Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 7

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid64 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerru Dera

Kerru Dera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a non-notable person who supposedly founded a non-notable company, and apparantly a vanity article, that has somehow escaped notice for months. The only Ghits for "Kerru Dera" and "Kerry Dera" are from WP and its clones. "Dera, Inc." is a start up with no products and no sales. Donald Albury 00:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Go ahead and delete. --Wareq 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN, a non-notable person who founded a non-notable company.--TBCΦtalk? 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Its a non notable puff piece (scope_creep 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC))
• Delete Seems absolutely non-notable. Gimlei 01:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Utterly non notable. Vanity piece. Xdenizen 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete NN, vanity, bedroom based PC company with parent's funding! --Steve 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN looks like a good speedy TheRanger 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable autobiography by eponymous single purpose account [1]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious hoax and conflict of interest. How could "the most profitable PC manufacturer in the world" have no products and no sales? Wavy G 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Poster child of non-notable articles everywhere, which is about the most notable thing about this article... EVula 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kevin 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -64.26.154.194 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not so much non-notability, but more self-vanity. Atlantis Hawk 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 10:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - why are we even voting on this? Clear WP:SPEEDY. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Silly hoax: "the most profitable PC manufacturer in the world". No. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Deleteper nom. CraigMonroe 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article is about some guy who didn't accomplish much, he just isn't notable enough to own his article. -ECH3LON 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability (people). --PaxEquilibrium 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm surprised no one added the crucial {{db-bio}} yet. Tagged. :-) Kavadi carrier 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete all a7, no assertion of notability. Author even attempted to put the article into the new category "MySpace Music". NawlinWiki 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imortal Sadness

Imortal Sadness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The band fails to satisfy any criterion for notability as per WP:MUSIC. It is my first deletion nomination though, and I decided to avoid the speedy deletion process and take the safe route here. Gimlei 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD Also includes:

• Taylor Lasch
• Toxins 2004

• Keep. Nothing particularly daft about it. --Wareq 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the WP:MUSIC notability criterias, as the band hasn't released multiple albums on a major label, won a major music competition/award, or been "featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" (as evidenced by the 13 relevant results on Google, most of which are from Wikipedia and mySpace).--TBCΦtalk? 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Banging their own drum. Virtually unknown. scope_creep 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC, and can't spell immortal! --Steve 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, crufty vainity piece. Xdenizen 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Autobiography for non-notable band, that fails WP:BAND. Proceed directly to myspace, do not pass go, do not collect £200. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Kevin 06:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC criteria. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article's primary author has also created Taylor Lasch, an article about one of the band's members (who I think may be the contributor), and Toxins 2004, an article about the band's sole album. For continuity's sake, if the band article goes, so should they. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree, absolutely forgot about those two. Thanks very much to Wrathchild for adding those. Gimlei 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. I've also added Toxins 2004 and Taylor Lasch to this AfD. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All as utterly non-notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not as unwilling to tag for speedy so I have done exactly that on all the three articles. For the record, delete all as blatant myspaceisms. Kavadi carrier 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telomere Music

Telomere Music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; albums aren't widely enough released, media coverage is little to none. Crystallina 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC by a long way. scope_creep 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, non-notable musician who's albums have neither been released on a major label or mentioned in "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media".--TBCΦtalk? 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable musician. Xdenizen 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, NN --Steve 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per noml, article created by an annon and untouched since. -MrFizyx 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Telomere seems to be listed on AMG and the Zoetosis album produces a review there. A search for Zoetosis also produces 1,680 Google hits. Oddly though, they all refer to the artist as Telomere, and not "Telomere Music". Kevin 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be there yet. On the above, though, I'll wager the title was meant to be "Telomere (music)", as a disambiguation from telomere. Shimeru 07:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced. Daniel5127 (Talk) 07:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This needs to establish notability first, then an article can exist. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as it is; will move to the creator's or anyone else's userspace on request so the material which is verifiable can be sourced and merged wherever appropriate. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political economy of drugs

