Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 14
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, belongs at MfD.. --Hetar 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Nathanrdotcom/Vandalise
I vandalised this page and got a warning out of it! Why should it be here if you're going to get a warning for doing what you're supposed to?-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't this be at MFD? -Whomp 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. This is meant to be at MFD, not AfD. DarthVader 00:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep For the record:
-
- The page in question is for others to say what they like but it does not endorse breaking Wikipedia guidelines.
- Blanking text on my vandalise page is vandalism. Diffs can be seen here and here. This user received a warning for it. Now he's lashing out at me for warning him, which is a bit childish. No offence meant, but this dispute could've been settled on my talk page.
- This entire AfD is a prime example of what happens when you attempt to stuff beans up your nose. Enough's enough. —
nathanrdotcom (Got something to say? Say it.) 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep You were warned because you literally vandalised it. Please don't take it personally; next time try to obey the rules. Mopper Speak! 01:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Nathan and Mopper. Also, this was a bad-faith nom. --GeorgeMoney T·C 01:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Close Procedural issue: Page is mislocated for deletion and not U1. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I "fixed" your vandalism, Gangsta-Easter-Bunny, to change it to a comment (See affected page). Seeing how the page is the way it is (with people only adding comments) I'll assume good faith and assume you just didn't realize it was just a guestbook. For the record, when a user puts up a "Vandalize me" page, that's all it usually is. (Kylu)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as spam, already removed from ja: and fr: as such. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Memorial niten ichy ryu
I have been looking at this page and can't decide whether it should be kept or deleted. I was going to prod it, but changed to an AfD because I think it needs more eyes. Can we salvage this page? At present it is a mishmash of information, extremely hard to understand. If it can't be improved I think it should be deleted, and that would be my default action here, but I would like to hear other opinions before casting a vote. cmh 00:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete as a non-notable memorial to what is apparently covered in this article. I'm not sure how it connects Japanese/French cultures, but a Google search on the name appears to bring up only Wikipedia mirror sites. Aplomado talk 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as randomcrapcruft, or expand. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Establish Notability(via expansion). The current article does not notability beyond randomcruft. Falphin 02:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, or of course if notability could be established Keep Conditionally.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not opposed to recreation as a suitable article. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as beyond salvage. :) Dlohcierekim 04:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment -The external link at the bottom of the article connects to the memorial’s webpage. It may be that this is a very bad translation of something there. (I don’t speak French,-- or Japanese for that matter.) I put the title into the French Wikipedia and did not get an article hit. However, the memorial’s page contains the names “Kikou Yamata" “and “Miyamoto Musashi “ The French Wikipedia article for Kikou Yamata “ has a link titled Ecole Miyamoto Musashi that leads back to the memorial. I did not get a French Wikipeda article for Ecole Miyamoto Musashi or Miyamoto Musashi. In short, It might be very difficult to fix the article, and the relevant info probably exists on the French Wikipedia. :) Dlohcierekim 04:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Website does not appear to expand on anything (the images have been shrunken so badly that the Japanese is undecipherable). Most likely, this article is meant to advertise this non-notable domain/website. In fact, its counterpart on jawiki has already been AfD'd in March, with result delete (see ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/二天一流記念碑). The reasons for the deletion were "nonsense", "not even proper Japanese" and "advertisement". - Tangotango 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Article has also been AfD'd on frwiki for much the same reasons: fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Mémorial Niten Ichy Ryu -- Tangotango 07:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Tangotango -- Samir
(the scope) धर्म 06:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete for the reasons that User:Tangotango brought out. The article appears to be about something that is Japanese, but that is in France and that is completely irrelevant to Japan. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:16, 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. Sango123 (e) 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rachel Preece
- Delete IMDB shows an entry for 'Rachel Preece' however the wiki page itself doesn't seem to indicate a grasp of creative skills?
