover a new perspective using the same characters and storyline from the original. The only thing we honestly have in relation with the actual Red Vs. Blue site is the conflict in its core self. And part of the name. Thats it.
- (On a side note, It'd really be dissapointing. I spent 5 hours working on this article. I don't want to see it go so quickly.) We formerly had a base of 52 members before the old boards croaked. - Xvash2::Talk 11:46PM 13 May 2006 (CDST)
  - Do you have any idea how many forums there are on the internet? Aplomado ^talk 05:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete randomcrapcruft. It's got to be non-notable if there's no GHits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment actually, Google shows 677,000 for Red Vs. Blue roleplay if you remove the quotations, additions, and wikipedia comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xvash2 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment. But how many of those are relevant? All four words taken separately have a variety of uses. — TKD::Talk 18:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see how a forum with 52 members meets our web notability guidelines. Further, it seems to have folded up. I appreciate the time that Xvash2 put in but it needs to be verifiable in line with our guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ If I remember correctly, google only displays 15% of the internet. Its crawler bot doesn't document every single webpage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xvash2 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment. Can you think of a major site that it doesn't index? — TKD::Talk 18:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Xvash2 (talk · contribs) is an interested party in this page. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Scratching your vote because you've already voted. Aplomado ^talk 05:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As sympathetic as I am to your good-faith efforts and time spent in creating an article for Wikipedia, it just doesn't meet notability guidelines as mentioned above. There are countless forums on the internet, and we can't include every one of them in an encyclopedia. Aplomado ^talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Alas, I agree the article is nonnotable and really shouldn't be in Wikipedia, as a forum is not uncommon and this particular forum is no more notable than the next. I don't know the rules with adding an article to one's userspace, but perhaps that would work if it qualifies within the rules? Otherwise, despite the work dedicated to the article, it really does not qualify for WP. --Ataricodfish 06:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable web forum, vanity article. JIP | Talk 08:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete this really isn't notable, despite Red vs Blue's internet phenomenon status. DannyM 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, vanity. DarthVad e r 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Fine. Technically, this isn't really notable, but it was in no way at all meant to be vanity, an advertisement, or any abusal of any other wikipedia policies. I hadn't heard of the "notability" policy until it was brought up when this article was put up for deletion. Delete, whatever. Xvash2 (talk
Speedy this crap before it gets spread to the mirrors.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative divisions of North Carolina

This article, while potentially useful, is currently nothing more than a template with a couple of links. If information is added, then consider this nomination withdrawn. Also, it seemed to have a bit of a problem loading - I'm not sure if that's a problem with my computer or with the article, but if anyone else gets it then let me know. Paul 04:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete i'm not even sure what this is supposed to be. So, I will say that it is most likely randomcrapcruft. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. What is up with the question marks? I think the article (if it were not to be deleted) should be improved by removing the question marks and replacing them with real info. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete I've tried things like Administrative divisions of Texas and there are no articles. If this were part of a series then it should be kept, but it seems as if it's a one-off. Tyrenius 07:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete I couldn't tell if it was an article or an exam. Kevin 08:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. I suspect that there could be a decent article written on this topic, but sdaly this isn't it — and a decent article would probably have to start from scratch. --BrownHairedGirl 12:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment There actually are similar articles for other states, and I think that such an article could be created for any state that doesn't have one, but this one is still pretty useless. Paul 13:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete It's not immediately obvious, but this article appears to have begun as a copy of Administrative divisions of New York. In fact there's still a couple of remenants from the original article. There's potential for a good article, but this is just a working draft. ScottW 16:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. COuld be an interesting article here, but the article looks like a jumble. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 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. -- Drini 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dance Stop

A7, non-notable dance studio.-- Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Go. horribly unnotable. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete horribly short. Would like to see some reference and some expansion if this article survives the AFD. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. For Pete's sake buy an ad. Aplomado ^talk 05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability for said dance studio. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP. ---J.S (t|c) 05:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, of course, but how about a delete for the companion articles, Michael Minery (who is described as a teacher at this school) and Rosemary Sabovick-Bleich (a "famous" ballerina with 15 Yahoo! hits and teaches at the school). --Ataricodfish 06:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original article was vaguely useful but flagged as a copyvio last week, has been replaced since then with this one-sentence version. Ollie 08:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a web advertising service DannyM 09:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable with one sentece only.--Jusjih 13:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete' - Not notable. Benjaminstewart05 16:49, 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, kept ("keep": 15, del: 15) Comment a significant amoun of objections was related to the fact that it is a neologism with very low English usage. Therefore it is strongly recommended to rename the article. `'mikka (t) 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatophobia

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}}

Neologism, google gives only 2 hits outside wikipedia, both mirrors of the single page, OR (in fact, a fully speculative POV nationalist rant). The article itself admits it is a neologism: The term is non-existent in the English language. - quote from the article! Rockie21 05:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, per wiki policies - neologisms and POV OR have no place here. Rockie21 05:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside of this AfD process this user has one (1) edit. I'm not sure what the exact policy is, but it seems that his motives in bringing this up aren't that pristine. --Elephantus 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete I've argued for deleting this article for some time. First of all because Croatophobia is really only a term made up to deflect criticism, legitimate or not, of certain aspects of Croatian history and politics. By applying the phobia suffix it tries to imply that such criticism is irrational. Finally, it isn't a word in English and isn't used outside of Croatia. If it should be included, then the definition should be something like "term used by some media in Croatia to characterize criticism of Croatia, Croatian politics or aspects of Crotian history.Osli73 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to disapppoint you, I'll requote (neologism ?) examples of "legitimate criticism" of Croatian policy etc: Examples like [11], [12], speak for themselves-although, it would be even more visible if the Serbian academician Vasilije Krestić's article about "Croatian mustiness of the soul", or Vojislav Šešelj's magnum opus, downloadable in Serbian Cyrillic [13] were translated in English: here we read whole chapters on "Thousand years of Croatian barbarism" (p.486), "Croatian savagery in folk songs" (p. 495), "Animalistic urges of Croatian national being" (p. 529), "The Croat savage mentality is repugnant to the Italians" (p. 537), "Croatian people is guilty of Ustaša crimes", (p. 617), "Crime-the spiritual food for Croatian national being" (p. 627) etc, etc. Now- Šešelj's Radical party is the strongest party in Serbia and Montenegro (ca. 40% of the popular vote) & this is their leader and ideologue's masterwork. Mir Harven 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR ---J.S (t|c) 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Even if the word exists in Croatian, as the article says, it doesn't belong in the English encyclopedia if the article admits the word doesn't exist. Otherwise, it's OR. --Ataricodfish 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:POINT article on a protologism. What's there to keep? -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete for all the above obvious reasons. Tyrenius 07:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If this is a notable phenomenon, the fact that no English word exists for it (yet) is not a deletion argument, exactly because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not write about words in the English language but about concepts and objects in the real world. If "Croatophobia" is real, or there are notable enough allegations that it is, the English Wikipedia should still be able to write about it using some title, even if the only sources are in Croatian or other languages, and the entry has to borrow a foreign word to describe it (we do that all the time with, for instance, obscure theological concepts in Hinduism or Islam, that can only be described through borrowing words in Sanskrit or Arabic unknown to the average educated English-speaker). (I am still skeptical about this article from the point of view of the WP:NOR policy, and not really prepared to recommend to keep it, but I think some of the deletion arguments are faulty.) u p p l a n d 09:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying that we should delete it because it's not an English word (otherwise, tons of entries would disappear from WP). I'm saying it should be deleted because you can't simply make up an English word and assume that it will eventually become the word to describe their topic, which is borderline Not a crystal ball. The word itself is also strong POV and OR, considering there were 22 hits on Yahoo! for this "Croatian" word and many of them were Wiki related [14]. This is no different than myself creating an article on TomCruiseaphobia and stating this is not a word yet but eventually will describe the public's tiring of his tabloid existance. --Ataricodfish 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that u p p l a n d has a point here. If the word is actually used in other languages then it should still be in the English encyclopedia, or at least shouldn't be automatically deleted because we in the English world are unaware of it. The English Wikipedia should not be only about English and/or American concepts and ideas, but rather an English translation of ALL ideas. And if Croatophobia is a real sentiment in other cultures or languages I think we should know about it. I'm not sure the support is there from the other languages, but I agree that it shouldn't be so readily deleted. It is not the same as TomCruiseaphobia because nobody actually uses that term in any language. Noetic Sage 19:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The word is, according to article, not used even in Croatian, until some journalist coined it in 1999. It does not seem to be widely used word at all - croatian word gets about 10 hits [15]. The article with similar title has been deleted from german wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroatophobie - notice that the link exist in google hits, so it was recently deleted). The main concern is not about the word (the title could in principle be changed to something like anti-croatian sentiment), but that it is a OR construction, which bases the "evidence" of the existence of the subject of the article on some web formums etc. - clearly a violation of NOR policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, after all. Rockie21 20:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete immediately: Inexistant neologism going against WP:NOT and WP:POINT. --Slgrandson 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. For reasons above. Cadr 20:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "Croatophobia" scores just one original Google hit (besides Wikipedia), for an article where its meaning is clear from context. An encyclopedia article about "irrational hostility, hatred and aversion towards Croats, Croatia or Croatian culture", if warranted, should be given a sensible name.... "Croatophobia" is, according to the article itself, neither an English word, nor a Croatian word (the word is "kroatofobija").... if it's not a real word in any language, the article might as well be called felchjackets as Croatophobia. As for the merits of the article itself.... it's largely OR, IMHO. Anything of use that can be said on the subject should be said in the context of an existing article about Croatia. See also Serbophobia. TheMadBaron 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. DarthVad e r 23:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Linguistic quasi-arguments are, essentially-laughable. Any significant hostility towards a specific ethnic/national group or ideological/"racial" construct is expressed, generally, by a Greek (sometimes Latin) neologism combining the name of a particular nation & the suffix -phobia. Hence well known Francophobia, Anglophobia, Russophopia, Europhobia,...and probably less known Sinophobia, ...You can add words I'm not certain one can find in a dictionary, but are meaningful anyway: Hibernophobia, Albanophobia, Polonophobia, Brazilophobia, Negrophobia, ....As I see, the existence of the article is disputed, mainly, along two following lines: a) there is no such a word in English dictionary. Remark: since this word has been used at least once in a news article, it certainly is an English word- the fact that dictionary writers were too lazy (or, more realistically, slower in updates) to inscribe it as a "dictionary word", means nothing. Hence, IMO, "language argument" is worthless 2) the second objection would be that such a thing does not exist. Well, while I can, to a degree, sympatzhize with the 1st objection & find a value in it, the 2nd objection I find personally offensive. Examples like [16], [17], speak for themselves-although, it would be even more visible if the Serbian academician Vasilije Krestić's article about "Croatian mustiness of the soul", or Vojislav Šešelj's magnum opus, downloadable in Serbian Cyrillic [18] were translated in English: here we read whole chapters on "Thousand years of Croatian barbarism" (p.486), "Croatian savagery in folk songs" (p. 495), "Animalistic urges of Croatian national being" (p. 529), "The Croat savage mentality is repugnant to the Italians" (p. 537), "Croatian people is guilty of Ustaša crimes", (p. 617), "Crime-the spiritual food for Croatian national being" (p. 627) etc, etc. Now- Šešelj's Radical party is the strongest party in Serbia and Montenegro (ca. 40% of the popular vote) & this is their leader and ideologue's masterwork. This is their opinion on the Croats. As far as examples of Croatophobia on wikipedia, one need not go much further: just check the "contributions" like the following ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SradkaW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Petrinja, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Purger etc. etc. What's the purpose of these "contribs"-save the defamation of Croats & all things Croatian ? If these are not examples of Croatophobia, I don't know what the term stands for ? Or-do you, proponents of the deletion of the article on Croatophobia, endorse such views ? Mir Harven 09:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- As I have pointed out above, the fact that no English word is established for something is not a valid argument not to have an article on a particular topic, so I agree with you on that point. However, the problem remains that this looks like original research in Wikipedia terms. You are referring to what you consider examples of croatophobia (and so is the article), while what you should refer to is someone who has written about croatophobia or whatever name s/he would chose to use for it. Some random Serbian contributors' purportedly anti-Croatian edits on Wikipedia, for instance, are completely useless as sources for a Wikipedia articles. u p p l a n d 09:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your way of reasoning. It's not just me, but, I guess any mentally sane person's perception that statements like "The thirst for blood is the X-nation's ethnic being", "The X-nation is filled wirth hatred towards Y-nation" are examples of "X-nationphobia". It's no original research, but a simple consensus on what mental (in)sanity looks like. As for Croatophobic wikipedinas, I've referred to them simply as illustration of this mentality-not as a "proof" wiki should accept or cite. But, gloves off, for a moment: how would any rational person characterize an imaginary wiki contributor whose edits or "contribs" would consist, 90%, of the following stuff: they write on, say, American Negroes (I'll skip a PC term "African-American") by insisting that: Negroes are 13% of the US population & over 50% of "American crime"; they score lower than whites at IQ tests; they have extremely high percentage of out-of-wedlock births; they are overrepresented in the field of violent crime; they ...And this imaginary contributor doesn't say a word on Negro contribution to American music, sports, literature etc. So-how would you characterize user whose edits are profiled in such a way ? Would they be rightly dubbed Negrophobes ? As are, without doubt, those Serbian popsucketeers I've mentioned earlier. Mir Harven 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yesterday I was going to argue for keeping the article, because - I must admit - I'm not radically opposed to the "we think that" type of OR. After all, articles on Serbophobia and anti-Bosniak sentiment do exist, and they are mostly OR, too. Furthermore, I had already been accused of Croatophobia several times by Croatian users, so I assumed that it was already an established concept in Croatian. However, I changed my mind when I found out that on the whole Internet (judging from Google hits), there are only 5 real occurrences of "kroatofobija", 2 real occurrences of "hrvatofobija" and 1 real occurrence of "croatofobija". This means that the concept isn't established even in Croatian yet, let alone in English - it has been used just a couple of times, and you just can't define Croatophobia as including opinions X, Y, and Z, when almost nobody actually uses the word. Using wiki as a vehicle to create and propagate a concept is, IMO, going just a bit too far. On the other hand, if things like Serbophobia and similar stuff are to stay, then I guess most of the current content of Croatophobia should be kept under a title like, say, Perceived anti-Croatian prejudices and propaganda. So I guess my vote would have to be something like "keep, but rename and change", or "delete, and create another article with partly similar content". Since the outcome of both would be the same, I am more or less:
neutral. --85.187.44.131 12:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hmmm....it seems to me that at least a part of the "deletionist" activity here is a pretty obvious example of Croatophobia. I don't care much about personal contribs, but-isn't it suspicious that all I can see about a "speedy delete" contributor is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rockie21 So-what can we deduce from this ? What can we infer from the user's edits that are focused almost exclusively (ca. 10% of "other" edits are a tactical smokescreen) on Croatian-defamation activity ? And other, essentially clueless users, only repeat the mantra on the google counts ? So-what ? Google is a god ? Is this a joke ? Is this kangaroo-voting (maybe I've invented a neologism, kinda) meant to reveal anything save the aggressiveness of Greater Serbian propaganda & rather low level of comprehension capacity of "other" wikipedians ? Or, maybe it's something more at stake. I'd say that failure of the moral nerve hides itself, as usual, behind paragraphs. If someone is not convinced by explicit qotes reflecting a politically widespread opinion (for veracity of the translation, it's easy to employ Serbian wikipedians free of pan-Serbian disease)- then, I guess, you bureaucrats (and I mean it in an old-fashioned, ordinary way) are beyond remedy. Mir Harven 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This coming from a user with a long history of serbophobic edits, banned for disruption, 3RR etc - just check him out. Rockie21 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm...shall I deign to answer this troll ? Hmmmmmm..no.Mir Harven 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK, my comments don't matter much for the outcome of this "non-vote": whatever happens, it's clear that no consensus will be reached and the article will be kept as it is. But - for the record:

As for the widespread opinion - nobody doubts that irrational hostility against Croats exists; but Wikipedia isn't concerned with the truth,

? Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:verifiability::

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This is repeated quite a few times in WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You took the quote "as is", which simply isn't fair. It's just a rephrasing of the old fact that the aim of an encyclopedia is collection of truthful and balanced data, not a sci research. It if were taken literally as the credo & purpose of this online encyclopedia, wiki should be best closed up immediately since it's nothing but mush. Mir Harven 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[Sigh]. --85.187.44.131 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

but with verifiability (quoting an authoritative source), and determining what is irrational hostility and what isn't is original research and POV.

Maybe you're right & I'm wrong, but- I understand that wiki is encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is all about truth. And, any serious encyclopedia quotes relevants sources, one way or another.

As for "irrational hostility"-is this a joke (I'm repeating myself, I know)? Do you think that quoted passages from Šešelj's magnum opus need a commission composed of specialists (social psychologists, psychiatrists,..) to determine whether the claims on criminal essence of Croatian national being etc. are examples of "irrational hostility" or not ? I thought the good ole common sense from Locke & the Declaration of Independence would unanimously decide that the irrational hostility is "self-evident" in the quoted passages. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a joke, in fact I think that it's very basic stuff. Nothing is self-evident if it's disputed (that's what NPOV is all about), and such situations are resolved by means of sources (that's what verifiability is all about). I'm sure that at least one person would disagree that Seselj's statements are irrationally hostile - namely, Seselj himself. Now, even if Seselj were the only sentient being on Earth espousing his own opinions, we aren't authorized to determine whether Seselj's POV or ours is the "correct" one and present that as the objective truth in an encyclopedia.

Sorry-but this is utterly preposterous, sheer nonsense. You're giving a new, much expanded meaning to the notion of scholastic aridity. Sometimes, a stick is just a stick (or whatever). Mir Harven 11:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

All we can do is cite reputable sources. If this principle is violated, then, figuratively speaking, the result for Wiki is not a constitutional state a la Declaration of independence, but an anarchy or a dictatorship. Upon taking a look at Seselj's pyromaniac rubbish, I see that both my statement and wiki's policy can seem, at first sight, to be an expression of idiotic pedantry; the problem is that in many cases (such as people disputing the existence of the Croatian language, which - for the record - I, personally, recognize), it isn't that obvious whether something is part of a "phobia" or not. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You've overlooked three facts: 1) Šešelj is the president of the strongest political party in Serbia and Montenegro 2) this is quoted from his acknowledged central masterwork which is proudly displayed at the party's site,[19] 3) paragraphs like Criminal essence of Croatian national being etc. are "ingredients" that constitute what the term Croatophobia designates-not some scribbling on the language or architecture Šešelj is a complete ignoramus about. So- don't twist the issue. Mir Harven 11:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Even the Serbophobia article says "some Serbs feel that A, B, C are cases of Serbophobia", not just "A, B, C is Serbophobia", because otherwise some people will always argue about each particular example.