Political economy of drugs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thanks everyone for your help...I would love to merge this article, but am a little unsure of how to do so. Any thoughts would be welcome. Also, thanks for all of the encouraging comments. Any ideas on how to properly Wikify this would be helpful. Sixthsense1 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I prodded this back when it was just a little essaylet. Now it's a full-blown personal essay. Not badly written, but unencyclopedic and editorializing. Opabinia regalis 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Xdenizen 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, a soapbox. Unsearchable title (56 ghits [2] for the phrase "Political economy of drugs" outside of references to the book "The Political Economy of Drugs in the Caribbean"). -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Interestng but not right for Wikipedia. Violates WP:OR meshach 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - creator's only contribution is to this article. Trebor 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - How is this relevant? WP:ITIS, the number of edits does not determine the quality of edits. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment perhaps this should just be re-written in a more encyclopedic manner. Atlantis Hawk 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/merge and don't bite the newbies. No-one had offered the author the "five pillars of WP" advice until today. A fair part of this material would add value to Recreational drug use. Mereda 10:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 10:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Mereda. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Add Cites It is a good article and a lot of the information can be cited. There was also obviously a lot of work put into it. It seems to be a shame to delete the effort when it could be changed for the better. CraigMonroe 13:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The immediately preceding poster notes that the article contains a lot of work. True. So does any newspaper editorial, but we wouldn't include those. Clear violation of guidelines - surprised this isn't 'speedy'. WMMartin 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - I'm not surprised this isn't speedy. For one, it doesn't qualify. For another, it contains a good deal of information which will increase the quality of the Recreational drug use article when the two are merged and the info is cited. →Bobby← 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, some information are useful, but most are not. The merge to Recreational drug use will improve the article. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most of it, rewrite and merge the rest to the Recreational drug use. Gimlei 15:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move to userspace in the interest of not biting people; and explain to the creator what's wrong with it and what they can do better. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)
• Delete Original research is not encyclopedic. Delete, and only merge that which can be cited. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & rewrite An essay is not original research - a paper is. If you read through it briefly you will note that most of it saying what other researchers found, with papers quoted at the very end. All it needs is a change in the introduction, maybe the tone and more formal referencing system. If the papers quoted at the bottom are available at libraries, this should not prove too difficult. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/merge with substantial trimming; article could factually review the approach of economic anthropology to illegal drugs and drug addiction. 7 November 2006
• userfy and tell user how to include cited content in existing articles. Second choice: delete. Guy 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The subject matter is interesting, but not singularly notable enough to warrant its own article. The "gist" of the article could be useful in Recreational drug use per above, but there's far too much wrong with it in my mind to simply Merge. This needs to be started from the ground up to look more encyclopedic and less like an essay written for a Liberal Arts course. JGardner 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into relevant article. --Howrealisreal 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are major issues related to the organization of the article but there is potential to serve as a good article.

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani^talk 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unitarian Jihad

The term originated in one column written in the San Francisco Chronicle. It generated a minor internet meme, but does not appear to be an actual "movement" (as the article claims) covered in reliable sources. Like a lot of the Unitarian-Universalist articles, it seems to contain a lot of links. JChap2007 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dodgy sources. Vanity piece scope_creep 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Vanity piece with little merit. Xdenizen 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article based on humorous column, tries to give merit by linking to Unitarian organisations --Steve 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. -MrFizyx 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While term was mentioned in publication, there is no evidence that it became notable, it seems to be borrowing notability from related topics. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources and notability is in question. Nishkid64 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article dosen't make perfect sense. Atlantis Hawk 07:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a small section of UUA; perhaps a "trivia" section. Notable for a time among UUs, even wider at some points. SF Chronicle mentioned it several times, as well as other publications and internet sources. HellaNorCal 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I've been trackign this meme for some time. It's notablity can best be tracked by the number of "cells" that popped up, and the number of sermons presented on the subject. Mathiastck 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge It's mostly notable in UU circles, and not much elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (UU and UJist)
• Weak keep, 106k Google hits make it a meme with some traction, and the merge target is not obvious; Unitarian Universalism? Jon Carroll? Internet meme? -- nae'blis 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cute joke; not notable enough for an article. No merge: "Trivia" is non-encyclopedic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 107K google hits and there's an argument for deletion? Makes non-trivial claims about religion and humour, majority of "members" are non-UU.--Lev lafayette 01:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Nishkid64. -- Szvest 13:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
• Keep I started the Talk page before seeing this discussion here. It said the reason for deletion was that it was redirecting, but it was a full article and I thought it was linked under Internet Phenomena. JoyceD 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought space