Vanity. There does seem to be an actress by this name, but is the actress also the "well known...creator of fine jewellery"? Rholton 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, they are different people. The mention of the voice artist was piggy-backed onto the article about the young jeweller. Not sure why you deleted my vanity-speedy tag when there's no particular assertion of notability, but no matter, delete it however you like. The two orphaned images don't seem to serve any purpose either. Flapdragon 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Delete per wp:Vanity. DVD+ R/W 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. DarthVader 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Author created article about self (see the page). MyNameIsNotBob 03:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nice fingernails. To the closing admin: please zap the unencyclopedic image also if this is deleted. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above. Gwernol 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Tangotango 06:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or userfy, it's clearly a vanity article. However, there is no reason why a public domain image, albeit unencyclopedic, should be deleted. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ydam 11:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as clear a case of vanispamcruftisement as we've seen in a long time. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of advertising. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Olorin28 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 16:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also delete the image in the article. - Nick C 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom jgp 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity DannyM 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Hezzy 00:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. --Arnzy (whats up?) 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Metromoxie 04:41, 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. I am closing this early, as the same person who last nominated this article is relitigating the outcome, nothing has changed, there is clearly strong support to retain this article, and there is no prospect at all of a consensus to delete it. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the subject of the article is at least on the boderline of notability so there is no basis for me to go against community support for the article. Metamagician3000 14:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kathryn Holloway
Nomination: 1. She's non-notable, nothing in the article establishes notability. 2. The article uses some non-reliable sources. 3. Reads like an ad. 4. Isn't neutral. Prior AFD Delete Ardenn 03:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reasons for keeping given by others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Holloway. I would appreciate it, if you could elaborate on each item you have specific concerns over on the talk page of the article, so they can be fixed. I undid some changes, that had no edit summary, or talk page explanation. There may be problems that need to be fixed, but your statements, so far, are to vague and general, to be addressed properly. Also, generally we delete articles based on "non-notable" per WP:BIO. Now, you may have a case on that, but I haven't heard you make yet (I will be open minded, if you address that). So far, you are bringing up issues that belong on the talk page, not AFD (unless your claiming no reliable sources exist, which is a valid deletion criteria, but doesn't seem to apply in this case). --Rob 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep at the very least because Ardenn did not explain why the result of the last AfD should be disturbed. Take your vendettas elsewhere. Also, it would have been proper of you to state that this is a second nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unless you are blind, it says right in the title that it is a second nomination. Ardenn 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- LOL. I followed the link from the today's AfD page, where the title doesn't display. For the record, Ardenn gave me an NPA warning template on my talk page as a result of my vote. Nice going, Ardenn. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Proper and normal (but not required) practice is to always mention and link to the prior AFD in the nom. You'll find that when you fail to do so, your nomination is appreciated much less. Generally, second nominations, always need extra reasoning behind them. You have to give a new reason, or point to a flaw in the last AFD (which there may be). By failing to mention the first AFD, it makes it look you're only problem with the first AFD, is didn't go the preferred way. --Rob 03:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. I will try to rember that for next time. :-) Ardenn 03:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unless you are blind, it says right in the title that it is a second nomination. Ardenn 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per comments on notability on previous AfD. Also, she is rather dishy; finding more attractive politicians is definitely the route to go down in order to reinvigorate political debate, particularly in my neck of the woods; our current record in this area is somewhat poor [2], [3]. Can we tone down the vitriol, chaps? Badgerpatrol 03:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "She is rather dishy"! Classic! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 05:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "She is rather dishy"! Classic! -- Samir
- Keep per rob. :) Dlohcierekim 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- QueryWhat has changed since AfD 1 to make her not notable now? :) Dlohcierekim 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- This really does look like an "I didn't get the result I wanted last time, so I'll just try again" nomination. Although I concede that this isn't exactly an obvious keep, after reviewing the arguments on both sides I have to draw the conclusion that my distaste for second and third AFD noms that don't present any valid new reasons for reconsidering the first one exceeds any doubts about her notability. Keep, or alternately merge into Green Party of Canada candidates, 2004 federal election if necessary. Bearcat 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Of the four points raised for deletion, only one: "1. She's non-notable, nothing in the article establishes notability." is a stand-alone valid reason (non reliable sources, neutrality, reads like an ad should be addressed by editing). WP:BIO issues were dealt with at the last AfD. In my opinion, there's been nothing since the last AfD in the article to change her notability, and there were no objections to process or omissions at the last AfD. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:03, 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of TV channels that air The Simpsons