This discussion is about deletion of the article, not about its improvement or modification. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear; I wasn't saying that Croatophobia doesn't meet that requirement; currently, it does meet it and it needs no such improvement. I was just trying to illustrate my point that wiki isn't supposed to describe the opinions of the editors as true or false, and that's why people use weasel words. So your arguments of the type that "It's obvious (to any sane person) that this POV is correct and that one isn't" aren't valid. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't even write that Hitler was irrationally hostile, it would be POV; you can write that scholars A, B, C say that Hitler was irrationally hostile. Sorry for writing the obvious.

See above. It's not about redefinition. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Google isn't a god, but google shows to non-Croatian people that the term is practically non-existent.

We're not talking about frequency. Adultery is commited if your wife (or you, for that matter) has slept in another man's sack. For the definition of "adultery", it's of no importance had it happened once or 500 times. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Unlike adultery, a part of the essence of language is that it is (more or less exactly) replicated. It's not enough for a word to be used once, by one individual, to become part of the standard language. It has to gain some acceptance first. Otherwise, it's still a proto- or neologism. Here is a relevant quote from WP:NEO that I just discovered:

"Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)."

--85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources are available, and I've given the link to the book-the most comprehensive one-volume Croatian dictionary. Now, if this means that the "permitted" neologisms should have wide Internet circulation, I completely disagree & don't see that it is in the definition of wiki standards. But, if read carefully, the above quote is contradictory: essentially, it says that a neologism can & cannot be used in the wiki titles for articles-and that the editors's personal inclinations don't play the role in the selection processes. So, where we are ? The ultimate criterion, what can be deduced from the above quote, is the verifiable secondary source. There are such sources, and they are eminent modern Croatian dictionaries, but no English dictionaries. And this is the core of the dispute: the phenomenon exists, it has been named in the language of the group it "deals with" & has not yet percolated in the mainstream English lexicography. It's as simple as that. Mir Harven 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How come it isn't used by other Croats online? There's apparently no tradition - each time they use it, it's invented anew, as in the 2003 article that FrontLine supplied as a reference : "Croatophobia is the irrational fear of a country and hostility towards its culture. Croatophobia would be (bi bila) irrational fear of Croats and hostility towards Croatian culture". In other words, this is a neologism that is occasionally and independently coined and that people give their own definition (the author of the article actually makes it include many Croats). The truth is that the editors of the article are defining Croataophobia in the process of writing it (OR).

See above for the validity of this argument. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See above for a further development of this argument. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Bulgarian, I feel that българофобия sounds very weird - even though it has 2,590 hits (vs 43 for kroatofobija, hrvatofobija, and croatofobija, including repetitions and all). And, by the way, Bulgarophobia doesn't have a wiki article in either Bulgarian or English. --85.187.44.131 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So what is stopping you to write an article about Bulgarophobia ??? FrontLine 13:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point was that it is too unnatural and rare (albeit much more frequent than kroatofobija). Besides that, I don't have secondary sources (dictionaries, books or papers) about it, and I don't want to do OR. Last but not least, I think it's a very dull and, at best, useless thing to do. :) --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep The number of Google hits does not prove anything, that's a lame argument. I feel that if Serbophobia can have it's own article then Croatophobia certainly can as well. The sentiment itself exists, the term is widely used in Croatian end Ex-Yu literature, and it is NOT a neologism. A exhaustive encyclopedia should strive for more articles, not less, and this topic certainly deserves it's own article. I don't see how it can be merged with any other Croatia-related article. --Dr.Gonzo 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Real enough. Article includes examples, sources etc. Also, I found this word in at least one Croatian dictionary ("Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik", defined as "repugnance, hatred towards the Croats and things Croatian"), so the charges of neologism are pretty much off. --Elephantus 08:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a neologism in English language. Also, I am a little suspicios about your practically unverifiable claim, but it matters little, since this is English encyclopedia and policy on neologisms is clear. Rockie21 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Croatophobia may exist officially as an (very uncommon) word in Croatian, but that doesn't mean it's an established concept, commonly associated with particular facts. In fact, there's strong evidence that it isn't (the article with "croatofobija bi bila .../definition/", etc.). Thus, you can't go anywhere beyond a dictionary-style definition (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) without doing original research and inventing your own picture of what you think deserves being called so. Of course, the situation with Serbophobia is fairly similar, except that it is already a common concept - which doesn't mean that describing it without sources isn't OR that should in principle be deleted. But using Wiki to actually fashion and propagate a concept means, IMO, moving one step further from what is acceptable.--85.187.44.131 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, per Mir Harven above. It is a legitimate word. To use Google as a reference is silly, to put it mildly. --Zmaj 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as per Mir Harven above. Just look at the contributions of user Rockie21:

20:00, 14 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia (vote change to speedy - can this be speedied?)

20:06, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia

20:05, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia

05:08, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia

05:04, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia

05:03, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia (→Croatophobia)

05:02, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 13

05:01, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia

05:00, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia

04:58, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Croatophobia

19:28, 5 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Vladimir Žerjavić

Are they just a sockpuppet, and their whole existance is to throw the article Croatophobia out. Google is not a true referencing tool, and the examples and references are selfexplanatory. Also isn't this just a tit-for-tat see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serbophobia Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serbophobia (second_nomination) FrontLine 09:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear such assertions from someone whose contributions consist in Serb-bashing, and who created this article as one of the first edits, which was pretty recently. Probably a sockpupet of Ante Perkovic - who just voted below, that is two votes from the same person. Rockie21 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Serb bashing, give me a break. There is nothing inframatory, defamatory, racist, serbophobic in the artiles and edits i have done so far. They are all based on historical facts. I am no sockpupet, and how dare you accuse another user of being one without a single grain of proof. Probably you are a sockpupet, and attack is the best defense ? Isn't it ?? FrontLine 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And how dare YOU accuse other people? Sure, anti-serbian edits are fine, but anti-croatian edits are "inframatory (sic) defamatory, racist". Good to know where you stand. Rockie21 16:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you started it by accusing me of being a sockpupet. My edits are not anti-serbian, if you take it that way I feel sorry for you. FrontLine 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Look a few lines above and see who started it. And all things go two way - the same way you say that your edits have nothing to do with serbophobia, can be applied other way around. Which brings us back to the topic, and that is that there is no proof / reference that anti-croatian sentiment from the article exists. You base your article on original research, which is, as you can see, flawed. This is no place for random speculations. What proof do you have that your alledged examples of "croatophobia" are not All based on historical facts (as you have put it yourself for your edits). Rockie21 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, leave your mind open and you will see that croatophobia exists as much as serbophobia in the world around us, that is the sorry state of affairs. The references carry irrational hatred and fear, and croatophobia is a better term for it then anti-croatian sentiment. Well I have looked a few lines above, and from the evidence presented it looks like you have come to existance to push this debate. FrontLine 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, per Mir Harven and Elephantus above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante Perkovic (talk • contribs)
Keep. I'm with Dr Gonzo. Suppressing this would be tantamount to saying croataphobia doesn't actually exist. No, I'm not a Croatian meat ballot stuffer, I'm Moriori 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If it exists, why are there no google hits? And the two newspaper articles that mention it, cooked it up for the purpose of the article - in one it means one thing, in other quite anoter thing. Like non-nationalist Croats who were branded "Croatophobes" for their lack of patriotism. And that is given as a reference for "feeling of hostility or hatred towards Croats". Come on. Give us a reliable source that the thing exists. Pointing to the alleged examples is original research. Pointing to sources that describe this supposed sentiment is quite different thing. There is no proof or even any indication that this is an established phenomenon. If web-forums are best you can come up with, excellent. Tom-Cruisophobia has better references than this. Rockie21 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and write the article about Tom-Cruisophobia, if you feel there is merit to it. FrontLine 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How long do you think such an article would last? Oh, I forgot, WP:POINT is also one of the reasons to delete this article. Rockie21 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Judge, jury and executioner all in a single package. But what if the article you have suggested and I dared you to write, becomes relevant... you will only know if you go ahead with it. FrontLine 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are also very versed in the different acronyms used in the wikispace to deserve such an innocent name and have contributed so little so far, so much of being ernest. FrontLine 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, per Mir Harven and DrGonzo. EurowikiJ 10:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you discount WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NOT, than indeed you might be right. Rockie21 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You sure have some points there, but you should realize that the fact that you do look a lot like a Serbian sock puppet (I could be wrong, but I'd say it with 99.99% certainty) doesn't add to your credibility. No offence meant. I was happy to discover that there are some very decent Serbian wikipedians (user:Duja, for instance), but it should be obvious to anyone that all this extensive sock puppetry causes damage to the reputation of your country, creating the depressing impression that there is a huge amount of Serbian cheaters (whereas I'm sure that it's actually just one or a couple of people who happen to have a lot of spare time and an inclination to cheat). --85.187.44.131 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you (and other editors) that WP:NPA is a policy here. Also, it is strange that you have such concerns, as you edit anonimously. Balot stuffing and things like that can be considered cheating, and that is what Croatian editors here are doing, not me. Comment on the issue, not the contributors. Note that you being supposedly Bulgarian does not automatically make you neutral, as you also hold bias, possibly anti-Serbian. Rockie21 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't attack you personally, I simply stated that you look like a sock puppet to me, and that sock puppetry is bad. You're right that the fact that you're probably a sock puppet doesn't mean you're wrong (since that is an ad hominem argument), but I'm sure many neutral editors are influenced by that fact nevertheless. Anyway, I'm glad I'm finally being accused of anti-Serbianism for a change. --85.187.44.131 15:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you elected yourself as the moderator of this discussion, and calling certain users certain names. Also, the claims that the Croatian editors are cheating is a sign of clutching any straw you can get as well as mud throwing. Hmm, straws and mud make bricks.... FrontLine 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User Rockie21 if you abide with WP:NPA, the discussion on this page would be steered into a different direction FrontLine 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Note that article Anti-Croatian sentiment already exists, and it was considered for speedy deletion, but that was posponed. So, either delete both articles or merge content of this one into already existing one (that has no neologism problems). Rockie21 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as the concept is an invention of the author of this article, who is probably trying to counter the existence (in the real world) of Serbophobia. In other words, this is a case of competetive victimhood. Profnjm 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh...I'm not sure about the validity of this user's argument. The term "kroatofobija" is recorded in the most comprehensive one-volume contemporary Croatian dictionary[20], while I'm not sure about the term "srbofobija" (tho, I'm not conversant with current Serbian lexicography). So, as far as the recorded existence of the notion goes, "kroatofobija" is, to my knowledge, certainly more "established" than "srbofobija". As for Google-arguments, they've been dealt with. And, as for "the existence in the real world of Serbophobia"-this is a purely subjective opinion of this user, to put it mildly. Mir Harven 07:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh...This is how Serbophobia is more established, and it's probably not in the way that you think I meant. I didn't think I'd be explaining this to a Croat, frankly. "Serbophobia" has been a Serbian bogey for forty years. Serbian intellectuals spent much of the 1980s and 1990s wallowing in their own belief that Croats, communists, Montenegrins, Slovenes et al. were Serbophobes. Entire books were written on the subject -- see the writings of Vuk Draskovic, Dobrica Cosic, etc.. I most definitely do NOT mean that any of those peoples truly and deeply hated Serbs. But the concept's existence is beyong dispute, even if it is not directly comparable to other phobias. For the rest, I don't deal in Google hits. Mir Harven seems to me to be a Croatian inventor -- the notion of Croatophobia does not exist in its pure form nor in the form I describe for Serbs. Profnjm 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks I've become a self-requoting junkie. Sigh. But, what the heck-I think this shows I'm not an inventor after all:Examples like [21], [22], speak for themselves-although, it would be even more visible if the Serbian academician Vasilije Krestić's article about "Croatian mustiness of the soul", or Vojislav Šešelj's magnum opus, downloadable in Serbian Cyrillic [23] were translated in English: here we read whole chapters on "Thousand years of Croatian barbarism" (p.486), "Croatian savagery in folk songs" (p. 495), "Animalistic urges of Croatian national being" (p. 529), "The Croat savage mentality is repugnant to the Italians" (p. 537), "Croatian people is guilty of Ustaša crimes", (p. 617), "Crime-the spiritual food for Croatian national being" (p. 627) etc, etc. Now- Šešelj's Radical party is the strongest party in Serbia and Montenegro (ca. 40% of the popular vote) & this is their leader and ideologue's masterwork. Mir Harven 12:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If an accumulation of hateful remarks were the threshold, I might in fact deserve my own article, since in the past month I've been told by one editor that "I should be hanged as a dirty Jew because a bullet is too good for me," while an administrator accused me of anti-Semitism!

This is a logical fallacy here: your personal experiences are not on the same level with the ideological manifest of a leader of a political party that has been implicated in actions that are dutifully registered as examples of Croatophobia. Better comparison would be writings of Gobineau & Wilhelm Marr (sp ?) in the context of Judeophobia (which is, btw, etymologically more suitable word than anti-Semitism (Arab anti-Semitism & similar semantical suicides)).Mir Harven 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Then go onto the Anti-Semitism article and start a new crusade. That's not my business. Besides, you surely realize that I was just making a point. Nonetheless, if you let me start an "anti-Profnjmism" article, I'll not stand in your way any longer here. Profnjm 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no phenomenon of "anti-Croatism," there is just an accumulation of chatter.

Oh, yeah. How do you know ? This is a rather far-fetching remark from someone who admits he's not very well informed on the issue. Certainly, some other people would not share your opinion. Mir Harven 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I admit such a thing? Thought not. Profnjm 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, even worse. Given the documentation presented & denying its ramifications and "actualization" in practice-you could only be classified as a Croatophobe (particular affiliation is of no importance). It's one thing to question the validity of writing a text with title containing a neologism that cannot be find in English language dictionaries & is rarely found via search engines. This is perfectly legitimate & rational objection (although, of course, I find it narrow & an example of pitiful workings of a bureaucratic mind.). To deny the existence of the phenomenon, or trivializing it with off-hand remarks no morally responsible person can take seriously-well, this is a completely different thing. Mir Harven 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A Croatian accumulation of quotes from noted (!) Croatophobes like Leslie Gelb hardly qualifies Anti-Croatism as anything more than an exalted (and new) word for a run-of-the-mill thing. Profnjm 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Even in the case of Serbophobia, it's not that it is real, but the imagined existence of it is so powerful a political force that it becomes a phenomenon in its own right. You really should stop quoting yourself, or every google citation will refer back to you. ;) Profnjm 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Sentiment existed and exists, but I didn't hear for the term Croatophobia. Like Anti-Bosniak sentiment and Serbophobia (it seems that the best idea is to move all of the articles into "Anti-X sentiment"; but this is completely different story)... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your final point. Surely xenophobia deserves its own article. Profnjm 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete - per Profnjm. --serbiana - talk 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete - I agree with Profnjm, just combine it all. C-c-c-c 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

keep!Prkno 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete OR neologism. LjL 20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep - Just like for Serbophobia! All of these nationalists was for keeping/deleting of Serbophobia, and now for deleting/keeping of this article. You are so comical and miserable! --Pockey 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They are different things. I wasn't here for the Serbophobia debate. I can't imagine you mean that I'm comical or miserable. That wouldn't be civil, would it?Profnjm 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all, but all. Many of them, sorry for misunderstanding. --Pockey 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep laughing per Pokrajac. - FrancisTyers 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: well, "serbophobia" gets >1400 hits on my Google, while "croatophobia" gets 20 (5 shown, 2 of which from Wikipedia). This is bound to mean something... LjL 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

- - Comment: well, "serbophobia" gets >1400 hits on my Google, while "croatophobia" gets 20 (5 shown, 2 of which from Wikipedia). This is bound to mean something... Maybe that Serbs, generally, are more paranoid than Croats ? Mir Harven 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite true. Unfortunately, that fact supports deletion. Profnjm 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

keep/rename/merge Croatophobia into Anti-Croatian sentiment. Valid topic, bad title. `'mikka (t) 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, neologism. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, possibly rename. While the title is a neologism, most surely Ustashe left a trace of hatred, for example. However the articles on such touchy topics (ethnic conflicts) must be heavily documented. Mukadderat 16:03, 18 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 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edge the Devilhunter

Prodded, removed. Does not assert satisfying the guidelines for inclusion of websites. brenneman^{L} 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. brenneman^{L} 05:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as no notability asserted. BTW, as a side note, there are a number of suspect articles at Graphic_Smash that should probably also be considered if someone wants to take the time of AfDing them. Aplomado ^talk 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment More of a waste of time, actually. Graphic Smash is an subscription-based site and all of its webcomics are there by invitation. They are high quality and tend to get nominated for awards (we're talking Eisners, not just WCCA), which always makes AfDing them contentious. Sure, the webcomic rubber stampers will vote delete, but when the dust has cleared, usually what you end up with is a "no consensus" or "keep". As far as this comic goes, though, I'm undecided. I don't think it was on Graphic Smash for very long, and now is on the free host, Comic Genesis. I'd have to do more research to decide one way or the other. I was hoping the authors of this article would let the prod go through so I could do that research and possibly bring it back with more background info. Unfortunately, they chose to contest it; AfD digs a much deeper grave than prod. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 19:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Does not establish notability. Sandy 00:12, 18 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. Pretty close to a no consensus but for the flurry of keep votes in the end. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado)

It's a mess, and by the time the cruft is deleted it won't even make stub status. Images might be a problem too, not just copyright, but whether or not those shown actually want to be on that page}} Moriori 07:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a work in progress. The page is being cleaned up, and I only jsut now got the images workign right. I know the people in the pictures personally, and they gave me permission for thier placement on this page. I was nto expecting anyone to come across it for a few days, and the page is only a couple of hours old. Within a week, the page will be in perfect wikishape. This deletion recommendation seems to be more of a flaming/trool comment, not a thoughtful consideration.ThNik 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I trust your work on this article is not indicative of the quality of students that come from this school. My AfD tag was in the interests of reversing the dumbing down of Wikipedia, and is not a "a flaming/trool comment", whatever that is. If you want to avoid this ever happening again in the future, then write and fully tweak your article before you post it. Incidentally, do you not have a spellchecker? Anyway, I'll help out a bit on the article. Moriori 08:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No I am sorry. I know my spelling is a problem. I am having computer diffuclties at the moment, and I asm working on an old POS computer that has no spell check. And I meant to say flaming/troll, as in a move made jsut to be mean, not thinking carefully.