Thought space (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems very much like original research. No sources are given, I could not find anything reliable, and the overall tone supports it. Crystallina 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a leader for the thought space website scope_creep 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, no references --Steve 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above -- wtfunkymonkey 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Xdenizen 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, found no support in my google search. -MrFizyx 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. EVula 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, and because of its nature, it looks to be inherently unverifiable. JIP | Talk 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:V. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, WP:V. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and maybe create a redirect to Theory of forms... It sounds vaugely similar (sort of). At any rate, a re-direct could discourage re-creation.
• Delete Unless a philosophy can be cited to reliable sources this is OR. The failure of the google search by MrFizyx shows it is not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Nishkid64 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge Scientific Research, however unverifiable, should be kept in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadmoore (talk • contribs) November 7, 2006
  • Then your opinion directly contradicts our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research official policies. Please read them. Uncle G 20:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Thadmoore's firstsecond edit was today, see also Thad Moore (if it hasn't been speedied yet, self professed notable 13 year old mathematician) Pete.Hurd 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per many above Pete.Hurd 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was that the nomination was withdrawn and the article kept. JChap2007 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans

Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A non-notable organization within the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many of these (like the Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--79 unique Google hits, no reliable sources) I am just prodding, but this one generates 15,000 Google hits (although I could not find a reliable source among them), so I'm bringing it here. JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it's a genuine religious organisation scope_creep 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this about.com page constitutes a reliable source. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Media mention this past week in New York State's Oldest Newspapaer, doesn't tell much, but meets WP:RS, nom's own check suggests notability. -MrFizyx 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I saw both of those. The about.com piece reads like a press release and the Poughkeepsie Journal article quotes a member of the organization talking about something else, not about the CUUP. Merely generating a lot of Google hits does not establish notability. JChap2007 03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: 709 unique G-hits is near the limit of what google will produce for any search (per WP:GOOGLE). This is some indicator that the organization's name is "out there." The organization claims to have about 70 chapters. [3] How big does an organization's membership need to be to assert notability? I have difficulty taking seriously the two criteria in WP:CORP#Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations (well, esp. #2). -MrFizyx 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Out of 2 listed criteria one applies to English football teams? <rolls eyes> JChap2007 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, entries in books.google.com look like potentially good sources. -MrFizyx 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Berger looks like a good source from the index. And it rates some discussion in the other books as well. Withdrawing nomination. JChap2007 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This group seems to have notablity, I think it should be kept and improved. I have placed a references tag on the page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic (film)