Delete. Not very notable, violates policy, etc. I also suspect a vandal removed the PROD tag, since their IP has been repeatedly blocked. -- Chris Ccool2ax 03:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I don't like the list because we can't carry other lists of things because they aren't popular, which people take as synonomus for notability. I also don't think that The Simpsons or any article deserves such down-to-the-bone detail. We are an encyclopedia, not an end-all reference. This, among other reasons, is why I voted delete. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zaxem. But IMHO i think the "vandal" hasn't read WP:OWN. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Listcruft doktorb | words 08:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Simpsonscruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 16:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Listcruft. :) Dlohcierekim 18:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not very useful and impossible to maintain. 23skidoo 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with The Simpsons although it may make that article too long. Fascinating demonstration of the popularity of the show. It is essentially part of the main article, which, as is practice, has been separated when the main article becomes too long. Tyrenius 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This actually appears to be a fairly complete list that was started in July of 2004. I can't imagine that this is the most useful list in the world, but there's no reason to delete. (Wikipedia is not paper, etc.). I'd hate to see the joint efforts of so many people over the past 2 years go up in a cloud of smoke. --Bachrach44 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
{after edit conflict) A very reluctant keep for me, because I know some anon will start building another list in the main article. Plus, we have other articles like this, such as Airdates of Lost. Also, I think it was split out of the main article (which is too big as it is) a long time ago. -Whomp 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
Changing to no vote. -Whomp 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Now changing to delete, as their actually is a section about it in the main article in paragraph form. -Whomp 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete or merge with the Simpsons —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosAkita (talk • contribs)
-
- comment Merging would be disastrous the main article and this sub article are both incredibly long. Merging would create an article of an unwieldy length. --Bachrach44 13:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, listcrufty unmaintainable really bad idea; re. User:Whomp's comment, anons can no longer create new articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. In this current version I remain neutral, but I have a feeling that people wouldn't react so strongly against it, if it were done like Airdates of Lost. However, I am currently working on making the article The Simpsons better and I want to shorten the section The_Simpsons#Broadcasting and move the information to a separate article according to WP:SS. The new article would be called Broadcasting of The Simpsons and would merge information from that section, The Simpsons in French and The Simpsons in Australia, although the last one is almost complete crap. I could try and fit this list into the new article. Is that a good idea? --Maitch 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for unmaintainability - the list was started two years ago; how many of these channels still air the Simpsons now? And what's the point of an article like this, anyway? Is somebody going to check wikipedia to see if they can watch the Simpsons in their country? - DavidWBrooks 00:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not TV guide. Golfcam 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete For the many reasons stated above. DVD+ R/W 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, listcruft. Vizjim 10:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, if not then merge into main Simpsons article CoolKatt number 99999 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- (CoughcoughWP:CIVILcough) Vizjim 10:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Weak delete - we probably don't need a long list of every TV station in the world that broadcasts The Simpsons. Such information could probably be found easily enough on Google. A brief list of the main channels in the US, UK, Europe etc. which air the show should be included in the main article, however. Andrew 10:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Might as well be "List of every channel that has shows on it." Listcruft. Kafziel 13:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with The Simpsons. +Hexagon1 (talk)
08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete. I vote delete because the thought of having this list merged with the main article is just too stupid. --Maitch 10:22, 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stamna (dish)
Non-notable. jareha (comments) 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as article is incoherent, neither about a Greek dish, the family discovering the recipe or the ingredients/preparation of the dish itself. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Eivindt@c 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete interesting story, but doesn't give any other info about the dish, nor why it deserves an entry. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Where'd that pic come from? wtf? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN. G-hits <200 for +Stamna +dish. Article does not assert notability. Looks like research notes in article. :) Dlohcierekim 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Some of this looks like original research to me. jgp 01:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Scientizzle 00:21, 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:G4 and almost G3 too, because someone's deliberately recreating this just to cause a nuisance. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Benfer, Jr
Recreation of Knox (animator) which was deleted Feb 6, 2006 and Robert Benfer deleted Feb 17. Still not notable. Jamoche 06:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - The previous article was deleted because of vanity, this article was not written by Knox, nor anyone who knows Knox. You may not have heard of him, but just because he's not famous doesn't make his information a worthy encyclopedia article. He has made a significant impact in online claymation, many fans and fellow clamators regard him as the "King of Klay" [9][10][11]. He has a loyal (albeit somewhat reckless, just see the talk page for the original Knox article...) and large fanbase that should have some coverage on this wiki. Calicore 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I don't necessarily believe that prior deletions are valid reasons for future deletions, but despite the fact that it may not be a vanity article, it is still non-notable. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 07:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - definately non-notable for wikipedia purposes. May be worthly of an entry in years to come but not at present.Peripitus 10:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Peripitus. --Jadriaen 11:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as recreation of previously deleted material M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Re-Delete; might be speedyable as {{nn-bio}} or {{db-repost}}. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Calicore. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong keep-I have a right to post what i want, and if i want to post an article a Robert Benfer, I'll post it! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO DELETE WHAT I WANT!!! JUST LEAVE IT ALONE!!! PLEASE!!! --Philber 22 22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Philber 22
-
- You may want to take a look at WP:OWN. If you aren't willing to see your work edited or deleted, this isn't the right place for you to contribute. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: An article on this subject was also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knox_(flash_artist) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kan Killers Inc.