Keep. The school does seem to be noteworthy, but we have a lot of crap to clear from the page first. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Delete. The "Small by Design" concept seems to be noteworthy, as noted here, here, and here, but the school itself seems forgettable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  - And I found an article on the movement. See Small schools movement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

there is nothing that needs to be moved, as it all is important tot eh school. Forgive me for saying this, but you cannot have an opinion on what is important about the school unless you attend it. What there is a lack of is useful information such as sports teams and awards, a job I am working on. I am also taking all requests for added information so I can gatehr the proper facts and add as nessecerry. I also say that it is not cruft, as it was wanted from appeanance by wikipedia, as ntoed by the red link, and since noone else wnated to work on it, I chose to.ThNik 02:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete non notable seemingly vanity article of origional research. Please see WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY--Strothra 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Education. But it needs some cleanup, per WP:SCH. Also, regarding the statement, "You cannot have an opinion on what is important about the school unless you attend it," the article should explain the school's notability to the casual reader who doesn't attend the school. That would make it a better, more interesting article. --E lkman - ^(talk) 16:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - article contains almost no information about the school itself, only the Small be Design program. If some sources could be found indicating its notability, perhaps the program itself would deserve an article; but as of right now, the school is definitely non-notable. --JerryOrr 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, a mention of the school's existence at Thornton, Colorado is sufficient. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
(personal attack by banned user removed)

Comment I'm no deletionist, but I must say that a 'keep' proposal so aggressively targeted at the editors who could aggregate to prevent deletion of this article doesn't seem the best way to proceed. By the way; I (and many other editors) am/are A Geek, Not A Nerd. Another point which is perhaps worthy of mention, without disparaging the creator's efforts; a redlink does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia per se wants an article; it could also suggest that one editor thinks that an article should be created, and that other editors who disagree have not yet removed the redlink. Having said that, fleshing out redlinks is a noble cause (see Sir Geoffrey of Redlink), and I salute you for this, if not for a considered and calmly argued approach. Colon el Tom 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Oh, and Weak Keep. Not because I think it is noteworthy, but because if I understand correctly the community consensus is to keep school articles as stubs. Sarg 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately wikipedia is kinda broken on the schools issue, and that causes stress and wasted time not only for regulars but also for helpful passers-by like yourself. Kappa 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Moriori 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a vote by the nominator, and yes, I know it was from the old listing, just commenting. Ans e ll 12:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the nominator voting? Same as RfA etc!Moriori 01:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Relisting due to irregularities (see talk page). - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the precedents at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005. Also, this particular school's (or schools') approach, seems interesting, and worth describing. --Rob 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a school is worth keeping, despite its editor. Tyrenius 07:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Cedars 08:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think all high schools are notable. Needs a good cleanup though. Kevin 08:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, established school, no reason wp users shouldn't be able to read about it. Also a good article. Kappa 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It's amazing how AfD can turn a mess into a reasonable article. Moriori 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete all non-notable highschoolcruft KleenupKrew 11:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep No reasons for deletion that are worth considering have been mentioned. Hawkestone 11:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please assume good faith and refrain from making attacks upon the opinions of other editors who extend the same courtesy to you. --Strothra 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, suggesting a vanity motive, would seem to be more of an assumption of bad faith. The above keep voter, is merely indicating that they find none of your arguements worth considering. They are not questioning your *motive* for making any arguement. There's a big difference. You did ascribe an improper motive to others: namely "vanity". Note: the guideline is worded "assume good faith" *not* "assume good reasoning". Also, it's hard for others to understand your reasoning when you make an *invalid* speedy vote. Please cite where in policy you can justify a speedy deletion of this school. You gave *no* legitimate reason for a *speedy* deletion. --Rob 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why you assume that I voted for deletion solely based on vanity. I voted for deletion, as I state in my deletion vote above, because the article does not even attempt to cite sources thus leaving the information in the article unverifiable. The article relies purely on origional research. There are Wiki policies regarding citation, verifiability, and orgional research. The comment, whether or not it assumed bad faith, was still offensive in that it attempted to simply dismiss the points made by other editors who voted for deletion without giving any counter arguement for why the article should be kept. --Strothra 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that was your sole reason. In fact, it may not have been a reason at all. I just said "You did ascribe an improper motive". My point was WP:AGF means assuming good faith, not assuming good reasons. If you critiqued the *reasoning* of others, that would have been better then critiquing the motive (vanity) of others. Also, I didn't say you gave no reason for deleting per se. I was specifically saying you gave no basis in policy for *speedy* deletion. You had no speedy-specific reasoning. --Rob 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood and, as I'm sure you've seen, I altered my delete vote accordingly.--Strothra 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep per all above Jcuk 13:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVad e r 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, high schools are notable. BryanG 18:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep and Rewrite, but only because high schools are inherently notable. I'd actually prefer a deletion of this article so someone else can write it from scratch. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Angr. Ardenn 03:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep current article is not at all cruft as the nominator refers to it. It details the splitting of the school under the Small schools movement. A history of the school before this point would be helpful, but the current article is a worthwile stub as it is. Ansell 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The nominator was not nominating the current version, not did he say the original was all cruft either. Check this to see the mess that was nominated. Moriori 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Sorry! my apologies about the cruft statement, its a word I hate to see at the best of times, but the page wasn't all that great at that point in time, however, the vote should be decided on its current state and future encyclopedic possibilities. Ansell 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    - You may have missed where I said above -- "It's amazing how AfD can turn a mess into a reasonable article." If this article was still in the form it was in when nominated, it would be outtahere. It is now being judged on its current status. Seems we don't need Wikipedia:Cleanup. Simply bung a mess onto AfD and if someone sees potential in it, it will be improved. Moriori 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep :) Dlohcierekim 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason that there are two sections to the page, so that people don't feel justified in singling out one section without the other. Same goes for the above user, dont selectively use arguments to support your case either. Ans e ll 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following you. You supported to keep this article on the basis that the "current article is not at all cruft." If you're saying that my argument may be invalid, as I'm only looking at reasons to delete the article, why did you only consider an argument to keep it? If everyone wanted to support both sides of the debate, this entire AfD would be a long list of "neutral votes." ;) — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I put my comment down because it is not valuable to the debate to simple reference one set of arguments in response to someone referencing the complementary set of arguments. Articulate your reasons here instead. Ans e ll 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you haven't been through the trenches in the "schools debate." The reason people cite WP:SCH is because all debates turn out the same – they default to keep. Rehashing the same argument each time is a waste of energy for everyone involved. If you'd simply like me to take an argument from Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments into this AfD listing, which is what everyone here, including you, has already done, I'd be happy to do so. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments in the section you reference are very broad. They don't all correspond to this AfD as the list references all possible arguments against having the page. Did you consider in your decision to vote this way whether the Keep arguments on the page are relevant, and as such whether they are stronger than the relevant Delete arguments. All of these things make for a more constructive debate than having people simply responding to someone referencing Keep and another referencing the corresponding Delete arguments. Same goes for Dlohcierekim BTW. Ans e ll Review my progress! 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do, in fact, look at articles before I say anything on the corresponding AfD and I have, in fact, read the other arguments on this AfD listing. I think we can relax a little if you'll allow me to clarify my argument: "1. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. WP:NOT states "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"," per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable schools such as this do not merit their own page. ForbiddenWord 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Rob. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - all high schools are inherently notable. This does need a good cleanup though. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 04:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
keep please all these are inherently notable Yuckfoo 17:54, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umbrella Foundation

seems like vanity. Only two people in the organization. What do they do? Who are they? :-) musti 06:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable organisation/website WP:CORP & WP:WEB refer respectively. The website is a beta template with no content as of the time of writing. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Two employees? Blatant advertising with virtually zero content. Aplomado ^talk 07:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Could have been speedied as {{empty}} Kevin 08:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable company, advertising. JIP | Talk 08:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Its just a template and a slogan and nothing else. It's also a blatant advert. DannyM 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete too little content even for advertising. -- AlexR 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - There is no point in its existence, it is just taking up space, there is no information there. Benjaminstewart05 12:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, advertising. DarthVad e r 14:56, 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 05:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love, Chicago zine

Non notable. Furthermore, this article was seemingly created by a staff member of this "zine". The credits at the end of the article give it away. So that's another sign of non-notability. Beltz 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. In its current shape the article needs to go, but the magazine appears to get a small share of unique Google hits, so there is some potential there. If anyone would be willing to fix it up I could consider a keep vote. As is, the article is begging for deletion. Aplomado ^talk 07:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- How small is "small"? Does it meet WP:WEB? — Haeleth Talk 15:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 10:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-Notable. Beno1000 11:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 14:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless shown to have any importance. — Haeleth Talk 15:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Haeleth, probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Clark (actor/director)

Pure WP:AUTO - identical to creator's user page. All his edits have been to this or to Lynn Redgrave, his ex-wife --Jamoche 07:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable bio. Kevin 08:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A good haircut could turn this into a worthy encyclopedic article. If he is non-notable then there are countless thousands of current similar bio entries in Wiki that need the axe as well. One man's meat......Moriori 09:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY. There may be scope for a proper article on this man, but a self-written promo piece is not the way to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Quoting the very page you link to: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion". — Haeleth Talk 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I've scraped this article with a NPOV comb, and would argue that while some more citations are needed, notability is asserted in spades. He was William, after all! Colon el Tom 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. Vanity is not a basis for deletion. Edit out anything unverifiable, POV, or based on original research, and keep the rest, in accordance with the actual policies and principles on which Wikipedia is founded. — Haeleth Talk
Keep Notable enough, IMDB bio shows a significant body of film and TV work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per above. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the above reasons. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've "cleaned it up" by removing items that might be deemed controversial. Any so considered can be found in my website, which I have just updated with archival footage from British Pathe. Please don't delete all of this entry, I think it belongs here in Wilkipedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Nlu (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Anemic Movement

Tagged for speedy as nonsense (it gets one ghit, on livejournal). Prod removed w/no comment, so bringing here. Jamoche 07:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment User:Ludwigjefferton (author of article) blanked this page. --Jamoche 08:04, 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Club JB

Author keeps removing speedy tag so I've brought it to afd. This is very nn and is patent jibberish for about two thirds of the article. J.J.Sagnella 07:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable James Bond fansite/board, as per WP:WEB. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable web forum. Listing individual members is a good sign of web forum vanity. JIP | Talk 08:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete 25-40 users = NN Kevin 08:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable web forum. Zaxem 10:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed to delete this article and all traces of it- The author-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.134.137 (talk • contribs) . (Not the author)

Sorry about not logging in first: From the author: You may now delete the article and all traces of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb2net (talk • contribs)

Speedy Delete. CSD G7. DarthVad e r 15:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jinopets

Article about an almost unknown website/VPS (Virtual Pet Site). Currently ranks 1,447,354 on alexa. Advertising for an un-notable website.As stated here: WP:WEB.

-HurricaneJeanne 08:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete, article seems fairly well written, but the site is not notable enough. JIP | Talk 08:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 10:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete Well written but nn. Beno1000 12:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, particularly Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. 7000 hits on Google. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete 7000 hits on Google; I don't believe that's enough. As the article says, it "has not been updated frequently since April 2005" (albeit, due to work on a new version of the website). joturn e r 17:09, 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. Deizio talk 14:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeration

Neologism. The term zeration apparently first appears in a 2004 paper, which is published on a webforum and a website run by a Rotary club. The article zeration (written by User:Rubcov) traces the concept back to a 1989 paper by a certain Rubtsov. No further hits in Google.

Additionally, there are concerns about the validity of the article. User:Arthur Rubin wrote:

"I'd give it thumbs down, in regard the Δ numbers. That is just wrong, even if referenced in the paper. The rest is more-or-less accurate, although I believe it falis WP:N.

As for hyperexponentials, my first paper (in 1966) references an earlier paper by Donner and Tarski which discusses hyperexponentials on the ordinal numbers. I doubt the primacy of the 1987 paper."

I'm not sure this is what Arthur is referring to, but the definition of the Δ operation is incomplete. It is said to be the inverse of zeration, in the sense that

$a \circ b = c \implies c \Delta b = a.$

However, we have both $1 \circ 3 = 4$ and $2 \circ 3 = 4$ , so what is $4 \Delta 3 \,$ ? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

delete, I trust Jitse and Arthur. -lethe ^{talk +} 09:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I trust Lethe. Stephen B Streater 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Inverse operation is not well defined, and meaning of $Δ$ is not clear to me either - is it a unary or binary operator? Other quibbles could be resolved in editing. Stephen B Streater 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Arthur Rubin and Jitse. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Looks like author is spamming all wikis: I've just nominated for deletion the same article on ruwiki. MaxSem 11:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Seems to be correct, but probably is a neologism. Beno1000 12:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete immediately! As: 1. Wikipedia not a place for the information on a new scientific nomenclature (Neologism). 2. Wikipedia not a place for scientific controversies and information absent in the classical encyclopedias. 3. It information from official printed scientific works, which are not submitted in Google. It really can break the copyrights. 4. Because so thinks dear MaxSem. From which I have learned, the publication of paper in 2 languages is equated to SPAM. Russian variant is already removed. Rubcov (Author) 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "Removed"? What's that, then? $) MaxSem 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

MaxSem, I think he is being sarcastic, its hard to tell. Anyways, I can not read Russian but according to an online translator, the article is a candidate for removal there as well. -- 127.*.*.1 18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. As I keep reminding people, you can't improve an article if it doesn't exist. This article has some problems, but they look to be ones that can be fixed. Gene Ward Smith 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as trivial, original research, and a neologism. See WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If the cited paper is actually published anywhere (other than on a website), then I would change my vote to a keep. As it stands, there is no published reference for the term "zeration". Samw 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What about mentioning the idea in the Ackermann function article? Gene Ward Smith

Exactly what do you want to mention? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest saying we can start the Ackermann function off with the following, and give the definition, and then say some people are calling that "zeration", but this may not be a standard mathematical term. Gene Ward Smith 10:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: But it isn't the Ackermann function. Stephen B Streater 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(via edit conflict) You mean saying that $A(0,{\cdot})$ is the same as zeration? But the former function takes one argument, and zeration is a binary operation. Furthermore, they do not quite agree since zeration has the strange definition $n\circ n = n+2$ . But I don't have Ackermann function on my watchlist, so I won't notice if you sneak something in :) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:32, 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 Sppedy delete as A7. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loving_Grahem

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Bananafritter 12:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not only that, it is a self-created article, possibly for publicity. Mu5ti 08:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. Tagged as such. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 10:47, 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. This is right on the edge of my personal keep-delete border. THe problem is whether this contest is a hoax, and whether it's notable enough. In any case, I have no qualms about having this re-AfDed in the near future if there are no improvements to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The World's Most Beautiful Transsexual Contest

I sincerely doubt that we need articles on every pagenant on the globe, even such gigantic ones that have about 35 participants. AlexR 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination. Beltz 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable, and may be a suspected hoax. Unless anyone can prove its notability, then this should be deleted. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Sure it's a small contest, but why does that matter? It has been verified via the links on the bottom of the page so I sincerely doubt it is a hoax. I think the article needs to be cleaned up and include more information, but I see no reason why it should be deleted, especially if it is held by a major hotel in one of the most famous cities in America. --Noetic Sage 20:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't seem to be a hoax. Unusual enough to be notable. Smerdis of Tlön 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What's unusual about a tranny pageant? And do we want articles about everything a "major hotel in one of the most famous cities in America" does? -- AlexR 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup, it's verifiable and notable. bbx 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Not everything in the LGBT world is notable enough for an encyclopedia. --Sunfazer | Talk 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not really any more notable than a gazillion other beauty pageants. -- GWO
keep please it is unusual enough to be notable we have other pageants too Yuckfoo 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable pageant. -- No Guru 03:21, 19 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. -- Drini 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Itiva

I am proposing this article for deletion for the following reasons:

Company does not meet notability guidelines WP:CORP
Software does not meet notability guidelines WP:CORP or proposed notability guidelines for software WP:SOFTWARE
No independent sources given with research independent of company
Apparently false claims: http fetches and web caches have been used for streaming video by Forbidden Technologies plc for six years. Lack of independent reports make their claim impossible to verify so failing WP:V
Original article apparently added by company members and article reads like a brochure, failing WP:VSCA
Article introduces Neologism WP:NEO
Article was added prior to an exhibition at the start of May. I have left it up to give the company time to get some independent press coverage as a result of this exhibition. None has been produced
I have not received any replies to my query on the talk page dated 22 April 2006 asking for evidence of notability Stephen B Streater 09:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.--Drat (Talk) 10:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Zaxem 10:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per comprehensive and well-researched nomination, from editor who is active in this field of technology so kknows of which he speaks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 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. -- Drini 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Four Hundred (band)

This band isn't notable under WP:MUSIC. It's also not verifiable under WP:V. Jesuschex 10:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. The article says that the band "have been seen a few times live", nowhere near enough notability for WP:MUSIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. TheMadBaron 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Imaginaryoctopus^(talk) 16:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete and a minor note that the AfD notice was removed by an anon user. I have restored it. TheProject 16:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It was removed twice by different anon users. Jesuschex 17:33, 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. -- Drini 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Century 22

Apparent vanity page. Not encyclopedic. Delete KleenupKrew 11:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Not enough for an article, including lack of independent sources for verifiability and notability. Stephen B Streater 11:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination and Stephen B Streater. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 15:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Stephen B Streater--blue520 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all the above. Gwernol 15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It's not nearly enough to define something as an "effort". TheMadBaron 22:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Wikipedia is not ad space. —ERcheck @ 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nothing but a vain statement of posing. Not notable, not encyclopedic, fails WP:BIO doktorb | words 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Unnecessary article. Daniel5127, 03:44, 18 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. -- Drini 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanist Fellowship of North Texas