Film which doesn't seem to actually exist. 2006 is quickly coming to a close, but there's no mention of this movie existing on IMDB, nor any mention of Jessica Alba being linked to the project. fuzzy510 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Reporting about some future event. This is not what wikipedia is about scope_creep 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and no mention on imdb. --Steve 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Practically contentless, no sources, obviously incorrect information, fail notability, and as stated above wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Xdenizen 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the talk page said that the movie had been "probably cancelled" in february, and we have no verification that it was going to exist anyways. I doubt it's a hoax, but it sure isn't going to exist anytime soon. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Can't speedy delete it, though; I don't think any of the categories really fit. EVula 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, {{db-nocontext}} could work, but it's shaky. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and is not going to happen at all, since the year is coming to an end. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An obvious hoax, it is clearly the work of some prankster.-ECH3LON 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: wait for a while and try to search for some more info. If nothing changes, then delete. --PaxEquilibrium 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per all of the above, however Keep if the film is in fact in the workings.
• Delete current contents, then Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie. Plausible search term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. May be worth a redirect per Andrew Lenahan. --Matthew Humphreys 09:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Merging requires notability to be demonstrated and verified as much as keeping in its own article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diverse & Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries

Diverse & Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Only 72 unique Google hits for this (including the usual number of WP mirrors. No reliable sources cited in the article and I cannot find any either. I almost prodded this, but saw that another editor had asserted notability. JChap2007 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination -- wtfunkymonkey 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trebor 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations; see Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations for discussion. HellaNorCal 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That thought had passed through my mind as well. However, Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations is basically just a list. Wikipedia: Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria says that list items should have their own articles or that it be reasonable to expect an article to be forthcoming in the future. As this topic is not covered in relable sources, we would not be able to write an article on it. In addition, such a list may be objectionable to some as listcruft. I would suggest that HellaNorCal, as well as User: Canaen, who I have also been talking too about these Unitarian Universalist Association-affiliate substub articles, direct their attention to improving the articles on those UUA affiliates about which reliable sources have been published, rather than trying to save substubs that basically just serve as links to the organization or turning the list of UUA organizations into a linkfarm. JChap2007 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, HellaNorCal and Canaen appear to be the same person. [4] JChap2007 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentYes, as it stands, it is just a list. As well, several articles on that list already have articles on them. I suggest expanding the concept of the article to house content, so it is not simply a list of names. This should serve several purposes. Consolidating information, developing stubs which are not yet ready for their own articles, and making deletionists happy by only having a single article. As you have noted, JChap, CUUPs, one of the UU affiliate organizations, has an article which may have reliable sources. It is reasonable to assume that since one independent affiliate organization has been written of in reliable sources, that others may be found in the future. Closing with a note, I see both JChap and myself are posting this thrice at the three ongoing AfDs about IAOs or the UUA; perhaps this would be simpler if we simply discussed it at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations HellaNorCal 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. --Coredesat 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Le Mieux

Nick Le Mieux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not assert notability. Google returns 65 results, most of which seem to be forums or blogs. Speedy tag removed. Amarkov ^babble 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, CSD A7. hateless 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Supremely non-notable. Xdenizen 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I think the case has been made already -- wtfunkymonkey 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magi Network

Magi Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Another minor UUA-affiliated organization not covered in reliable sources. The only citation is to its homepage on Geocities. The vast majority of the 977 Google hits for the term discuss a product with the same name. JChap2007 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. They're all talking about some program called "magi network library". Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nomination. Not notable at all. Xdenizen 06:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations; see Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations for discussion. HellaNorCal 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That thought had passed through my mind as well. However, Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations is basically just a list. Wikipedia: Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria says that list items should have their own articles or that it be reasonable to expect an article to be forthcoming in the future. As this topic is not covered in relable sources, we would not be able to write an article on it. In addition, such a list may be objectionable to some as listcruft. I would suggest that HellaNorCal, as well as User: Canaen, who I have also been talking too about these Unitarian Universalist Association-affiliate substub articles, direct their attention to improving the articles on those UUA affiliates about which reliable sources have been published, rather than trying to save substubs that basically just serve as links to the organization or turning the list of UUA organizations into a linkfarm. JChap2007 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, HellaNorCal and Canaen appear to be the same person. [5] JChap2007 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentYes, as it stands, it is just a list. As well, several articles on that list already have articles on them. I suggest expanding the concept of the article to house content, so it is not simply a list of names. This should serve several purposes. Consolidating information, developing stubs which are not yet ready for their own articles, and making deletionists happy by only having a single article. As you have noted, JChap, CUUPs, one of the UU affiliate organizations, has an article which may have reliable sources. It is reasonable to assume that since one independent affiliate organization has been written of in reliable sources, that others may be found in the future. Closing with a note, I see both JChap and myself are posting this thrice at the three ongoing AfDs about IAOs or the UUA; perhaps this would be simpler if we simply discussed it at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations HellaNorCal 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eight Hours Gone (2008) film