Prod removed, so bringing here. Company founded March 2006. No ghits, website listed in article is just a Google portal. Article provides reason for deletion: "... if their new prototype is acepted by their contractor. If so they will be on their way to greater heights." - at that point someone will make an article for them. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jamoche 06:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also according to the article creator's userpage (User:Farzonl) he created the company. Wikipedia's not an advertising service, either. --Jamoche 06:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable company, as per WP:CORP; WP:VANITY may also creep in as the author is one of the founders of the company. (aeropagitica) (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable WP:CORP.--blue520 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CORP and maybe WP:VANITY M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self promotion --Bachrach44 20:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN and WP:VANITY. jgp 01:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 17:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Static In Stereo
Fails WP:MUSIC doktorb | words 07:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the heads up. I must admit that I wrote this stub rather quickly, but here are a few examples of the band's notability:
- Multiple Non-Trivial Works: A search for "static in stereo" on the official site of Chart (magazine), www.chartattack.com, comes up with 68 results (you may have to go back to about 2001 to find many articles solely about Static in Stereo, but they're there). Here's a link to the search results page:
http://www.chartattack.com/DAMN/search.cfm?EH=static+in+stereo
- Also, I don't know if this fits an official category for notability or not, but in 2002 they were nominated for "Best New Group" in the Canadian Rock Music Awards. The other four bands in the category Joydrop, Sum 41, Default (band), and Staggered Crossing have Wikipedia pages, just for reference. Here's the link to a PDF (the category of interest is on page 2) http://www.cab-acr.ca/english/media/news/02/nr_crma_jan1502.pdf
- If you need more verification, I can find it, but Canadian rock charts from several years back can be hard to dredge up. Hope this helps. Davemcarlson 08:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable enough, but still needs sources. Melchoir 09:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Beno1000 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep per melchoir M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Melchior. Tyrenius 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep well known as per above -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 01:24, 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Celebritydom
"Celebritydom" is a neologism the author "coined" 5 days ago for the concept most of us know as wikt:celebrity. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article itself is a vague hodgepodge of original research. I recommend to delete and/or redirect to Celebrity. Melchoir 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR. I woldn't redirect as it seems an unlikely search term. Gwernol 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with al possible dispatch, slebritycruft and protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. DarthVader 12:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism and original research. Beno1000 13:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism, WP:OR M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete until it gets rather wider use. Tyrenius 20:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it's mostly redundant with celebrity, and the term isn't common enough to warrant a redirect. jgp 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 06:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete because where does it say that he invented the word? i have heard people use it before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.124.11.13 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment FYI, the burden on proof lies with the editors of the article to provide reliable sources that show the subject of the article is notable and not a neologism. If this term is in widespread use it should be easy enough to find such sources. If you do, please add them to the article. Thanks, Gwernol 05:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
i am sorry. i haven't used wikipedia before, so i didn't know that it wasn't for invented words. i was going off of colbert's "truthiness," which has its own wiki page. i invented "celebritydom" about a week ago and my friends thought it was cool and told me i should write and article on wikipedia. the person who said they have heard it before probably heard it from a friend of a friend. once again, i am sorry. however, if colbert got "truthiness," why shouldn't i get "celebritydom?" please explain that to me. aokjunebug91