Non-notable organization. 18 google hits, quoted sources are from David Wallace Croft's web sites (Croft happens to be the author of the article). Part of "optihumanism" religion walled garden. Contested prod. Weregerbil 11:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this a walled garden? I get 55 google hits. The North Texas Church of Freethought is listed and similar. The Humanist Fellowship of North Texas has been in existence since 2003 and represents something historically novel: a new atheistic religious organization, the first of its kind since 1935. David Wallace Croft 2006-05-13

Delete per nom. MaxSem 11:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable organization. Fan1967 12:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn organization. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No attempt has been made to asert notability. TheMadBaron 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. —ERcheck @ 00:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

For notability, please note that this organization is of historical significance in that it is the first "Humanist Church" founded since 1935. It marks a revival in what used to be popular movement in early 20th century. I can see where you might object that a founder is creating the webpage but my main intent is to capture the history and the rationale for this unique organization. It might help people piece together the history in the future and for this reason alone I think it is worth the cost of the disk space to preserve it. Plus, its name was changed recently from "Humanist Church of North Texas". If you search on that term, you get more hits going back to the beginning. David Wallace Croft 2006-05-14

Comment You seem to have notability confused with significance. To put it in simplest terms, in Wikipedia, notability means, "Have people heard of it?" Fan1967 19:13, 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 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border

This was afd tagged but whoever did it forgot to create the deletion discussion page so I'm doing it now KleenupKrew 11:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that that's fixed: Delete creeping immigrationreformcruft. POV fork. Will never be NPOV. KleenupKrew 11:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Followup comment, we have several (far too many) immigration articles that have been created in the past couple months. All of them should be merged into a single Immigration to the United States article, which already exists. I'd give this one a paragraph since it's clearly more notable than the boycott and protest articles; and give the boycott and protests a single sentence each since they'll barely be a footnote 6 months from now. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. KleenupKrew 00:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. I have no political axe to grind, but the subject of this article is an intersting one: the deaths of nearly 2,000 people in six years. The article may not be quie NPOV, but it apears to me to make a good start at addressing the different types of death involved. If editors have concerns about some bias in the article, they should help to improve it, rather than apparently declaring the subject a no-go area. --BrownHairedGirl 12:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that how things work? I create an article that is basicly questionable and biased, and if you are unhappy with that, YOU help me make it a verifiable and objective article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medico80 (talk • contribs)

Delete Due to POV reasons. --Strothra 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete due to POV and bad quality. 1652186 18:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Obvious and strong keep per BrownHairedGirl. The deaths of nearly 2,000 people is a clearly notable phenomenon. POV should be addressed by cleanup, not by deletion. bikeable (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete It was POV from the beginning. There have been dicussions and attempts to make it a fair and sober article, but it doesn't seem to happen. It was meant as a political statement, and its original creators want it that way, otherwise they would have done the nessecary changes. Medico80 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, if verifiable. It's a worthy topic. If there's a political agenda, I missed it, but if you think changes are necessary, go make 'em. TheMadBaron 22:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, This is about the hundreds of people who die every year from dehydration while trying to walk that corridor of death. It's been on the national news many times now. Williamb 00:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, As I've said before this is a very USEFUL article, and factually correct and the facts are able to be proven.[24][25]Dark jedi requiem 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but cleanup, add sources, and straighten out the bias. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 00:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notability is established. Neutrality and quality are not reasons for deletion. A good topic could potentially be written on this and would be very useful especially incomparison to all the pokemon characters we have. Falphin 02:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR. Uncited. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment this list will invariably be as POV as a List of crimes committed by immigrants or List of people who are victims of crimes convicted by immigrants, but they should stay if they get created and can be verified if the current nominee survives. If those who are "Keepers" above have qualms about these lists, you should analyze your own prejudices or change your votes: immigration has its pluses and minuses and people die both on their way to the US and others are killed by those who successfully get here. Just look at the list at Texas' death row site. Carlossuarez46 23:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per Falphin who summarized the matter well. JoshuaZ 00:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Ok, I admit that after Dark jedi requiem's cleanup, it begins to look fair and factual, clear of all those paranoid innuendos about minutemen and stuff. But I still question its right to stand as an independent encyclopedia article. As Carlossuarez46 suggests, if the approach to a topic is too akward from the beginning, it cannot be very NPOV.Medico80 09:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable and verfyable. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep but Merge with United States-Mexico border. IMHO, there are very few articles that are inherently POV and this is not one of them. That notwithstanding, as with all other articles there can be no original research or POV allowed in it. Lawyer2b 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand if possible. I recall hearing for quite some time (late 80s) about homocides along the US/Mexico border (speculation at that time being that it was the work of one or more unidentified serial killers). - CNichols 19:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into one of the articles mentioned above. The current article should not be kept. Vegaswikian 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment What about the title? "Immigrants". Why not "deaths" in general. And are they emi- or immi-grants? Doesn't it depend on which side of the border they are? Doesn't "immi" suggest that they are foreigners to the killers, meaning Americans? 11:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Important topic, address problems with cleanup. Sandy 00:08, 18 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) 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just (band)

fails WP:MUSIC SaltyWater 11:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN band. Beno1000 11:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete this "up and coming" band as per WP:MUSIC. An article on them would be great if and when they have already upped and comed, but not now. --BrownHairedGirl 12:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, website asserts that they've toured Canada, which meets WP:MUSIC standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: WP:MUSIC requires Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources (emphasis added by me). I see no evidence that this tour has been "reported in notable and verifiable sources". --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The website appears to have links to the venues. Confirmation is rather easy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I could grab a guitar and tour, doesn't make me notable. --cholmes75 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, if you toured nationally, it does. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - They have 3 links to local venues on their website. No mention of this "national" tour. Also, the article is a little dicey timewise...was their tour in 2003? Bear in mind a self-definition isn't always the best, and we still don't have a reputable media source confirming it.--Marysunshine 23:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    - How far back did you look in their calendar. Plus, the "reported in notable and verifiable sources" doesn't mean "reputable media source." It can easily mean the venues they played in, or the band itself as a primary source per WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 06:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
So if I drive to a number of cities in the U.S. and strum my guitar on a streetcorner, that constitutes a tour and thus meets WP:MUSIC standards? That said, this band does seem to have some notability, and Google turns up some unique hits. I don't think it would be too hard to turn this into a workable article, so I would have to vote weak keep on this one. Aplomado ^talk 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Never heard of them, their website has 3 local venues listed for this month and zilch for the summer, they haven't *charted* nationally, and their venues/times for the national tour (in 2003?) aren't listed on the website. No presence on Google. I'm not buying it.--Marysunshine 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
keep please their tours can be verified passes music Yuckfoo 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Not every band which has been signed is notable. Their main fansite is an MSN group, their merchandise is hosted on Cafepress. Most of their venues seem to be bars. - Hahnch e n 20:14, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graduate of the Year (UK)

Successful, ambitious students. Eugh. Desmond22 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment The most recent winner of the prize was nominated for deletion a few weeks ago and resulted in deletion Metros232 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also worth noting, the nominator of this AfD only has 3 contributions: tagging the article, creating this discussion page, and adding it to the main page. Metros232 11:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're going down that path, the creator of the article, GOY2006 (talk · contribs), created this article and voted in the above AfD - and nothing else. So the sound you hear as you read the article is apparently that of a barrow being pushed. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
For all we know, Desmond22 has been making valuable contributions for some time anonymously. The fact that a nominator is a new user is merely the natural outcome of the restriction of page creation to logged-in users. — Haeleth Talk 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: what policies does this article contravene? WP:Eugh doesn't exist yet! --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as apparent vanity, the importance of this competition being unstated. 118 ghits for PWC "Graduate of the Year", of which some at least are unrelated. WP:NOT a soapbox, a mechansim for self-promotion or an indiscriminate collection of information. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - That is because not all articles refer to "PwC" with the award. Some mention "PricewaterhouseCoopers", some just "Real World", some "Moloney Search", and many don't mention the sponsors but just "Graduate of the Year". The number of pages that refer to this award in some form or another exceeds 500. GOY2006 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Seems legitimate but could do with a toneing down and a bit more substance. Benjaminstewart05 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I wrote this article and have no direct affiliation with the award or the winners. This is by far the most nationally recognised award for university students/graduates in the United Kingdom, and winners have been in the main UK mainstream press - including BBC, The Guardian, The Independent etc, as well as front page on big university sites like ox.ac.uk etc. Some of those mentioned have several hundred hits to their name. Also, Desmond's reasons for deletion of this article are invalid. GOY2006 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable, not OR, not obnoxiously POV. We have plenty of US-centric universitycruft that will never be deleted; it's nice to see the odd article that recognises that academic life is not entirely based around random combinations of three Greek letters. — Haeleth Talk 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. No coherent reason given for deletion. Not a brilliant article, but low quality is not a valid reason for deletion. Cadr 20:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I hate successful people too; sadly though there are too many of them to delete. Badgerpatrol 22:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Throw a cleanup tag on there if you'd like.--Marysunshine 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per Marysunshine. Gwernol 03:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Legitimate, encylopædic record of notable event in British University life. Tone & language are NPOV & references bare witness to the validity of the article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as absurdly depressing. Oh, ok, keep it, whatever. Hornplease 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:EUGH. Err... keep. BHG has a point. AnonEMouse

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Drini 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Wassall

Webmaster of a non-notable "pro-white" sports website and former publisher of a tiny circulation fringe newspaper. Not encyclopedic. Delete. KleenupKrew 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete The United_States_Populist_Party entry itself notes that the reincarnation of that party was dead by the time he became leader. Not notable; also, some mild weasel-wording involved.--Marysunshine 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 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. -- Drini 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Above the Ruins

Non-notable 1986 UK band, released 1 home-pressed album. Delete KleenupKrew 11:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —M e ts501^talk 14:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete but only because there is no information here or worth adding that cannot already be found at Tony Wakeford's existing entry.Ac@osr 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Tony Wakeford. TheMadBaron 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirect ~~per~~ to Tony Wakeford. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I can go along with those redirect votes KleenupKrew 02:47, 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 delete. -- Drini 04:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Fitzpatrick

Non-notable (see WP:NN) minor political figure in the UK. Has not stood for electoral office himself: his main claim to fame is that he is the son of Jim Fitzpatrick MP, and was an election agent in the 2005 general election. There are thousands of children of MPs in the UK, and I cannot see that any except perhaps the children of Prime Ministers achieve notability simply by reason of their parentage. Secondary claim to fame is as an an election agent, another non-notable role (even Tony Blair's agent, John Burton, who achieves a degree of notability at election time, does not have an article here, although he probably should have). BrownHairedGirl 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per my nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 12:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm unfamiliar with the UK political system. Can someone explain what an "election agent" is? Metros232 12:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have linked to the term in my nomination. Now done: see Election agent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Basically, in American terms, a campaign manager, though the UK system actually has some legal responsibility attached. Unless you're Karl Rove, doesn't make you notable. Fan1967 14:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Does not meet any of the criteria. Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Thanks to those who clarified Election agent for me. Metros232 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:48, 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. -- Drini 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burned Fur

Article previously did not survive a March 2005 AFD. Was re-created in November 2005. Delete. KleenupKrew 12:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge into Furry Fandom if anyone feels particularly strongly about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete grossly POV (which can be fixed) and of no readily discernible notability (which can't). Just zis Guy you know? 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Burn all furries. TheMadBaron 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Notable enough to have an article, and the Furry Fandom page is already long enough. Beno1000 00:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete No comment. —Xydexx 00:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete trivial history bits from ages ago, might fail nn-group, might be merge material if I were feeling really, really generous, but I'm not. May be material for Wikifur (which AFAIK already covers this in most painful detail), but not really sufficiently interesting for inclusion in Wikipedia... we don't cover lame website "wars" either. Usenet trolls from 1980s and early 1990s may be notable, but hardly very late 1990s =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Furry fandom. Vashti 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG -- Masterjamie 04:18, 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. -- Drini 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil Film Actors

Should either be moved to List of Tamil film actors or deleted, POV and many images with no copyright/source info Happynoodleboy 12:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. What ^he said. TheMadBaron 22:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Category:Tamil actors is sufficient. Angr (t • c) 10:19, 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 deleted. -- Drini 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pikkutunneilla

The subject of this article is a Finnish-language webcomic. It's always difficult judging notability for a work of fiction in a language you don't speak, but I don't think Pikkutunneilla meets WP:WEB. It's unranked on Alexa, and Google returns just 22 English language results. Remove the language restrictions and you get 14,300 results, but few appear to have anything to do with the comic. I even poked around in the Finnish Wikipedia and it doesn't look like it has an article there. One thing that is clear, though, is the article is by one of its authors, User:Viestituote, which means WP:VANITY is an issue. As always when I do one of these for webcomics, I recommend the author take a look at Comixpedia, which is a great Wikipedia fork dedicated to online comics. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I do speak the language and I can't find any notability. Nobody links to it, nobody If there awards, newspaper stories, something, please mention it in the article! "Pikkutunneilla" means "in the small hours" so it gets random unrelated ghits. Weregerbil 16:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to the Comixpedia. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Done. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:00, 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 delete. -- Drini 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond accident group

Is an advertisement Generalit85 13:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Obviously spamvertisement. Metros232 13:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Advert - honestly, the audacity of some people, unbelievable! Benjaminstewart05 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. An ambulance chaser amongst hundreds. Dr Zak 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertisement & fails to assert or show notability as outlined by WP:CORP.--blue520 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, complete adcopy with no hint of objectivity. No support for a clean-up since subject is minor. Kuru ^talk 18:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Marysunshine 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 23:46, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dali

Delete. Unsubstantiated or just plain wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave59 (talk • contribs)

Object - The article needs a lot of work, but unless the nominator (who failed to sign his name) has specific objections that qualify the article for deletion, the nominations must be rejected. --Tjss 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- What part of "unsubstantiated" does not count as a specific objection? — Haeleth Talk 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If anything this article needs to have its claims backed up by reliable sources. Dr Zak 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- The essay's own author says, on the talk page, "It is [...] a subjective view and I cannot improve it by adding references." Does it sound to you like this is going to magically become an objective article backed up by reliable sources? Because it doesn't sound that way to me. — Haeleth Talk 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - OK. I'm convinced. Delete. Dr Zak 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NOR. The essay's own author, on the talk page, describes it as "a piece of literary criticism", and says "I would argue that this field is inherently subjective and if you are going to allow it into Wikipaedia at all (which you seem to do) you cannot expect the same standards of objectivity that you would from a Mathematician." Since we do not allow literary criticism in Wikipedia, and we do expect the same standards of objectivity in articles on literary subjects as we do in articles on mathematical subjects, this essay violates our inclusion policies.
If the essay's author believes we allow other similar essays to be kept, it would be appreciated if he could identify them for us, so we can remove those as well. — Haeleth Talk 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Haeleth. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It reads more like high school English lit. homework than an encyclopedia article. It's a review of a review, which I guess makes this current debate a review of a review of a review. Enough now. C-. Delete. TheMadBaron 11:59, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 05:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Belgian "dry up" law

Problems solved, nomination withdrawn. This article is very unencyclopedic, has a huge POV and edit war problem, and the subject does not warrant a page for itself. A short, clear and NPOV section on this subject could easily be added to an existing article. 1652186 13:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep now that I've cleaned up all the POV edits. I shortened the article down to a stub, which is all this article deserves. Aplomado ^talk 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that this approach is a solution of the problem, but there still is a POV problem. And if that's all that's left, I think it could better be included somewhere else. 1652186 17:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep POV and edit wars should not be reasons for deletion. As for notability, this law is attempting to completely paralyze a major political party - some polls predict it might become the largest in Flanders. I don't see the POV problems in Aplomado's cleaned-up version, by the way. David Sneek 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: yes, after my edits to the new version I agree with NPOV. However, I'll keep the tag till the protagonists of the edit war do so too. 1652186 17:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep: important legislation. Comment: is there some more formal name this could be listed under in English? Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep If U.S. legislations get their own articles, Belgian ones should too. Although I do agree that it could use a more formal name. Mr. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but find out its proper name and move there. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, under the more proper name "Belgian Draining Law", which is what the original name means. The law is meant to "drain" the subsidies flowing towards the undemocratic parties. --LucVerhelst 17:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- LucVerhelst, could you add citations to the additions you made? Thanks... Aplomado ^talk 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Thank you. Aplomado ^talk 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Important Belgian legislation. This law is indeed attempting to completely paralyze a major political party in Flanders. The idea is to get rid of a political opponent outside the regular electoral system. And this idea is vivid. Last weekend in Brussels there was a manifestation with thousands of paticipants who demanded its application to eliminate Vlaams Belang.

In Flanders this law is generally known as the “droogleggingswet”, see [26] “Droog“ is translated into English as “dry”. And in the most prominent English /Dutch dictionary, the Van Dale, is written that “dry up” also applies to money. The “dry up law” thus is the best choice as a name for this article.

--Jvb – May 15, 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Drini 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helium Lift Mechanism

This is a non-noteworthy art project. Dr Zak 14:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, part of a walled garden of weird and trivial art projects and creations. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per the above. KleenupKrew 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a load of hot air. TheMadBaron 23:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:44, 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. -- Drini 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RWFG

Article fails to establish importance or notability of the site. cholmes75 14:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. NN forum. ... discospinster 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:41, 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 Redirect to CKY (band). The final result is actually Merge, but looking at the history of CKY (band), there really is nothing to merge because it already contains all the relevant information from this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oil (old cky)

Non-notable band. ~MDD 46 96 14:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - 2 members went on to form CKY. At the very least a merge into that page. Ac@osr 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
SMerge to CKY (band) not notable on its own. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge. TheMadBaron 23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge to CKY. The band definitely deserves (and, by WP:MUSIC, almost needs) to be mentioned on WP, but simply being a band that had members who went on to a better band doesn't mean it needs it own article. -- Kicking222 23:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Obvious Merge. --Brian1979 15:16, 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. I hope Wikipedia doesn't suffer too much from this boycott. I guess I'll have to risk it. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)~~

I am applying administrator's discretion and changing the result of this AfD to Redirect to George Washington University.