Eight Hours Gone (2008) film (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Page full of rumors, nothing verifiable. The "rumored release" isn't for 3 years. Contested prod by author. Leuko 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is a real film. The film is being partially shot next month and in the months to come. Please do not delete this page. Thank you and it would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndySawFan (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete IMDb has never heard of the movie or the "new and upcoming" director. The IMDb page for Robin Williams does not mention this movie. No relevent ghits. Without any sources to back it up, this looks very hoax-y to me. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• This isn't hoax-y i have sent updates to Imdb and the director is being added to the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andysawfan (talk • contribs)
  • Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability, and you need verifiable, third-party sources to back your claims up. Right now there aren't any, we can't find any, so therefore it is not verifiable and must be deleted. It might not be a hoax, but, without sources, it sure looks like one. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• cant you just leave it and i add source links as soon as imdb updates them. And why did you guys delete saw IV, that film has been confirmed.
  • No, we can't, for the same reason sav IV was deleted - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• why does this need links to other sites... im submitting this true info to this site, should'nt you be happy... i haven't shard the info with other sites yet?
  • Because with no way of verifying that the information in this article is fact, we have no way of distinguishing it from the mountains of crap that flow through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. We can believe the media or film databases, we can't beileve individual editors such as you or myself. Try reading the verifiability policy, it'll enlighten you further. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it's still predicting the future. --Wafulz 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for lack of verification and for crystal-balling. NB: will the respondee to the comments please sign with four tildes as your lack of identity does nothing to improve your chance of being taken seriously. Eddie.willers 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I also cannot find any evidence of Partners in Crime Entertainment
• Delete, per above and due to its largely speculative nature. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, very likely to be a hoax. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you wish to apply the 'crystal ball' guideline to movies, then nominate every film yet-to-be-released en masse. -Toptomcat 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is not so much the crystal-balling as the movie is completely unverfiable (and a probable hoax).. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We regularly apply the crystal ball policy to movies. The most common cases are where editors build articles about further movies in series or unannounced sequels to movies, based upon nothing more than wishful thinking on the parts of fans, or even their own wishful thinking.

    Conversely, if you wish to make an argument for keeping that actually holds any water, you are going to have to cite sources to counter the charge that this article is unverifiable. Because at the moment the answer to the question "Says who?" when it comes to this article is little more than "Says a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor and no-one else.". Uncle G 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The crystal ball gets rolled out for games as well, but we try to keep content down to verified sources. Robovski 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani^talk 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumble radio

Non-notable wrestling show/podcast with inconclusive Google results. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete most of the ghits are for another site - http://www.therumbleradio.com/. What's more, there are only 524 of them. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 07:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Trebor 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge perhaps this article should be merged into that of its respective radio station. Atlantis Hawk 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge i agree with above.DINOMAN 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Leave it as is. Google produces results. The show is gaining popularity. cubsptrain 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is that a vote? Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN show. If the vote is merge there doesn't seem to be reference to the respective radio station, only 88.3 FM in Chicago. Does that mean WXAV [6] or WZRD [7] --Steve 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Leave it as is. The show is gaining popularity and is noteworthy.terdfergusson 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment no other articles link to this one. Anomo 02:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS, WP:V, etc. No sources, no signs of non-trivial third-party coverage. G11 candidate. ergot 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Ergot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please leave the show. It's listened to by 30-40 online and about 100 within the Chicagoland area every week
• Delete NN. Vegaswikian 07:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Somali Civil War (2006-present), although it looks like there may be a civil war brewing for the merge suggestion too. Yomangani^talk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somalian War