- The difference is "Truthiness" was used on a national TV show, quoted in multiple articles in newspapers like the New York Times and selected by the American Dialect Society as the 2005 Word of the Year, making it notable. If "celebritydom" has similar notability, it will of course be included. If it is as notable, please provide verifiable reliable sources. Thanks, Gwernol 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your desire to correct your mistake and have the page deleted is appreciated, but please don't blank this discussion. It serves as a record, and blanking it defeats that purpose. I have reposted the comment you made after blanking below. jgp 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete now. just delete it. sorry. aokjunebug91
- I've reposted this since it was added along with a page blank jgp 05:41, 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. On a straight tally, the result is 5k/10d (one keep is weak), placing this within the realm of discretionary deletion. Even several keep voters acknowledge that this topic's claim to notability arises from an internet comic, and that the topic is already mentioned in the article for that comic. I believe that there is consensus that this article should not exist on its own, and that it is adequately covered elsewhere. After deleting, I will create a redirect to the parent comic in my capacity as an ordinary editor. Xoloz 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Etherkiller
Non notable. It's just a cable someone made up, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Tim 10:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - inane article idea. Peripitus 11:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Almost BJAODN. DarthVader 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete but consider also killing its life as an article in its own right and move to BJADON doktorb | words 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I think the people saying that it should be moved to BJAODN don't realise that it's an old joke and simply think it's something a vandal made up on the spur of the moment, like almost everything that ends up in BJAODN. Since it's not, and those two votes were made in ignorance, they should be discounted. jgp 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:BAD. Beno1000 15:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Common joke amongst networking folks, apparently first used in the Bastard Operator from Hell column. Clocks up 17500 ghits.Dr Zak 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- What's with that image? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable in-joke. jamiemcc 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per Dr Zak. It's an old joke that's verifiable. jgp 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- comment actually, it was first seen in the bastard operator from hell, archived here. --Bachrach44 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Zak although I'm not fully convinced this meets WP:N. JoshuaZ 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I guess.... 17500 ghits? You'd think that this could be expanded into something weird and wonderful, but most of the ghits seem to be links to fiftythree.org (where the idea apparently originated, and from which the image is lifted), which also has AUI Killer, BNC-Killer, VGA-Killer, Drive Killer, SCSI Killer, Ide Killer, Floppy Killer, RJ-11 Killer, Localtalk Killer, DB25 Killer, V.35 Killer, Bus Killer.... where will it all end? I'd rather see this merged with something.... but I couldn't say what.... TheMadBaron 06:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As a (former) Novell CNE, I believe I would have heard of this if it were notable in 1995. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite. This is a joke, but a popular and well-known one that originated in one of Simon Travaglia's original BOFH stories.[12] It was commonplace on alt.sysadmin.recovery in the mid-90s and the concept has passed into Unix and IP networking lore. Hardly what "made up in school one day" was intended to cover. Vashti 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFT. Verifiability in question. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP!!! Whats wrong whith it? the first page I officially make is getting deleted without even seeing light for a month! Besides, is it doing anyone-- or any servers harm is it? And it was not "made up in school one day"! And is this the best use of your time? Deleting a harmless artical. You should be agenst users like User:Kingstonjr and user:Hashbrowns who have porn on their userpages! Wikipedia is not for porn! It may be uncensored, but this?!?!--Finest1 01:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, because it's verifiable, it wasn't made up in school one day, and if you haven't heard about it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But consider merging into BOFH, as I don't quite favor having an article for every single character/joke/element of every single story/book/movie/game around (though if you look around on WP, there are quite a few of those). LjL 14:00, 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. Xoloz 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Futrix Studios
Non-notable company, a game developer that hasn't released any games. Nothing approaching WP:CORP. Contested prod. Weregerbil 11:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
We are published within PCZone Magazine and noted as Futrix Studios being the developers.