I just noticed below that the nominator merged information into George Washington University. As such, I cannot delete this article due to problems with GFDL. Therefore, I am going to undelete this article and replace it with a redirect. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Global Language Group

nn on its own. I merged all the information that wasn't there yet into the The George Washington University article already. (I prodded it after the merge but prod was removed without explanation) Hirudo 14:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All necessary information about the organization is not merged into The George Washington University. Info merged to GWU is only info regarding establishment and membership. That is all that is necessary on the University page. However, it does not define what the organization does. The Global Language Group page defines what the organization is and does, including, most importantly the languages it functions with. That would be like defining the UN without mentioning that there are members from all over the world. The organization is an important part of the University and we would like to have it added. Other such non-profit student organizations at GWU receive far more attention and do not receive deletion threats (see AIESEC). Please advise what must be cleaned up in order to leave The Global Language Group separate page..

Delete Other such non-profit student organizations at GWU receive far more attention, well that's why this article should be deleted. It's just not notable enough. --Eivind^t^@^c 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just because it's not on Wikipedia it does not mean that the organization is "not notable enough." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.207.181 (talk • contribs) .
Delete. Doesn't merit its own page, but does merit mention at The George Washington University (where it now is noted). Zaxem 04:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- It merits its own page just as much as all the fraternities, sororities, and other organizations (such as AIESEC) merit their own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.207.181 (talk • contribs) .
  - Please stop comparing this to AIESEC, which ...is present in over 800 universities in 95 countries and territories. They're not even close to being in the same league. -- Hirudo 09:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (Also, please sign your comments using ~~~~)

To whom it may concern: Please explain why this page must be deleted. I asked someone to clean it up and it was done. If it must be further cleaned up, please note what changes should be made. Thank you. GlobalLanguages 09:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)GlobalLanguages

Delete. Unfortunately, cleanup isn't going to save this article. I can't see any reason why this article should be in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me first apologize for intervening in a conversation that has not, until recently, involved me. I am a Professor and knew nothing about this organization until I read an article in the news this week. Let me first say that whoever was the brainchild of this organization deserves commendation beyond belief.

If I may, allow me to note that Wikipedia is not always highly regarded in the academic field as a credible source. Nevertheless, I encourage my students to reference it in order to gain a more profound knowledge of various subjects.

This organization deserves a page in Wikipedia just as much as any other. The author of the article on the Global Language page followed a more objective tone in writing the article and even wrote with an encyclopedia-like style.

For Wikipedia editors and administrators to attack the article and the organization is outright apalling. The relentless condescending tone taken by Wikipedia staff on this page is enough to turn all of its loyal readers away. One will notice on the homepage that in various languages, Wikipedia is called "The Free Encyclopedia."

The Wiktionary definition of "free" is "Unconstrained...Unobstructed, without blockages." With this in mind, the Wikipedia staff has clearly made it their goal to arbitrarily contradict their own words.

I recommend that this page not be deleted. I further recommend that Wikipedia cease from patronizing the Global Language Organization and concentrate their efforts on improving Wikipedia so that people like those who have clearly been insulted have less "obstruction and blockages" to their freedom. DCprof 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)DCprof

<d>

Hi sorry to butt in. I just saw Global Languages in the paper and I wanted to say thank you for all your incredible work. I agree with the professor about everything. I think you guys at Wikipedia should be ashamed for being so rude and unprofessional. I just read they have over 3,000 members now. Isn't that like the largest student organization in the country? Either way, if I were you I would not want to offend an organization that can get at least 3,000 loyal members to boycott you. Just food for thought.

hey wouldn't it be cool if the "Free Encyclopedia" really were free? Dude, I can't believe how rediculous this is. The guy from the Global Language organization asked like 10 times for a reason to delete the article, and all you guys can say is that it's not notable enough. If you spent more time helping your users and less time attacking them, maybe you would be more notable. 128.164.213.231 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. Do boycott away, it's not that Wikipedia makes any money off your visits, y'know... Sandstein 17:25, 18 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. -- Drini 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAALBOAHL

Definitely a neologism, if not a protologism. Used nowhere save for the incident on the mailing list, and appears nowhere else on the web according to Google. Dare I say it, WP-cruft? Confusing Manifestation 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if ASR applies, since it isn't so much a problem of linking to non-article pages as being something insignificant about WP itself. After all, Wikipedia manages to survive without self-reference. Confusing Manifestation 15:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NFT not for things make up on wikipedia one day...or something. Metros232 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete "..presumably.." a one-off proto/neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Only hits on Google are from Wikipedia. IANAL, on the other hand, does appear to exist. Aplomado ^talk 19:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Even within the context of Wikipedia self-reference, totally non-notable. Fan1967 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary but making an article on an acronym from a single post is ridiculous. Cedars 03:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
New and Improved Super-Strong Keep. As Harrison Ford said, notability is bunk. Or something like that. In any case, it is not self-referential because it refers to an incident on the mailing list, not the project proper. Basically I think notability is the only deletion argument here. I agree that it is not a very notable neologism, if you accept notability as deletion criteria. But come on people, USENET acronyms have their own articles, we should lower the bars a little for our own children ;) Loom91 07:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Go back and read WP:ASR again. For WP we should raise the bar, way, way up. People come to Wikipedia for real information, not something that some person said once on a Wikipedia message board. Fan1967 14:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, self reference, and finally, per WP:First, kill all the lawyers (which, if it doesn't exist, should...) AnonEMouse 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Come back when you're an Internet phenomenon in your own right. Lord Bob 03:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Please people, this is NOT a self-reference. Please actually read the article WP:ASR. It says that articles should not refer to the Wikipedia website OUTSIDE of the context of the article. There is no rule that prevents an article from even mentioning wikipedia even if that is in the context of the article, otherwise we would have to delete Wikipedia. The ASR page says "If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia". The article is not self-referential, please think about the matter before claiming it is. Loom91 07:43, 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 Not delete. Whether this article is to be kept or merged is beyond the scope of this AfD, but the consensus in this AfD is not to delete this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Third Time Nomination for deletion. Most of the points have been confirmed/negated by the release of the book Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, and as such, the article is useless. Bluerain 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There aren't enough useful points in this article for it to be merged into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. At the most, the following paragraph from 'Known details of content' can be added into the 'Controversies' section of HBP: "On July 12, the correct list of chapter titles with minor typographical errors was posted to alt.fan.harry-potter in message db1dgi0tjb@enews4.newsguy.com which noted it had already appeared on Ain't it Cool News before a cease and desist letter from the book's publishers led to its removal. A close paraphrase of the book's first sentence reached the newsgroup July 13, and key plot events of the book reached the newsgroup July 14, with a link to a webpage with a photograph of a page confirming one of them." Bluerain 15:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as now-redundant speculation. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bluerain. Rain74 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete anything from this article that is of encyclopedic interest could easily be merged into the main Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince article. --Dystopos 17:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge to book article. I'll never understand those "Delete, but merge some information" votes. It's contradictory. A merge doesn't require that all the content be merged. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- To explain, I would cast a "merge" vote if I thought that the article should remain as a redirect. In this case, I believe the article should be deleted and any pertinent info merged. (In other words, AfD is about articles, not specific content) --Dystopos 22:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dystopos. Redundant. DarthVad e r 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
merge into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Fabhcún 14:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article describes a fixed time. It is not about the sixth book. It should be viewed as a historical piece. The anticipation of the book release was a global phenomenon well worth covering SmokeyJoe 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Kill it dead. Outdated -- and frankly pointless -- speculation. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge per SmokeyJoe and Dystopos --Icarus 06:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Same reasons as SmokeyJoe -Adzz 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge as historical context. - CNichols 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have historical interest. -- JJay 10:04, 18 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 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'a view of Muawiyah I

Delete inherently POV, as well as POV language in the article, if you look at the page history it is clear that one user owns this article. Jersey Devil 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. POV fork. Kill it with fire. Dr Zak 14:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV Bayyoc 15:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. no more of a pov fork than Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus. Pov issues in the article it self are dealt with, not deleted. Lay of with insulting me with claims of owanage. See also this--Striver 18:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What pov in the article itself? I coulnd find any pov to unpov. If it was not a bogus claim, please point out the pov sentance in the article. --Striver 18:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per Striver, but cleanup for POV (Phrases like "Ali, the rightful Caliph") and some awkward language (which can easily be read as more POV).Bridesmill 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons given in Striver's first comment. Needs some NPOVing, but that is no reason to delete it. Cadr 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV fork. Go and nominate "Jewish view of Jesus" if that article exists solely to push POV and serves no encyclopedia purpose. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. POV forking is not an approved way to deal with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Not anymore POV than for example Jewish view of Jesus but instead legitimate article spinout (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). --Lambiam ^Talk 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per stifle. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

see also my arguementation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali--Striver 08:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Muawiyah I. The main content of this article is duplicated at Muawiyah I - which then redirects you to this article... so you can read it all over again? The information is appropriate in the Muawiyah I article, but there's no need for a repetitive POV fork. --Hyperbole 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, irreconcilably POV. Some phrases that tip me off on that view: --CRGreathouse 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"He is said to have opposed ˤAlī, the rightful Caliph, out of sheer greed for power and wealth."

"his mother whom they regard as the prostitute that killed her black children, became married to Muhammads arch enemy and chewed Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalibs liver"

"His reign opened the door to unparalleled disaster"

Please do not omitt context:

"The Shi'a vilify Muˤāwiyya. His supposed conversion to Islam before the conquest of Mecca is dismissed as a fable, or mere hypocrisy. He is said to have opposed ˤAlī, the rightful Caliph, out of sheer greed for power and wealth. "

"Some list Abu Sufyan as one of the four, other do not. In any case, he accepted him as his father. For this reason, Shi'a name him "Muˤāwiyya ibn Hind", after his mother whom they regard as the prostitute that killed her black children, became married to Muhammads arch enemy and chewed Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalibs liver."

"According to Shi'a belief, his reign opened the door to unparalleled disaster,"

Those sentances are perfectly NPOV--Striver 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed space from the quotes since they're just pointers—I don't want to take up too much space when everyone who's voting here is reading the full articles anyway. I don't see how quoting most of them at length changes anything, though, or makes them NPOV. They're pretty slanted. As for your comment: I responded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni view of Abu Huraira. Have a nice day! --CRGreathouse 07:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn the definition of NPOV. Try reading WP:NPOV--Striver 09:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

comment 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)

Like in Christian views of Jesus we read: "Most further believe him to be the son of God, and the incarnation of God himself." Wow, obvious tip-off of irreconcilable POV. Delete! Delete! --Lambiam ^Talk 09:54, 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. -- Drini 04:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multidimensional imagery

More of the Josh Levine creations, no more notable unfortunately. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Dr Zak 14:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. KleenupKrew 19:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 23:34, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Sempill

Delete - Where do I start? Not a notable topic, and lists shouldn't be full of red links. I was going to tag it as a stub, but I don't think anything more can be said on this topic. --Quentin Smith 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a pile of these -

&c. See Special:Ancientpages

--Quentin Smith 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete this one as a page full of links & no content. The others should be nominated en masse and not appended to this AfD. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn and a repository of links to nowhere. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, unless there is some doubt that these are real peerage titles. Any peer would have been a member of a legislature, which is a criterion for keeping an individual per WP:BIO, and makes it reasonable to keep these succession lists as well. u p p l a n d 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Good point about WP:BIO criteria, but this article and none of the links on the page contain biographical data. A description of the life of a peer with the title would merit assessment against WP:BIO. As none is currently present, the assessment is invalid. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe WP:BIO is the appropriate criteria here. The subject of the article is the peerage itself, not the individuals who have held it. However, if the notability of an individual can be established by holding a position, then wouldn't the position itself be necessarily notable? ScottW 23:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and de-wikilink. No point in red links to bios that will never be written, but I think a peerage is, in itself, notable. Fan1967 20:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't know if all the individuals who have held the peerage are notable, but the peerage itself is. There are enough verifiable references for this. ScottW 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've removed the linking, so now it's a plain list. If the article is kept, the links can be added back if anyone should create articles for any of the Sempills. ScottW 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notability not in question. Badgerpatrol 22:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as preferable to having individual articles on all of these folks. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Stifle. Also, I want to change my name to Baron St. John of Bletso. Hornplease 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per Stifle and also these are, in some cases, historic titles of Scotland and are noteworthy because of their heritage. There should be no question of their nobility, it is the article which requires expansion, not the titles requiring defending.doktorb | words 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep all articles on peers, peerages, nobility, etc. Consider restoring redlinks, too. Ardric47 03:37, 18 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 12:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strip Monopoly

Delete this is original research, per the author's comment on its talk page "No third-party sources exist as this is a product of personal experience and is therefor being published for the first time." Gwernol 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable original research, as per nom. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Bye-bye. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 16:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, just not this version it is original research. Strip Monopoly seems to be a notable variation on the game Monopoly, for example Google gets 10,700 hits for "Strip Monopoly" (remember not all will be relevant) and there is a good chance that a decent reference could be found for a reconstructed article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue520 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for that, sorry about not signing.--blue520 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but page needs serious tidying up. I remember seeing it played in 'friday the 13th' so I know it exists beyond this contributers personal experance. Ydam 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, just rules for the game (not encyclopedic), no evidence of notability. Kusma (討論) 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Amusing, but it's still OR. Delete unless referenced. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge but a very cut down to one or two sentances and put into Monopoly (game) Fabhcún 14:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into (a short paragraph of) Monopoly (game) if references are found. LjL 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Every game has a strip version so why is this one notable? Vegaswikian 21:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilton Athens

The article is more like an advertisement or a brochure. Altan 15:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as advertisement. Though, we can rewrite it so it wouldn't look like an advertisment, but as an article that explains the hotel. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete adspeak all over the place, but like Funnybunny I reserve the right to change my "vote", if an encyclopedic article that show notability other than just being a Hilton hotel. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, clearly notable hotel, deserves an article. Even if this isn't it. Should be tagged {{cleanup}} or {{NPOV}}, not {{subst:afd}}. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article that was nominated clearly read like an advert. This is not a reason to delete, if this is a notable hotel which it may very well be, it should be kept. I started with some cleanup, but it needs more and I don't have the time to research this. Maybe someone from Greece can pitch in. Vegaswikian 22:11, 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 delete. -- Drini 04:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Metropole Hotel Hong Kong

The article reads like an advertisement or brochure Altan 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as avertisementcruft. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:05, 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. Some folks voted "Delete or merge". I'm going to assume that their first choice is delete, and second choice to merge, so therefore the consensus is to delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate: Battle for Mankind (second nomination)

Non-notable mod, relisting because last nomination had a large number of non-viable "merge" votes, which many people voted based on a known cruft-creator's vote, however resulted in "no consensus" and this is mod-cruft.--Zxcvbnm 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete and Protect if this is the second AFD, and the first AFD had an overwhelmingly number of delete votes, then this article should be deleted and protected. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 16:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The result of the first debate was actually to keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stargate:_Battle_for_Mankind. Aplomado ^talk 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment: However, all the people who voted to keep said "as above" OR "as Kraf," who was known to have reposted deleted mod articles and was biased towards keeping them.--Zxcvbnm 19:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete*** Creepinfg cruft. Williamb 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per first AFD. Bfelite 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge or Delete. Really doesn't deserve it's own article.
Keep as per the first voting. The more articles we have, the better. This is but a stub, let's wait til it gets expanded. //Halibu tt 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails to establish notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or merge to Battlefield 1942 or List of Battlefield 1942 mods. Zaxem 09:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete or ;;;merge. per Zaxem.-- 陈鼎翔贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverified. Ziggurat 03:19, 19 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. -- Drini 04:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of banned or endangered south park episodes

Delete. Listruft. As I wrote on the talk page when I prod'ed it: "I have proposed this for deletion because the information is unverified. What does "rarely aired" specify? On what channels? I see these episodes on the Comedy Network. Besides which, the title is badly formatted." Prod notice was removed. discospinster 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Criteria for inclusion for this article seems too vague and could be POV Ydam 17:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as this information is already listed in the main South Park article under "Controversial episodes." Aplomado ^talk 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. No diggity, no doubt. -- Kicking222 23:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruft. Basically pointless. DarthVad e r 23:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or smerge to South Park anything that isn't already there. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete appears to be own research Fabhcún 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft junk Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Completely useless ZakuSage 23:28, 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Hillgren Peterson

At this time, the author appears to be self/vanity published only and does not really contribute to the understanding of American Literature, even in her narrow genre. If at some point she publishes with a traditional publisher or wins one of the purported prizes listed below, a new article can be created. Bookworm51104 16:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment The nominator of this article has 5 contributions, all of which are related to this article for deletion. Metros232 16:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Google comes up with just over 400 hits for her. Her books rank in the millions for Amazon book sales. Metros232 16:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as (probable) non-notable author. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Keep seems vaguely notable to me, won the American Book Award. JK Rowling she is not, but I see no reason to delete. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Delete as NN after review of Metros22 link. Thanks :) --E ivind ^t ^@^c 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete This author does not appear on any official lists of winners for the American Book Award. All press releases relating to this author's supposed win were released by the author herself. Furthermore, the likening of "The Swedish Lie" to the "Joy Luck Club" was made by the author herself in her own press releases. This appears to be a case of 1. claiming to win an award that was not won and 2. self-promotion. Any buzz about the author is a result of the author herself. {{unsigned|71.16.188.227}

To back this up, here's a list of winners since 1980. Metros232 00:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~How long does this process have to go on, or how many votes does an entry have to get before it is just put out of its misery??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm51104 (talk • contribs)

Have striken duplicate vote by the nominator. You cannot vote more than once. An AfD discussion lasts for one week. Some may be closed early under special circumstances (which this one doesn't meet) and some may be re-listed for another week if not sufficient discussion takes place (probably won't happen with this one). Please remember to sign your posts. --JLaTondre 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I knew there had to be a better way to sign other than doing it manually (which I genuinely forgot to do the last time). Thanks for directing me to the instructions for signing. Let's see if it works this time. Four tilde? Bookworm51104 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - in spite of the controversy - if she IS the first American novelist to write about the concept of Jante's Law, that would seem to be not nothing. I agree with the rest, that most of the hype appears to have been generated by the author herself. I also agree with the first poster that it may seem to be a "remove without prejudice" thing - if she does ever accomplish anything independent Wiki writers would find noteworthy, then a nonbiased article can be created. I'm going to stick with the weak keep because if she has introduced Jante's Law to non-Scandinavian America, that is something to consider. If the issue is that it probably meets Wiki standards for autobiography/self-promotion but does not meet the standard for notability, then I sway to reluctant delete. My official vote stands, however.Littleshakespeare 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Relisted for clearer consensus. Computerjoe 's talk 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep 450 ghits Computerjoe 's talk 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. Notability that doesn't exist, an award that wasn't awarded, sales that haven't happened. And is this lady really the very first American novelist -- with a century's worth of novels about Scandinavian immigrants from Upton Sinclair on out -- to introduce the (scarcely remarkable) concept that Scandinavian village culture is insular and has its quirks? I certainly wouldn't take it on her unsupported word, even if the claim is credible, which it really isn't. RGTraynor 20:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NN^3. Up and coming is the kiss of death. We record only the tired and worn out. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~Delete (see below) ~~WP is not paper, published author, selling on Amazon, someone buying her book on Amazon may want to look her up on WP.~~ Crum375 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the current proposed nn-bio notability threshold at WP:BIO#People_still_alive and it states that published authors with 5000+ copies are in:

"Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"

Crum375 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

comment' Article does not prove she sold 5000 copies. Dominick ^(TALK) 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

True - but the Amazon site for one of her books says it's basically sold out [27] - I suspect that probably means >5000. And this is not necessarily the first batch, and could be sold thru non-Amazon channels too. Crum375 22:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Delete - I now realize this author appears to be a fraud, as others have attested above. On her web page[28], where she sells writing services, she claims:

"My novel, "The Swedish Lie" has won several awards, including the American Book Award from the Before Columbus Foundation."