- Delete per nom M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Jusjih 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN, Vanity Tyrenius 20:57, 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 delete as recreation of material previously deleted per AFD. --Ezeu 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thala
Fancruft and unencyclopedic. Has already been speedied before. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- That is if verification can be provided for this "nickname", if none can be found then Delete.--blue520 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as repost of previously deleted material M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:32, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oil Thigh
Non-notable, unverified. Wikipedia is not a lyrics depository. Previous AFD. Delete Ardenn 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect as this information is already available in Queen's University. I don't see a problem with the existence of the song itself on Wikipedia, though, as long as it's a fight song of a notable university, which this one seems to be. There are other similar articles (not a justification, but as examples): For Boston and Maroon and Gold to name a couple. Aplomado talk 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep again a second AfD. It you look at the previous AfD, the consensus was Merge to Queen's Golden Gaels with comments suggesting that the article could be kept if information relevant to the song's history was added. It was added to the article [19], so I think this stays as a stand-alone keep. Plenty of precedents on University fight songs. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I've removed the copyvio lyrics -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I've removed the copyvio lyrics -- Samir
- Merge into Queen's Golden Gaels which already has some info -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Quite well known University song. This sort of thing isn't as common in Canada as it is in the States. Deserves its own article. --Skeezix1000 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article in its current state's fine. —Encephalon 07:30, 20 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kingston Student Ghetto
Not encyclopedic, non-notable, unverified, and fails to pass the test of "Who cares?" Delete Ardenn 19:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I should also add that it reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia article. Ardenn 19:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep With some references and expansion on the history of the area, this could become a good article. - pm_shef 19:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, encyclopedic and verifiable. Aplomado talk 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Queen's University seems okay, but not worthy of its own article. joturner 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. (1) Notability -- many Ghits [22] on the Student Ghetto. Also, it's a neighbourhood in Kingston. We have many precedents of neighbourhoods that are kept; as examples, here are the Ottawa and Atlanta neighbourhoods. (2) Verifiability: The Student Ghetto is referenced in major Canadian news media: [23], [24], [25], [26]. Queen's University always refers to it as the "Student Ghetto": [27], [28]. So does the City of Kingston in its own Committee meetings: [29]. There is even an online petition to rename the Ghetto [30] that was referenced by the same City of Kingston Committee: [31]. It's encyclopedic in my eyes. Oh, and in response to Who Cares: I care. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep PER Aplomado and Samir :) Dlohcierekim 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Queen's U. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, a neighbourhood like any other. That's what the neighbourhood is called. If we have articles on, say, McGill Ghetto, not to mention other neighbourhoods such as Mount Royal, Forest Hill, Malvern, Westboro, etc., then what's the issue with this one? --Skeezix1000 16:46, 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jim Fraser
Non notable, not encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a list. KC9CQJ 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless I went to this school or knew something about obscure cross-country in Ohio or whatever/wherever it is, this really doesn't matter to me. Now if the guy had won ten championships and coached a really famous athlete, that would be different. KC9CQJ 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete.Flunks google.:) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- There has been another developmet. In checking the page hsitory, I find someone replaced anAustrallin politician stub with the nn bio. Restored to Australlian politican stub. Replaced afd tags. Change vote to Keep and expand. (I'm at work, so my time is limited. I will add the dif's later. Duty calls. ) :) Dlohcierekim 21:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Speedy Close after revert. I realize it's likely to stay a stub, but seems to meet the basic requirements for a politician. Fan1967 00:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. As this is a good faith nomination, it cannot be speedy kept unless Kc9cqj withdraws it. Jim Fraser meets WP:BIO as a long-standing member for Canberra and as a Canberran was a very highly respected politician in the community. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I left a note on KC9CQJ ‘s talk page. :) Dlohcierekim 03:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - the politician that is.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough politician. --Bduke 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable australian politician. Ansell 12:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The nominated article isn't about a Canberran politician, it's about a cross country coach. If there is a politician involved at the article I nominated for VfD, I sure didn't notice it, because some bonehead reverted whatever reversions you guys did to his article. I'm moving for vandalism in this case, then. Please help me out :-) KC9CQJ 03:20, 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 keep. - ulayiti (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] San Andreas Multiplayer
Is a game mod, not sure if its notable Tawker 20:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