When you look up the award list, here [29] she is nowhere to be found. Couple this with the 1.7-2.1M ranking on Amazon, we are led to nn-bio. So let's wait till she hits the big time, and hope she cleans up her act along the way. (If I am wrong in my analysis please feel free to correct me) Crum375 01:20, 19 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. -- Drini 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiberius Lowang

The lack of details about when Mr. Lowang and his associates existed led me to suspect, some months ago, that they didn't. Attempts by a fellow Wikipedian to verify the details given have uncovered a xanga.com page which further persuades us that this is an elaborate hoax....

"Steadfast history fanatics should also recognize that Tiberius Lowang was not in any factual documents or chronicles of any kind. His genesis can be traced back to the fateful year of 2001, when Shang Tsung emerged from shadow realm and transmogrified to the "tyrant" he is today." [30]

Unless somebody knows better, I'd say that this is just somebody's fantasy, presented as fact. ~~Delete~~. TheMadBaron 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 16:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable WP:V. As noted by nominator it may be a fantasy, for example may be linked to User:Lowang thought the I.P.s of the page creating anonymous users.--blue520 16:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons given above:

   * Abo-Teni
   * Hadi Shwaarz
   * Jeuhli Khorvho
   * Loukwagnotopa
   * Mishyelha
   * Sarghai Uluianaar
   * Safyen Shaali

et al...

However, picking through all these pages, I see that there does at least seem to be some evidence that the Donyi-Polo religion exists.... [31]

It's very difficult to tell if this is just something that somebody's recently made up, or a centuries old mythology, now so obscure that it's exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia should be preserving.

If anyone can provide citations for any of this stuff, I will withdraw the nominations and refer the whole thing for cleanup. TheMadBaron 16:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any substantial references to indicate this is anything but a hoax created by some guy in Beavercreek, Ohio. ScottW 22:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep for Abo Teni only. Donyi Polo is well referenced, but doesn't reference this. I can only find this http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/7434/AP.htm for Abo Teni ... but that, plus WP:AGF, is something. Hoaxes tend to be, well, hoaxier than this. But this is a very weak keep, and only for that one. AnonEMouse 14:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I've now found more sources, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for Abo-Teni (sometimes spelled Abo-Tani, redirected accordingly) as the primal ancestor in Donyi-Polo, and so I have to concur with AnonEMouse. Assuming good faith, I'm now inclined to keep (and help to clean up) the other articles too. TheMadBaron 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Can you find anything refering to Tiberius Lowang? That's the one that seems to be the most dubious of the bunch. ScottW 18:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but give citations. I have read about these mantras, and they do exist in the Donyi-Polo religion. As you can see, Donyi-Polo is a relatively remote religion which the world knows little about it. Give it sometime, and see on how we can get references. Or get reference to the existence of the Donyi-Polo mantras--that will be the ultimate reference. Perhaps you all can browse through the external links at Donyi-Polo--so well written, really a pity to delete it off.

Anyway, I have also given the existence of the anthropologists who discovered the existence of the traditional legendary deities on articles related to Donyi-Polo figures in wikipedia.Mr Tan 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete as HOAX all except Abo Teni (which requires more external links and also to be cleansed of hoax references). There are strong indications that the other articles are a hoax. No dates - even vague ones - in the articles. External links found in some articles do not support the articles' content. All the suspect articles except Abo Teni were created by similar IP addresses in June 2005. The hoaxer appears to be an Ohio based delinquent who uses the User name Lowang both on wikipedia and the name "Tiberius Lowang" on urbandictionary.com. The wikipedia user page explains that the name came from two video games. This is the worst kind of vandal hoaxer. Terminate with extreme prejudice. Bwithh 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ohio IP addresses The anonymous IP addresses used to create the suspect articles all originate in Ohio, home of the Wikipedia hoaxer/user referenced above. http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation Bwithh 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Hoaxer is a medical student at Ohio State. You can find out his name, phone number, address, photo on google in about 5 minutes Bwithh 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait. See the articles of Gakhars and Abo Teni. These articles also stated the names of other Donyi-Polo "figures" in addition to Lowang, and their stories are purpotedly "found" by archaeologists (names stated in Mishyelha). To be fair, and not just draw a blind conclusion that this is a hoax, perhaps we can contact him [32] (or the contact particulars) provided by you all, before deleting them? We need to gather sufficient evidence that they are all hoaxes. But for now, I can't forsee sufficient shown evidence, just by saying that we can't find the details on the rest of the internet and seeing that the nam Tiberius Lowang coincides with characters found in games.

Furthermore, from the history [33], the two annoyomous users contributed the Tibetan name. In the west, like we people, only a few individuals can contribute in Tibetan. This piece of contribution makes me inclined to believe that this might be genuine.

The main aim, is to gather someone who is familiar about the Donyi-Polo mantras, and speak out with strong and sufficient evidence that these figures are real in Donyi-Polo. Otherwise, we can interrogate the suspect. What do you all think? Mr Tan 11:35, 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 Merge with Flybe. There is a convenient empty section in there now marked "Destinations" for this purpose. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flybe destinations

I speedily deleted this a while back (Flybe Destinations), but was criticized for doing it out-of-process: after all, there are articles listing the destinations for many airlines - Ryanair destinations, EasyJet destinations, American Airlines destinations, etc etc etc. My point is that none of the 103 (!) articles in the category "Airline destinations" should exist - Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. If Czech Airlines destinations include Cairo, does that tell us anything about Cairo? Do we need to know that Lufthansa flies to Bangalore? Analogy - it's perfectly reasonable to have an article on the bus company of a major city, and it's equally reasonable to have an article on the major streets of that city, but we don't need an article on the 9.15 bus going from 4th street along McDonald to 12th avenue.

Articles on The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes were deleted. So should these be. DS 16:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the Flybe article. An argument could be made that this is nothing more than an empty content list of internal links, too. Metros232 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 04:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Flybe. The difference here is that the list of destinations isn't long enough to gum up the whole article, which it clearly would be for AA or FR. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- ...and what about the other 103 articles in the category? DS 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Flybe, or just the list of what countries it flyes to. Fabhcún 14:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge in Flybe, ~~the list of destinations isnt big enough to warrant its own article.~~ On second thoughts, actually the main article is pretty small, and the list of destinations isnt really as large as the majors. So pretty much merge it back into the main article. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 09:57, 18 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 05:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Soccer Match Fixing Scandal

Non-notable article that looks like an outdated newspaper article, with a title to match. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep The Serie A is one of the most prestigious soccer leagues in the world, and this is by far the biggest scandal to have hit the Italian top division in decades. Four major teams - Juventus, Milan, Lazio, and Fiorentina - are under investigation. A move might be a good idea though, for example to Serie A scandal of 2006. David Sneek 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks less enclyopedic, and more news story. The page will become quickly outdated besides. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We have several articles on sports scandals, from Operation Slapshot to the 2002 Olympic Winter Games figure skating scandal and the Bundesliga scandal of 2005. This one is big, and it looks like it's going to be enormous; it should be expanded. David Sneek 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per Davd Sneek's comments. This is huge. One referee has been removed from the World Cup because of it already. Metros232 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per all. Aplomado ^talk 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Superman Strong-I'm-not-cool-enough-for-a-fancy-tick-pic-keep and expand Massive, massive story. How can this not be notable? The mind boggles. Badgerpatrol 20:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep huge scandal, needs more meat though. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above, but move the article to Italian soccer match fixing scandal. -Whomp 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Template:Scomment - Shouldn't it be "football" rather than "soccer"? I believe that's what they call it over there. Match-fixing should be hyphenated, btw. Aplomado ^talk 00:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe there's been EXTENSIVE discussion of this on various incarnations of the Football talkpage. I'm not sure what the current consensus is though. I would certainly support renaming the page. Badgerpatrol 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Notable issue in Italian sport and likely to be part of the historical record of the sport just like the Black Sox scandal is part of baseball's. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. How can deleting this even be considered? I have friends considering self-immolation over this. Hornplease 12:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and remove all those misplaced capitals. Golfcam 01:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Important current event in European sport and the article will grow as it pans out. Keresaspa 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Embarrassingly feeble article on one of the biggest scandals in the history of European sport. CalJW 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as obviously notable. Carioca 22:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG keep. This has the potential to make the Black Sox scandal look like child's play... and that scandal still affects baseball in the U.S. almost 90 years on. It definitely needs work, but this one is a must. That being said, the name needs to be changed. I think David's suggestion of "Serie A scandal of 2006" is as good as any. — Dale Arnett 14:49, 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. -- Drini 04:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microbiology of Prokaryotes

Original Research. Lincher 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Absolutely nothing worth keeping here. Look at the article at Prokaryotes for comparison. Fan1967 18:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This article is devoid of merit. The subject is covered adequately by Microbiology and Prokaryotes. TheMadBaron 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per this important and widely applicable policy. Badgerpatrol 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. An incoherent ramble, almost patent nonsense. I laughed when I read it. Grand master ka 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - My guess is that this article is supposed to be about a textbook entitled Microbiology of Prokaryotes. I'm not sure what the rule is on notability of textbooks, but I'm also guessing that the text of this article is from the introduction of the textbook, so it's probably a copyvio. --Joelmills 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Good guess, and presumably an Iranian textbook at that. Maybe a student practicing his English? Fan1967 00:57, 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 schools. Mailer Diablo 05:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middlewich High School

Non-notable high school Ydam

Keep per general precedent for keeping all verifiable real schools (as visible at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive). --Rob 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVad e r 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, high schools are notable. BryanG 00:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, high schools are not typically notable. Cedars 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, high schools are notable. Lukobe 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Cedars. Ardenn 03:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough. Zaxem 04:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, although nearby Malbank School, Nantwich is a much groovier place. -- GWO (alumnus of Malbank School, Nantwich.
Keep High schools are notable. Golfcam 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep — High schools are notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. — RJH 15:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
keep please this is notable and we are not a paper encycloepdia Yuckfoo 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Salinae 11:49, 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 per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake mclean

Non-notable trilogy, possible hoax Naconkantari e|t||c|m 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This page was created to alert people of the significance of the potential of this future culinary and martial arts star. Although this only know to a few film students, his work may soon be internationally recognized.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablahblah987 (talk • contribs)
Delete. "Future star" = Future Wikipedia article. Fan1967 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per the comments of Ablahblah987 which prove its nn-ness. Metros232 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Although a "future star" he is known by many in the amateur film community. Ablahblah987
Delete, possible hoax is being very generous. Kuru ^talk 18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by generous? And it's not a hoax by the way. You're insulting me and Jake McLean.Ablahblah987

Comment You mean this is not about a Sophomore at McLean High School? [34] - Fan1967 18:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, where is McLean High School? Any similarity between the two is purely coincidental.Ablahblah987

Then why have you edited McLean High School? [35] Naconkantari e|t||c|m 18:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That must have been my cousin. I've been telling him to stay away from my computer. Ablahblah987

You do know, don't you, that there's a history of all edits on Wikipedia? That includes your racist comments a half-hour ago in the article about McLean High School. [36]. So clearly, you know where the high school is. Fan1967 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if it was cousin who did that logged on as me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablahblah987 (talk • contribs) Ablahblah987

If this Jake McLean isn't the same Jake McLean that goes to McLean High School, then where did THIS Jake McLean go to high school? Surely that'd be an awesome thing to include in his biography. Metros232 18:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The history clearly shows your posts right before and after. You've had your fun, kid. Go play somewhere else.. Fan1967 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good thing to include, but I don't know where he went to school. Somewhere in Australia or New Zealand I think. Ablahblah987

This movie trilogy is very important because it shows how a young man can transform into a hero. Also, this movie was very popular in its time and deserves to stay up becuase of its signifigant meaning to life. This movie saved by life when I thought I was going to die. This movie trilogy is very important because it shows how a young man can transform into a hero. Also, this movie was very popular in its time and deserves to stay up becuase of its signifigant meaning to life. This movie saved by life when I thought I was going to die.--Roboguyspacedude 19:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Brand new account created three minutes before this post. Fan1967 18:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
my last post is valid because I am a human and thus it is valid. I only joined so that I could help keep this vaild and naturally detailed entry. I saw it while browsing and I remember when I was a kid and dedcided to help defend it. That is why I joined so shortly, because I never felt like editing anything until I knew I had to defend this really good documentary of the movies in the Jake McLean series. How I used to love them. --Roboguyspacedude 19:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, obviously, and charge the troll with capital offences. TheMadBaron 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's the troll and what do you mean by capital offence? What do you have against Jake McLean anyway?Ablahblah987Ablahblah987 19:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with TheMadBaron. No citations, no credibility, and no use on Wikipedia. Noetic Sage 19:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Low credibility, amateur?? Maltesedog 20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about citaions. Whatever, I don't care anymore, but Jake McLean will have his day.Ablahblah987 19:27, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreigner Belt

An article on an object featured in a joke in one episode of a cartoon series is surely far too obscure for a sensible encyclopaedic article to be written about it. Worldtraveller 18:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Metros232 19:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Besides, who could need such a belt? Their music is punishment enough. TheMadBaron 19:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh. You know, I tried to help. (The article gave me a chuckle.) Delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge with either List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes or Aqua Teen Hunger Force Fabhcún 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Sorry, I disagree. My friends and I got into an argument about which band the belt would not work for. Having this article helped clarify the situation.Rogelthorp001 15:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This vote is Rogelthorp001's first edit. Worldtraveller 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, as non-notable as it can get, just like the nominator very well explained. LjL 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:23, 18 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 (again). Articles that don't improve after two no consensus AfDs can be re-AfDed a third time, and I hope with a different result. I don't want to have a constant train of no consensus AfDs on an article that doesn't improve. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy St. Clair

Since this article survived an AfD which resulted in no consensus, no substantial additional information showing notability of the subject has been added, and this article has been subject of edit wars, vandalism, &c., all of which should be thoroughly unnecessary because the subject is simply not notable. Strong delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep If edit wars were a criteria for deletion there would be precious few articles. Notable per WP:BIO bullet points 4 and 9. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, placed fourth in a major world championship, that's enough for me. Edit wars are not a valid reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, edit wars are not a valid reason to delete per se, but this is a situation where the pettiness demonstrate by both pro-St. Clair and anti-St. Clair editors show just how non-notable he is -- neither side is able to come up with anything that actually show any more notability than being good at a card game of limited popularity. Effectively, the edit war was at the level of "Bob pulled off Mark's pants!" "No, he didn't!" "Yes, he did!" And, in my opinion, this strongly shows a lack of notability. If the subject is notable, then there will be more notable things to edit war about. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Much of the revisions are not about whether or not he was banned for cheating, it's about how we want to portray it. My revisions were removing uncited original research. St. Clair has a reputation in the tournament scene for Yu-Gi-Oh and Vs. System that is on par with Magic:The Gathering's Mike Long. His article is bound to attract people who feel they have a score to settle. This is no reason to delete the article, but why it is watch to insure that it fairly represents the subject with neutrality. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep, as the suspension has been finalized, and per Malber's point. Mike Long : Magic :: Roy St. Clair : Yu-Gi-Oh :: Phil Mondiello : Pokemon. Had Wikipedia been around during Pokemon's peak, I'm absolutely sure Phil would have a page chock full of info on that. I think Roy's page should stay here as I would be willing to assume he'll be going into Magic if he plans on continuing any card games competitively, with the same end result (a suspension for cheating.) --MewtwoStruckBack 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete yugioh championship? -- Drini 04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Drini. Naconkantari 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here we have a guy who's placed fourth in a fairly large tournament for a fairly notable card game franchise. The game warrants an article. The tournaments, even, in a large article, Yu-Gi-Oh! tournaments, or somesuch, warrant an article. The top participants and notable attendees of said tournaments should be mentioned in aforementioned tournament article. However, they do not warrant articles on their own if the sole claim to significance is placing fourth in one of these tournaments. Has had no significance or influence beyond the closely-devoted Yu-Gi-Oh! community, and therefore does not warrant an encyclopedia entry of his own. He does, however, warrant mention in a larger article on these tournaments, which would be encyclopedic, and to me, at least, quite interesting, especially if it contains the sort of details like the bribery and cheating scandals included here. So, essentially, we have encyclopedic information not being presented in an encyclopedic way—It's spread too thin, is all. If no one is willing to create said article, however, this will have to be deleted.-Sean Black 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete I am not convinced of notability just yet. I'd like to see his name appear somewhere other than a blog, forum, or upperdeck site. If I think its a reputable site, I'd consider changing my vote. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Non notable. No Guru 03:18, 19 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. -- Drini 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Surdukowski