It has well over 1100 regular players after only a few days of release, and it is not the first San Andreas mod to be included F3llah1n 20:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I am against this article deletion, like f3llah1n said, this mod has well over 1000 regular players and over 180 servers, most popular 5 servers are 100% full at any time (100 players max on each server). Jernejl 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Counter Strike is a game mod, and it's on Wikipedia. I don't see anyone complaining about that. Camaro_d00d 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note Only edit from this user. Fan1967 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete non-notable. Tawker, it looks like there are sockpuppets and others who are going to infect this discussion. Also, Counter-Strike has been featured commercially as well as in Newsweek, so it's very notable. This isn't. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If this article is classed as 'non-noteable' then there are lot more articles out there that should be deleted. F3llah1n 23:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That goes without saying. There are a lot of articles that should be deleted. Doesn't mean this one should stay. Fan1967 00:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Does not deserved to be deleted. Like the others said. There are a lot of players that play this mod. Just because its not commercialized doesn't mean it has to be taken away and preventing this mod to be recognized for being fun and enjoyable. Drift 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note Only edit from this user. Fan1967 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep multiplayer mod for a hugely popular single-player game. Of course it's notable. Grue 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment No one's disputing the notability of the game. The notability of the mod is what's in question. Fan1967 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- When there is a very popular game without multiplayer mode and someone makes a multiplayer mod for it, what do you expect it to be? A complete flop? Grue 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to San Andreas and mark as {{R with possibilities}}. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article is well written, and the mod is a success, consider it has spawned a game server hosting business (http://www.gta-host.com/) and was also featured on popular websites such as DIGG (http://digg.com/search?search=San+Andreas+Multiplayer&submit=Submit , http://digg.com/gaming/San_Andreas_Multiplayer_(SA:MP)_Released).
A similar mod is already on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Theft_Auto but is not even released, and what is released of it is very low quality compared to sa:mp. why isnt that article considered for deletion as well? Jernejl 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note that versions of MTA were already released for GTA III and GTA:VC. It was actually the first mod to introduce online play into such GTA games. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 08:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
- To add on to what Jernejl had to say, the last time I checked SA-MP had well over 1000 people playing, where as MTA had about 130 (according to what ASE had to say). Given this, I don't think the notability of this mod is in question at all. Oneforaru 19:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Only edit from this user. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 08:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
- Keep. I'd just like to add that it is featured on Game-Monitor.com which is a relatively large and popular site showing servers for multiplayer games, and also features retail games such as BF2. Mikechml 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Only three edits on May 16: Two in present page and one San Andreas Multiplayer article. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 08:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
- Keep, per justifications by Stifle, Oneforaru and Mikechml. Though I have never played the mod in question, the popularity and notability of the mod clearly merits its own article. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 08:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
- san andreas now leads the toplist with 5 most popular servers on http://game-monitor.com/.
if that isnt proof of popularity and notability then i dont know what crack you are smoking. Jernejl 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, well-known multiplayer mod for one of the most known game in video game industry. (yes, this is POV ;)) Hołek ҉ 10:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I feel this specific page should either be deleted or moved to "SA-MP" as this page is misleading, as there are multiple San Andreas Multiplayer modifications available. If it is moved this page could be listed to link to every "San Andreas Multiplayer" which would make more sense.
- Keep 640,000 Google hits is notable enough. Noclip 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Kill Bill and redirect. —Whouk (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique
Not only is this a pointless entry about a 15 second long scene of a fictional film, it also does not add any information(as there is none to be added) to the reader who follows the link from the original film's page thus making it redundant.
- Delete Procrastinating@talk2me 14:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, just because you think the the entry is silly doesn't change the fact that it does add information to the reader who follows the link from the original page. It clearly and concisely explains what the technique is and it explains it's background and usage in the movie. Therefore the statement "as there is non(e) to be added" is clearly wrong and demostrates only that you think the movie is silly and I don't consider that to be a valid reason to delete an entry.
- Keep This is one of the main point of the film and a very memorable scene. I have come across it casually mentioned I think 3 times on the internet. It is well worth a stub. --mboverload 06:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The information presented is not encyclopedic and does not add sufficiently to justify a separate article. James_Aguilar (talk)
19:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per mboverload. Although I wouldn't object if it were merged into the main film article or some other article related to the film. Cassandra Leo 18:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We can't have separate pages for every little fictional device in a film. This information is quite at home with a sentence or two on a page about Kill Bill. Trent 900 22:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete While this does refer to a certain detail of the film, this si an element that a viewer of the film will know. If you've seen, Kill Bill II, you should kow what the Five Point Exploding Heart Technique is.