Smells like a hoax to me. Unless more documentation is provided during this process, delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, also not notable. --Nlu (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't really need that big bolded "delete" there, you know. As nominator, your job is to write a convincing nomination, not to start things off with a pseudo-vote. I can't help but think you wouldn't have forgotten to include your whole nomination in one go if you hadn't been so intent on "voting". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point might be valid if a nominator always votes delete. That's not always the case; I've nominated articles before that had been speedy deleted and recreated and voted neutral, for example, and a fair number of nominators do the same. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote! You should know that by now. If you want an article deleted, you give your reasoning why — bolded text or no bolded text, that's irrelevant. If you don't want an article deleted, then that's a different issue: but even then, there's no problem with using prose ("I have no dog in this race", say). Sometimes people actually care about the articles we nominate for deletion; we owe it to them to give good reasoning for our decisions. Nominators pseudo-voting leads to poor nominations, and increases the misconception that voting has any place on AfD. This is not something an admin should be doing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD may be a discussion and not a vote, but it's not a round-table discussion - it's a discussion where people express opinions which usually come down to one of two sides (occasionally three in the case of merges). That includes the nominator - and as Nlu says, nominators aren't always expressing the same opinion. I personally find the bolded summaries very useful to indicate who's come down on which side. As for writing nominations, frequently 'this is unverifiable' or words to that effect suffices. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Hoax. I don't see any Truman Scholarship winners named this. Metros232 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing to neutral for now. Would love to see some one express some notability about him. Metros232 19:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

None of this is a hoax. Jay did win a Truman Scholarship, form an Arrested Development club, and write about the poetry of the Yugoslavian wars. He is also an up and coming American poet. Within a week, we will have more info, documentation, and fact checking. The page is not finished yet. LMark75 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User's only edits are to the AfD and to the article in question. --Nlu (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.truman.gov/scholar_listing/scholar_listing_list_more.htm?year=2001

Ah, okay, I was looking under Michigan for him thinking he was awarded it while at U-Michigan. Metros232

Google turns up some (actually, hundreds) of items of relevance to this article, most recently (yesterday, actually):

http://findingkaradzic.blogspot.com/

Jay absolutely won a Truman fellowship I have just graduated from law school with him - he is absolutely legit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.139.92 (talk • contribs)

The issue is not completely just whether this was "legit"; the question is whether he is sufficiently notable. He's not, in my opinion, and the unverified part about Arrested Development makes one doubt the rest of the article. --Nlu (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a break from the mountain of work that needs to be done on the Vampire Chronicles and find out if this is noteworthy. I mean, really, who is monitoring these pages! Lestat is clearly not undertstood by whoever was writting those. In any event, I'll add some stuff to this poet article to calm down. I also feel responsible for the original plug so I'll work on providing the notable info Lohengrin1 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll see what can be done. Between the AD stuff and the legal scholarship, this is a lot more notable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPOL

Delete I'll buy that he's real enough. However, the closest thing to notability I see here are a couple of mentions in newspapers for attempts to get Arrested Development back on the air. I like the show, but this doesn't meet WP:BIO. ScottW 22:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete** Believe me the world will do fine without knowing about this. Williamb 00:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Approve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.232.186 (talk • contribs)
Approve It isn't like there is a problem with not enough space - I think a young poet who has a number of publications should get his own space - wouldn't it be nice, as he continues to publish more poems, if the entry could develope with him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.139.91 (talk • contribs)
- "Approve" is not a valid vote. In any case, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Further, even if it is, the author's exceeding vanity as well as self-importance (by referring to the article as "this scholarship" and by writing an arrogant questionaire) warrants deletion. --Nlu (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  
  Ack! This is not a vote, it's a discussion, remember? While this comment does indeed not present a very convincing argument, really nothing is a "valid vote" :-).--Sean Black ^(talk)
Comment User:24.61.232.186 added a questionnaire of sorts to here. I moved it to this AfD's talk page since it A. takes up a lot of room on this AfD and B. I don't know of its importance to this discussion. Metros232 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The only referenced claim to notability is that he's campaigned for another series of some American sitcom - there is no claim to notability relating to his poetry, let alone a sourced one. That is not sufficient for an encyclopaedia biography. And I agree with Metros that the questionnaire is not relevant here, and belongs on the talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete I liked Arrested Development, too. Doesn't make me notable. Fan1967 17:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, he won a Truman Scholarship for his work at getting Arrested Development back on the air? Nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Too bad about Arrested Development though, that was a great show. How about getting Carnivale back on the air too? I'd love a third season of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not at all notable—The references in the version of the article as of this writing do not support the contention that he did anything significant related to Arrested Development fandom or it's efforts at avoiding cancellation of the series. Even if he did do something significant within the fandom of the show, he would still only merit a reference within the main Arrested Development article. Everything else—the poetry and whatnot—is just self-puffery.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:17, 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. -- Drini 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rediff BOL

Not Notable. Advertisement Banglabandhu 18:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN. Aplomado ^talk 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:10, 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 Keep or Merge. Whether it's a keep or merge can be discussed outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promethium (comics)

Another cruft fictional-metal article from comic books. It will probably stay a stub.--Zxcvbnm 19:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge to a list of said metals. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Article concisely explains a fictional concept. - CNichols 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge as per above. Bfelite 03:32, 18 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uru (Marvel Comics)

Yet another crufty fictional metal which can be merged into the main "fictional elements" article--Zxcvbnm 19:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep CovenantD 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep AlGorup 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Integrated tightly in the Thor universe. Started to cross polinate into other lines, such as Iron Man.
Delete, not notable by itself. -Sean Curtin 06:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Zxcvbnm. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article must be developed, but Uru is an important component of the whole Mighty Thor series DrTofu83 20:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - CNichols 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - needs expanding perhaps but still worthy of a page. Palendrom 22:22, 18 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. No Guru 03:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've_got_a_friend_in_me

Just the lyrics of a non-notable song. Marysunshine 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep I wouldn't say it's non-notable, it was nominated for an Oscar for best song in a movie. Metros232 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. Fan1967 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Copyrighted lyrics have been deleted. —ERcheck @ 23:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Keep after rewrite. Fan1967 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: What exactly is Wikipedia policy regarding song lyrics? Aplomado ^talk 19:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would assume copyright issues would prevent them. I know they're posted all over the web, but technically that has to be illegal. Fan1967 19:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. Kotepho 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to its recreation. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep rewritten version. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup, expand and keep - notable song, but article as written (minus lyrics which are a copyvio) is barely a stub. —ERcheck @ 23:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Deleted copyrighted lyrics and cleaned up a bit. Included Oscar info per Metros232 and Golden Globe nomination. —ERcheck @ 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If this one is kept, move to You've Got a Friend in Me for proper capitalization. --Metropolitan90 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've made the redirect per Metropolitan90's suggestion. —ERcheck @ 23:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable song nominated for significant award. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Nominated for a significant award, notable. Dismas|^(talk) 01:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no need for articles on various songs. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Being nominated for a best original song Academy Award is about as notable as it gets for movie songs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep nice rewrite. --W.marsh 22:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Oscar nominees are notable. - CNichols 19:43, 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 delete. -- Drini 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left-wing terrorism

Irremediably prejudiced in its concept and preposterously biased (also notice that a substantial part of the content was added by anon editors.) Both this and the Right-wing terrorism page have to go, definitely. A more comprehensive article addressing general features of Political terrorism (expanding the current one) would be more than enough. Xemoi 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I completely disagree. POV is not a reason to delete articles, and the phenomenon of both right-wing and left-wing terrorism have existed throughout history. They are certainly worthy of their own articles. Aplomado ^talk 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As has already been discussed, the sole intention of this "article" is clearly to push for a politically sectarian point. It's not just about POV, but also the original idea, the article's name, the disputed examples, the inevitable and arbitrary attribution of a left- or right- wing ideology to this or that "terrorist" group, etc. I wouldn't object to a merge into Political terrorism (as has been suggested), though. Justice III 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete.E.Cogoy 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Little attempt has been made to resolve the POV problems (if indeed they exist) on the talk page). There is a posible arguement for merging and turning into redirect rather then deleting (though I'm not 100% convinced) but the content is realitivly sound.--JK the unwise 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Again - it isn't SIMPLY about POV, but the very nature of the article. And most of the real POV and distortion of facts was added in an authoritarian way and without justification or proper sources exactly by yourself, JK, so don't pretend it isn't there. But as I said, it isn't just a matter of factual accuracy, it's worse.Justice III 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sdelete More POV problems here, as in the right-wing one. I don't see how you arrive at the definitions. Why are Palestinians or Irish considered "left wing"? They're not generally socialists. Fan1967 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. Any categorisation into "left-wing" or "right-wing" is inherently POV, since the use of these terms is disputed in many cases. Having this categorisation in an article title itself is even worse, and will inevitably lead to pointless edit wars (and indeed cases where it simply isn't clear which -- if either -- of left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism an organization should be listed on). Cadr 21:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Couldn't agree more with Cadr. -- WGee 00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom--Tbeatty 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here. --Leifern 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete As per above. Ultramarine 03:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Rebecca 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete POV Trash. michael ^talk 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above -- I@n ≡ talk 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. Hauser 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Terrorists blow things up because they like the "KABOOM". What excuse they use is irrelevent. Rick Norwood 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per above. 1652186 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge into political terrorism. There is some useful information in this article, and the term is present in serious discussion (see Google Books). Warofdreams talk 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into political terrorism. --Aldux 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, what Cadr said --Bletch 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete unnecessary division of terrorism into groups which brings unnecessary POV.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete --cj | talk 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into political terrorism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge POV could be fixed. Grue 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into political terrorism, as Jmabel. Tazmaniacs 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

- in fact, merge into terrorism. "Political terrorism" is a pleonasm and should be merged into terrorism. Tazmaniacs 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Title alone is POV: merge into political terrorism. Sandy 00:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into political terrorism; a word with significant current use [37]. Ziggurat 03:19, 18 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. -- Drini 03:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right-wing terrorism

Irremediably prejudiced in its concept and preposterously biased (also notice that a substantial part of the content was added by anon editors.) Both this and the Left-wing terrorism page have to go, definitely. A more comprehensive article addressing general features of Political terrorism (expanding the current one) would be more than enough.Xemoi 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism. Aplomado ^talk 19:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As has already been discussed, the sole intention of this "article" is clearly to push for a politically sectarian point. It's not just about POV, but also the original idea, the article's name, the disputed examples, the inevitable and arbitrary attribution of a left- or right- wing ideology to this or that "terrorist" group, etc. I wouldn't object to a merge into Political terrorism (as has been suggested), though. Justice III 19:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete E.Cogoy 20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Little attempt has been made to resolve the POV problems (if indeed they exist) on the talk page). There is a posible arguement for merging and turning into redirect rather then deleting (though I'm not 100% convinced) but the content is realitivly sound.--JK the unwise 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:Sdelete I don't see how this term can be used in a non-POV way. We have at least three different things being called "right-wing terorism", one of which is already covered at State terrorism. In addition to that one, we have racist actions grouped with religious ones, which IMO causes real problems with even describing them as parts of a valid common term. (Why are actions motivated by Christian fanaticism called right-wing, but actions by Islamic fanaticism aren't specifically labeled left or right?) Fan1967 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:Sdelete. [Same comment as for left-wing terrorism]. Any categorisation into "left-wing" or "right-wing" is inherently POV, since the use of these terms is disputed in many cases. Having this categorisation in an article title itself is even worse, and will inevitably lead to pointless edit wars (and indeed cases where it simply isn't clear which -- if either -- of left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism an organization should be listed on). Cadr 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Couldn't agree more with Cadr. -- WGee 00:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV garbage. Not encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 01:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here. --Leifern 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete As per above. Ultramarine 03:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Rebecca 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV Trash. michael ^talk 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Hauser 10:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Terrorists blow things up because they like the "KABOOM". What excuse they use is irrelevent. Rick Norwood 15:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per above. 1652186 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I believe that this article should be deleted but some of its content should be included in the article on terrorism. Terrorism is practiced in very similar manners regardless of whether it is considered 'left-wing' or 'right-wing,' though the the goals may be different (hence, the only real difference I see is teleological, and this does not require two separate articles). Furthermore, due to the nature of terrorism as both an ambiguous term and as a decentralized means of waging war, it is often the case that it is nearly impossible to ascertain whether a particular terrorist/terrorist movement is explicitly left or right-wing, it certainly possible to combine the two (radical socialism and religious fundamentalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Having this as a separate article seems too NPOV and relies too heavily on arbitrary and overgeneralized political terms. If placed in the terrorism article, there could be a section discussing how terrorism tends to originate from groups operating on the 'far-left' and 'far-right' and emphasize that it is more due to the radical overall nature of the ideology behind it than whether those engaging in the practice are liberals or conservatives. --The Way 20:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge into political terrorism. There is some useful information in this article, and the term is present in serious discussion (see Google Books). Warofdreams talk 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into political terrorism. --Aldux 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, what Cadr said --Bletch 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete --cj | talk 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge into political terrorism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge to political terrorism is good Yuckfoo 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Title alone is POV: merge into political terrorism. Sandy 00:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

- The terms "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" are definable, and so is "terrorism." Why is it impossible to write an NPOV article about terrorists whose aims are either right-wing or left-wing? George W. Bush will inherently have POV issues, Vietnam War will in herently have POV issues, Socialism will inherently have NPOV issues. That's not a reason to ax them. Aplomado ^talk 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Interestingly, the article at Right-wing makes no mention of race, which is central to a number of the groups cited here. That article also says identifying fascism as right-wing is disputed, while this one lists groups who fall under that label. That's the problem when you try to use broad labels. Fan1967 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    - "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" are more often defined basically to disparage opposite groups. They are anachronic and almost useless labels in modern political science and only serve ideological agendas. Using this kind of pseudoscientific junk will just stuff unwanted GIGO into a subject as serious as terrorism.Xemoi 20:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - The difference is that the only purpose of articles titled left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism is to partion groups according to the labels "left-wing and "right-wing"; all of the material in these articles is already covered in articles on the groups in question. Contrast this with articles like George W. Bush which will probably always be contraversial, but not have their raison d'etre be hinged on a single POV question. The same argument could be made about hypothetical articles such as Left-wing US administrations, List of spicy foods, and so on. --Bletch 16:32, 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 keep schools. Mailer Diablo 12:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cochrane High School

Delete Article has no purpose, and the school in question is quite nn. Cochranealtaguy 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete: A vanity/joke article under the guise of a school article. ("Several students at this particular high school are credited with solving the world's economic and political problems.... Accomplisments...the discovery of the natural synergy between ranch dressing and Canadian Pizza Unlimited....) —ERcheck @ 19:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete, this version is clearly garbage, but the school in question does exist [38]. If someone rewrites this, then I'll change my vote, as high schools are generally notable. BryanG 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Change to keep and expand per the cleanup and general precedent against high school deletion. BryanG 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
keep and rewrite, per precedent, assuming this is a real secondary school. Current precedent (wrongly!) means automatic inclusion. Bad articles should be rewritten, not deleted altogether. Badgerpatrol 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite per Badgerpatrol. DarthVad e r 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete poorly written and non-notable. Cedars 03:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per ERcheck, without prejudice to a proper article being created. While precedent is to keep school articles, that can't override WP:V, which this page currently fails. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I've scrubbed the rubbish and the article is now a Verifyable stub. May fail notability as the only thing I can find on the school is an environmental program a few years ago but we have lots of articles on schools with this problem. Someone in Alberta will hopefully be able to expand this Peripitus 12:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Cochrane, Alberta. Article is a one-liner and should not be on a separate page unless expanded. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep with modifications. — RJH 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. High schools are inherently notable. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
keep please it is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be verifiable. Zaxem 09:18, 18 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. -- Drini 04:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Role

Infamous, non notable (not even in Malta), advert Maltesedog 19:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There are a gazillion magicians in the world, and this one does not appear to be notable. Aplomado ^talk 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Marysunshine 23:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 23:06, 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. -- Drini 04:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konvulse

WP:NN. An ad for an online community. Marysunshine 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sdelete yet another article that belongs on Myspace. Aplomado ^talk 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 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 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerbilling

This article contains (a) the fact that it's an urban legend and (b) a load of bullshit. I think it should be deleted, but maybe it could be merged as a one-liner into a list of urban legends. Botom line: this is an encyclopaedia, there ain't no such thing as gerbilling, and we have a pretty good authority for that. There must be some kind of limit to the made-up sexcruft, surely? Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. The phenomenon is certainly more joke than actual practice, but it's a rather notable joke referenced frequently, like in the South Park episode about Lemmiwinks. It should probably be sourced a little better, but the term has made its rounds in pop culture. Aplomado ^talk 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- seems to be a fairly well-known urban legend. It's been around for about 20 years and arguably has cachet due to the Gere reference. The page makes it clear that it is an unproven myth.--Marysunshine 23:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep -- I suppose this sort of thing does happen and is fairly notable, but I'm sure no one would miss the article if it got deleted. Mr. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- This is a well written article on a worthy subject. I trust that this sort of thing doesn't happen (at least not often), yet it is very notable as an oft repeated urban legend. Yes, there should be some kind of limit to the made-up sexcruft, but this famous (if fictitious) practice falls well within it. TheMadBaron 23:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. A very well-publicized and propogated urban legend. I read this article before and appreciated its presence. Grand master ka 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Exploding Boy 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
* Keep. Jmbranum 22:17, 14 May 2006 (CST)
Strong keep, enormously well known legend. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. It's a very well-known urban legend, not anything akin to WP:NFT. Well-known urban legends and hoaxes have articles—it doesn't matter that they're not true. It's only a problem if it's non-notable or not clearly marked as an urban legend/hoax. Deleting this for not actually being true would make as little sense as deleting Piltdown Man for being a hoax! --Icarus 01:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete giving hoaxes articles just creates more hoaxes. at very least rename article to denote its a hoax. --MarsRover 04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable urban legend. - CNichols 19:45, 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 delete. -- Drini 04:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form V: Shien / Djem So

WP:FICT Minor plot component from fictional work This is part of a series of articles on Star Wars-related sword fighting technique, all copied directly from the Star Wars wiki. There's also already a long Wikipedia article on Lightsaber combat. John Nagle 22:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Additional articles on laser sword technique include

Form IV: Ataru
Sun djem
Form VI: Niman
Form VII: Juyo/Vaapad
Form IX: Shien
Form X: Niman / Jar'Kai

There may be more; see contributions of Silver Sonic Shadow (talk · contribs). These are all duplicates of articles from the Star Wars wiki. This is, therefore, a multiple-article AfD. --John Nagle 22:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:FICT Non-notable minor plot component. Parts of this material may be original research. This level of detail certainly wasn't in the movies. --John Nagle 22:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable minor plot. DarthVad e r 23:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nom, this level of detail is why Wookieepedia was created in the first place. BryanG 00:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Overly detailed and rather crammed with fanon/fanfiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Lightsaber Combat. I mean, that is what they are about. --maru (talk) contribs 01:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As BryanG says, that's what the Star Wars Wiki is for. -- Tangotango 06:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge or just Redirect as per maru. Nationalparks 06:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --mav 14:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is not an article, this is itself fiction. Postdlf 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to lightsaber combat, where they are covered in adequate detail. (Although, these are pretty important plot points, especially in Stover's books.) -LtNOWIS 01:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll toss in a lonely and already-massacred keep and tag with {{verify}}. Wikipedia cannot be harmed by containing more verifiable content that's appropriate for an encyclopedia, even if it doesn't interest anyone posting here. Wiki is not paper, and a large part of Wikipedia's advantage over conventional encyclopedias is that it can host content that's of interest to only a limited number of people.
Of course, sources aren't cited for specific sources, which is bad. Thence, the {{verify}}. But the statements are all verifiable, and if some may be original research, those specific statements can be removed. See also User:Simetrical#Notability. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:31, 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 delete. -- Drini 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MoneyScene

Prod tag removed. Appears to be an advertisement for non-notable company. Sending here for review. Monkeyman^(talk) 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sdelete adcruft. Aplomado ^talk 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 22:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Marysunshine 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, "Appears to be an advertisement for non-notable company" The article clearly states that it is a newly established company. For a startup company it is very common to be "non-notable". Its building a page to showcase the company's future awards and also include some information on its history and its visions. All will be included in due course.