- Delete Everything in this entry can be gleaned from Kill Bill. -- samwyse 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well worth keeping separate. It will grow over time. --mdmanser 07:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Grow over time ?? from where? from what? this film contains no more data on the this fictional subject ! --Procrastinating@talk2me 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Merge into Kill Bill. RasputinAXP c 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is not worth a separate entry, being only one short scene in a not particularly significant film. It could be merged into Kill Bill. -- John F 11:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and make a redirect to Kill Bill. possibly merge any relevant info. JoshuaZ 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Melchoir 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Richardcavell 22:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Kill Bill or Beatrix M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with prejudice. Danny Lilithborne 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, merge, redirect...anything but keep, as this is redundant information. Thunderbunny 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Kill Bill. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Kill Bill for reasons stated. :) Dlohcierekim 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per mboverload. - CNichols 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. We're being overwhelmed by a generally poor understanding of what an encyclopedia article is. —Encephalon 03:57, 20 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 - Although the delete comments do have some persuasive power there are far more keeps and precedent is on the side of keeping school articles, as long as they meet certain standards, which I judge this one to do, so keep. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cambridge Public School (Embrun, Ontario)
Article fails to establish notability, and why it is encyclopedic. Schoolcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete --Ardenn 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, of all public school articles, this one actually contains some information, including the interesting (albeit unverified, for now) stat outlining why only 7% of students eligible to go there actually do. All schools are inherently notable in my opinion. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, it's pretty much established that schools receive entries, this should be stubified, but certainly not deleted - pm_shef 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per other users -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this is the creator of this article. I personally realized that this article was too short, so I decided to merge it with Embrun, Ontario--FruitsAndVegetables133 23:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note from the author, this is the creator of this article. I originally merged 'Cambridge Public School, Embrun, Ontario' with Embrun, Ontario, but the information was deleted off that article as well.--FruitsAndVegetables133 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I have reverted the article back because an article should not be blanked while an AfD is going on, particularly one where the article is likely to finish with a "keep" vote. No vote on my part, though. --Metropolitan90 23:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator has given no legitimate reason to delete this article. This is hardly an "indiscriminate collection of information". One need only read the article, to see that. The overwhelming precedent at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive is to keep all verifiable real school articles. Valid reasons to delete a school article include: non-verifiability, copyvio, and attacks. But no such reason has been cited. --Rob 02:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. as per above Ydam 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Middle and Elementary schools are not inherently notable, and there is no assertion of either academic excellence or a real claim to fame in the article. - Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this is important to document Yuckfoo 17:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Regardish schools I think articles should generally be kept. // Habj 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I know that the idea that all schools merit articles is the Wikicontroversy that wouldn't die, but AFD consensus has generally gone to the keep side of the debate (even if only by no-consensus). Nominator has not presented a convincing reason why this should somehow be considered less notable than the average school. Keep unless you're prepared to actually pitch for an "all schools should be deleted" policy (and good luck to you if you try.) Bearcat 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. For consistency. -- DS1953 talk 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brown Sahib
Transwikied to Wiktionary already. Listing here to establish consensus as to whether this should be merged with and redirected to Sahib, expanded, or deleted. TheProject 22:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: A search for this term on Wiktionary brings up only one result, which is irrelevant. No vote on my part. Royboycrashfan
00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I hope you're not looking in Wiktionary's mainspace, as the article was transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Brown Sahib in Wiktionary's Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates it should go. TheProject 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
- Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and expand. Might do it myself at some point. Let me explain: any article on the title 'sahib' will have to be completely different from an article on this phrase, which is a term with a very specific and rich sociological meaning. The word 'sahib' in the phrase, in this context, refers specifically to the British; a brown sahib is someone who imitates the British. Fairly important for the postcolonial theory crowd. There are discussions of this, by among others, Homi Bhabha in the Location of Culture. Homi being a bit of a brown sahib himself. Hornplease 09:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand - an unpleasant term but one in regular use. Gerry Lynch 10:54, 12 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!
Ezeu 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Ezeu 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but clean up and expand - The term is definitely used by some South Asians but it may be a minority as it appears in South Asian English but not as far as I know in South Asian languages. Examples in English include Anil Chowla's article, Venkat Lakshminarayan's article as well as this article in Q-News. Green Giant 00:00, 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.