Wikipedia is a free tool to write content and documents and since there are many companies documenting their past on Wikipedia I intend to do the same. Why would there be any objection to this? IScene 20:35, 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. -- Drini 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josie Robertson

Article is about wife of retired hedge fund manager. Though she has certainly been involved in civic activities, I don't believe she meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and is not notable. Also the bulk of this article seems to be rewritten verbatim from a press release. Lastexit 21:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep creator of a notable scholarship program. Aplomado ^talk 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity page, not notable, article consists largely of pr handout as per nom. --Mantanmoreland 00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or merge into Robertson Scholarship. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge as above Fabhcún 14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per my nom. Merger would not resolve the issue because Robertson Scholarship itself is not notable and unverified and unsourced, and itself a potential candidate for deletion.--Lastexit 14:37, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pkerunited

Not notable, Google search brings up 0 hits, the only user contributing to it is User:Player_killer, whose only edits thus far have been on this article, and furthermore, it contains horrible spelling, grammar, and numerous other mistakes. --Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 21:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense: "We choose this path as we beleive that the zombies are the rightful owners of Malton, humans are the parasite onto this fair city and should be exterminated." Aplomado ^talk 22:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense, nn. DarthVad e r 22:55, 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. -- Drini 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolf Schumacher

Delete Not a prominent figure. The article says nothing of note. The fact that he is father of two F1 drivers is clear as soon as you know that there are brothers in F1. Damiancorrigan 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:Scomment - I'm not really sure what I think about this, but the fact is that we have an article on Earl Woods, whose only real claim to fame is that he's the father of a notable athlete. Aplomado ^talk 22:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- The piece on Earl Wood is at least a proper article, and he has been interviewed. The Wood piece is poor and nearly worthy of deletion, but it has more substance than the piece on Schumacher Snr. Damiancorrigan 22:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  - OK, I'm just not sure what the policy is regarding parents of very notable people. Aplomado ^talk 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete totaly nn, Tiger Wood's dad has at least been on tv. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 23:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. While Earl Woods was known for being Tiger Woods' father, he was very well known for being Tiger Woods' father; Sports Illustrated devoted three full pages in the current week's issue to reminiscences of Earl due to his death last week. This article doesn't support the claim that Rolf Schumacher is very well known for being his sons' father. --Metropolitan90 23:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been an F1 fan for 13 years and wouldn't recognise him if he stood in front of me in a t-shirt saying "I'm the old German bloke you don't think is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia." Damiancorrigan 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this page has gone quiet. It's 3-0 to delete, do we just wait for a moderator to come along and delete it now? Damiancorrigan 11:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I can wait a week for a delete. :) — RJH 15:26, 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 No consensus Computerjoe 's talk 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem-Reaction-Solution

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete nn neologism of Alex Jones and owned by one user. Here is the previous afd. Jersey Devil 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
keep Not a neologism if it was used already in 1999. Specialy not of Alex if it was used by David Icke. Thanks for the insult of claiming i "own" the article. I have a hard time to see how this is not a bad faith nomination.--Striver 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
keep I think this is valid entry and see no reason to delete. Edogy 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
keep Actually, I just came across a reference to this article on Slashdot regarding domestic spying. The article could be better, but the topic is a keeper. --Jmccorm 00:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
keep? The example leaves a lot to be desired. Outside of the example, the article itself would be ok. - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.71.51 (talk • contribs)
keep? A too-brief, but cogent and neutral explanation of what politicians do, and will no doubt continue to try to do no matter which party is in power. 01:37 14 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.93.249 (talk • contribs)
Delete Article is of low quality and heavily paranoid. Examples are biased.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.192.227 (talk • contribs)
keep Very brief and lacking on content. A bit paranoid but it is a valid view and theory. I believe that the article should stay until a better one can replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.60.75 (talk • contribs)
keep Needs work, but I had been searching for a name for this *concept* for months, and now I have a name for it. Previously I was using "False Flag Attack" but that is not quite the same idea. --David Battle 01:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
keep I see no real reason to delete this, even though it does seem to need some major work and more/better content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow demon (talk • contribs)
keep I agree that this should stay, as long as it is presented as a theory I see no problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.179 (talk • contribs)
keep This term is in common use in the conspiracy community. I suggest that the concept needs to be addressed and that if the objection is the term itself, then the article may be merged into a more general conceptual article and forwarding simply provided. Conspiracy theories themselves need to be very carefully vetted here to make clear that they are not the opinion of one person and they are not presented as fact. However, the methodologies of corrupt national administration are largely known facts and have every right to be documented without regard to the debate about which leaders in which countries employ them and when. - Greg Harewood

Guys, couldnt you at least get a account? It sure helps, and it only takes a second... --Striver 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I put up the {{Afdanons}} template on top of this article. Lots of "new users" voting keep. Also, Striver, please stop trying to give advice to bypass the closing admin catching the new users, thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No risk for that happening, im sure you check out their history. But there is a chance they become actual editors if they take the time and get a account. For the record, i have no idea where they came from, i did not advertise this. --Striver 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Newbies likely followed a link from a comment on slashdot. --David Battle 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You got a link to it? --Striver 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to slashdot article: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185703&cid=15326966

Cool. Still think the article is non-notable? --Striver 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Even if the phenomenon is real or even widely imagined enough to be notable, this specific term (problem-reaction-solution) is as far as I can see only used by a single uninteresting conspiracy theorist and his epigones. Bucketsofg✐ 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Article seems sound, and is properly classified as Category:Conspiracy theories. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
keep The most that might be wrong in this article is perhaps an implied bias against the Bush administration. But nowhere is the Bush administration, or even the US government directly mentioned in the article. Informative, regardless of whether or not the title is a neologism.
keep Interesting & plenty of references ... maybe could use a clean-up, but I don't see why it should be deleted (P.S. I was linked here from /., and I don't have an account, but I don't think that should negate my opinion entirely ... I have made at least 50 constructive edits under this IP ... one of these days I'll get around to making an account.) 24.7.106.155 02:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
keep Midnightcomm 02:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
keep? Good topic, bad article. Suggest the NPOV flag. Ztras 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
keep Good topic. The whole point of Wikipedia is for good topics to have improving content over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.15.247 (talk • contribs)
Delete This is an undignifiable argument of obvious bias and paranoia. Appears to be just a rant. Topic itself lacks foundation to merit an article. Perhaps it could be included in a related article? BenWilson 03:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Ztras. However, cleanup is definitely in order. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary for conspiracy theorist lingo.--Nydas 10:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep: The concept has been a common meme even before 1984, and if this neologism is the first one in use to label it, then that's what it should appear under. If someone thinks there is a more appropriate title, then (s)he should suggest it. Regardless of my 'keep' opinion, I agree with some others that the article could use editing to sound less shrill and more in line with Wikipedia's trademark objectivity. Carl Smotricz 11:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep:Although short, this should stay so a more developed entry can evolve 84.41.133.231 11:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Is this even a serious attempt? I think the proposer of the deletion was trying to slip one by due to his political views. Ltbarcly 13:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep but edit - it certainly needs work, but AFD is not the 'Solution' for this 'Problem'. --Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 13:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Needs a lot of work, but defintely without doubt keep. Needs to include both seeing every real problem (not just manufactured problems) as an excuse to implement actually irrelevent measures (that may or may not be believed relevant) as well as seeing the problems that are created by irrelevant measures as further problems to be solved with even more extreme or comprehensive irrelevant measures of the same type. (As an example, suppose this were true: Homelessness means we need drug laws. Drug laws create more homelessness. Means we need stronger drug laws. OR Terorists attack. Means we need to increase our military presense in islamic countries. More terrorists attack. Means even more military presense is needed. ) WAS 4.250 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologism by Alex Jones. Slashdot comments (especially ones which use Wikipedia as a reference) are not sufficient evidence of notability. Rhobite 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Pretty light on the references, possibly a neologism. dcandeto 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Or move into a discussion of group dynamics. I'm not sure the ghetto of conspiracy thinking will encourage quality here. This is a well understood tool in some management circles. I am more familiar with "manufacture a crisis" or "precipitate a crisis", but those phrasings fail to articulate the hidden agena at work. Michael Buckley 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete neologism. Widely used in small circle(particularly one prone to self-propagandization on wiki - see socks) is not notable. --Mmx1 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Could use work but is fairly accurate description of phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.26.80 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Doesn't seem POV to me (in the current state at least), it doesn't state any opinion except when quoting one as such. Hardly original research; might not be notable, but it gets about 35.000 hits on Google, only few of which are from Wikipedia. Topic seems to have been covered by (minor) press, more than once. LjL 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
keep I think this is a well referenced model that captures a good point and worth of a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.81.184 (talk • contribs)
Keep As references (and Slashdot attention) show, what began as a neologism by David Icke (not Alex Jones) has spread into the mainstream media and mainstream consciousness, to the point where someone might want to look this up. I agree that the article is light on content and needs work. --Hyperbole 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I believe that this is a very important idea shown time and again throughout history. -- DragonGuyver 06:00, 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. -- Drini 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life without a reason...

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Interesting to see Waiting for Godot mentioned. Metros232 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. OR, essay. DarthVad e r 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:Sdelete this school essay. Aplomado ^talk 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Original nonsense. Bucketsofg✐ 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete falls under WP:NOT Fabhcún 14:15, 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. -- Drini 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of world leaders whose name are anagrams of their domains

Listcruft of the highest degree Metros232 22:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Almost worthy of BJAODN. DarthVad e r 22:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think that it's missing the letters W, X, and Y helps its case for BJAODN. Metros232 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also the fact that the only name on the list, Bongo, isn't an anagram of his country, Gabon. Fan1967 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per crushing logic above. --Marysunshine 22:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN worst list ever! --E ivind ^t ^@^c 23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN, truly hilarious. Aplomado ^talk 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - a list with one entry and per Fan1967's astute observation. —ERcheck @ 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - worst list ever. And that's saying something. Reyk _YO! 23:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN. Ridiculous in every way. Grand master ka 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN, Fan1967's comment sums up the whole thing. BryanG 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Burninate Article created by vandal. Danny Lilithborne 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
either WP:BJAODN or WP:DAFT. Either would make sense. Keeping this list would not. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Not really funny enough for BJAODN in my opinion. Bucketsofg✐ 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
DAFT is the place for this. There's no content worth speaking of to transfer to BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete (DAFT), unless someone can add enough elements to it so that it's BJAODNable. flammif e r^talk 19:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. --Ezeu 19:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A "list" with only one entry (and I wasn't even able to arrange the letters "GABON" to form "OMAR BONGO"). Probably wouldn't have been useful even if it were a real list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete this rubbish. and if they call Omar Bongo = Gabon an 'anagram' then where is Jomo Kenyatta? Keresaspa 13:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep this is useful Ricardo Lagos 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Patent nonsense. - CNichols 19:46, 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 delete. -- Drini 03:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Thomas

Was nominated for speedy deletion as "db-bio". Speedy tag was removed by Mariothomas (talk · contribs), who also added more information to the article. To me it still does not seem notable enough, but still a case to discuss on afd. Aleph4 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable + vanity = delete. Metros232 23:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Involved in two companies that fail to meet WP:CORP. Has some sort of award from a professional organization, and claims descent from a Cypriot archbishop and president. (I thought Orthodox bishops didn't marry. Am I wrong there?) All of which, added together, doesn't amount to notable. Fan1967 23:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity autobio; does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 00:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per ERcheck. Bucketsofg✐ 01:40, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A7. The author doesn't have the right, as such, to contest speedy deletion, unlike {{prod}}. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Coulter

Non-notable musician, first album to be published later this year. Speedy deletion contested. Weregerbil 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. How does one gain notoriety for an album that hasn't been released yet? Metros232 23:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

please consider will coulter to be a person of intellegence and eating ability. He should have 50 more web site jsut like this to assurre his placein history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpfister (talk • contribs)

He might, after he has actually released at least one album. Until then, no, not here. Delete. Fan1967 23:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, {{nn-music}}. "Plans to live off... the profits of his first album?" Um... Good luck with that. Grand master ka 23:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:54, 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. -- Drini 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaimus

Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Only album is "self-produced". Claim to notability is that one of their songs is a bonus track in a video game. discospinster 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as failing WP:MUSIC. Bucketsofg✐ 01:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above, for failing WP:MUSIC. DVD+ R/W 01:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as it meets WP:MUSIC's "Has won or placed in a major music competition" (Be a Guitar Hero competition, placed) and Has performed music for a work of media that is notable (Guitar Hero, winner of multiple GOTY awards from multiple publications, as well as multiple DICE awards - of which the songs included in the game make up the 'levels' delivered to the player)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.236.252.235 (talk • contribs) .
Keep The band is budding and gaining popularity. They recently were featured by Harmonix (The producers of the video game which they were featured in) to play at e3. 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.166.1 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Sandy 00:15, 18 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 per A7. Snoutwood (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan McHugh

Non-notable person. Novelist (unpublished), actor (10-minute film), "grammerist" (invented two protologisms). Speedy deletion contested. Weregerbil 23:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Metros232 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete speedily if possible. 16-year-old who wants his name in Wikipedia. No legit or verifiable claims to notability. Fan1967 00:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, misses wp:bio by a longshot. DVD+ R/W 00:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete** Ick, 16 year old notability... Williamb 00:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Not a crystal ball. —ERcheck @ 00:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity and something-thought-up-in-school: grammerist is a tip-off, no? Bucketsofg✐ 01:37, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] May 13

[edit] Lina (singer)

[edit] Repossession Agent

[edit] Ask Amberly Jane

[edit] Found objects

[edit] Rewritten

[edit] Myg0t

[edit] DchozN

[edit] Gary Howell (and Gary Howell/Temp)

[edit] TheHabboWWE

[edit] List of Battlefield 1942 mods

[edit] Paperback Rhino

[edit] List of basic visual arts and design topics

[edit] Clover hill golf course

[edit] Jeff Algera

[edit] Gnaa, Nigeria

[edit] Red Vs. Blue Roleplay

[edit] Administrative divisions of North Carolina

[edit] Dance Stop

[edit] Croatophobia

[edit] Edge the Devilhunter

[edit] Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado)

[edit] Umbrella Foundation

[edit] Love, Chicago zine

[edit] John Clark (actor/director)

[edit] Jewish Anemic Movement

[edit] Club JB

[edit] Jinopets

[edit] Zeration

[edit] Loving_Grahem

[edit] The World's Most Beautiful Transsexual Contest

[edit] Itiva

[edit] The Four Hundred (band)

[edit] Century 22

[edit] Humanist Fellowship of North Texas

[edit] Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border

[edit] Just (band)

[edit] Graduate of the Year (UK)

[edit] Don Wassall

[edit] Above the Ruins

[edit] James Fitzpatrick

[edit] Burned Fur

[edit] Tamil Film Actors

[edit] Pikkutunneilla

[edit] Diamond accident group

[edit] Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dali

[edit] The Belgian "dry up" law

[edit] Helium Lift Mechanism

[edit] RWFG

[edit] Oil (old cky)

[edit] The Global Language Group

[edit] IAALBOAHL

[edit] Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

[edit] Shi'a view of Muawiyah I

[edit] Multidimensional imagery

[edit] Lord Sempill

[edit] Strip Monopoly

[edit] Hilton Athens

[edit] The Metropole Hotel Hong Kong

[edit] Stargate: Battle for Mankind (second nomination)

[edit] List of banned or endangered south park episodes

[edit] Amy Hillgren Peterson

[edit] Tiberius Lowang

[edit] Flybe destinations

[edit] Italian Soccer Match Fixing Scandal

[edit] Microbiology of Prokaryotes

[edit] Middlewich High School

[edit] Jake mclean

[edit] Foreigner Belt

[edit] Roy St. Clair

[edit] Jay Surdukowski

[edit] Rediff BOL

[edit] Promethium (comics)

[edit] Uru (Marvel Comics)

[edit] You've_got_a_friend_in_me

[edit] Left-wing terrorism

[edit] Right-wing terrorism