The "Somalian War" is not an actual conflict and all the events outlined on the page are part of the Somali Civil War. – Zntrip 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, its not all outlined there and cannot be understood as merely the same civil war that has been going on since 1991. The country has been in turmoil for many years, but starting with the taking of Mogadishu by the ICU countries such as Ethiopia have gotten involved. This is a specific conflict involving the ICU and those forces it is fighting. I really wish you would have discussed this before putting it up for deletion 8 minutes after it was made. Keep and allow people to expand it... ~Rangeley (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Somali Civil War page should be expanded if this information is to be included on Wikipedia. The Somali Civil War is an ongoing conflict and there is no need to have a new article. Also see Ethiopian involvement in Somalia. Pages already exist for this information. – Zntrip 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not the same conflict that was going on between the Siad Barre clan and the Mohamed Farrah Aidid clan. This article is about the current conflict with the ICU, a group which didnt even exist in 1991. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Is this a serious nomination? The ICU declared jihad. Eritrea moved their troops into the forbidden zone and government officials throughout the world have said Eritrea is using Somalia to wage a new war. What more is needed before this is considered a separate war? KazakhPol 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Eritrean involvment doesn't mean that this is a new conflict. – Zntrip 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not the same conflict that was going on between the Siad Barre clan and the Mohamed Farrah Aidid clan. This article is about the current conflict with the ICU, a group which didnt even exist in 1991. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is indeed a seperate war and should not be deleted. I believe this article should stay. Alex40045 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it a separate war? – Zntrip 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The real question is how is it the same war when the players are all completely different to those that fought in the original 1991 conflict. Somalia has been in a state of chaos, this is clear, but only recently has the war with the ICU been occuring. This war, with defined sides, deserves an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Somalia has been in chaos since 1991. All of the armed conflicts in Somalia from 1991 to the present are part of the Somali Civil War. The article you created uses the name “Somalian War”; Somali is the proper adjective form for Somalia and the “Somalian War” is a name that you picked that is not recognized by anyone else. I will not say it again, the article’s information should be incorporated into the Somali Civil War page. – Zntrip 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Somalian is used when pertaining to the country, somali is only for the ethnic group. Now that that is settled, how is it the same conflict when its obviously different groups fighting each other in a defined conflict totally different to the one in 1991? The state of chaos probably should not be treated as it is now where its Barre vs. Aidid, but instead as the state of chaos that it is. Within this state of chaos is this defined conflict between the ICU and other parties, and it does deserve an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, it's not a distinct conflict until reporters and analysts start saying so. It wouldn't be the first civil war to have multiple phases with occasional foreign involvement. Gazpacho 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and like Afghanistan, it should not be merged. You cant merge the Soviet War in the 80s with the American War going on now, even though there has been constant fighting. Like with Afghanistan, the Somalian civil war should be viewed as the general term to describe the chaos, whereas there are individual articles for the defined conflicts within it. It is a distinct conflict because it has distinct sides, this can be determined from reporting ~Rangeley (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that nobody's given a separate name to this conflict yet, and it could yet be settled. Keep the info in the Ethiopian involvement article until we have a name and a war. Gazpacho 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The question here is not whether one SHOULD think of these as seperate conflicts, the question is whether people ALREADY DO think of them as separate conflicts. There has been no proof offered that this conflict is regarded as separate outside of wikipedia. Since such distinction appears to only be made by this article, it is Original Research, and thus deletable re: WP:OR. If references can be provided to establish this as widely regarded as a separate conflict rather than a continuation of the same conflict, then I will change my vote. --Jayron32 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Somali Civil War (which should therefore have its infobox changed to reflect that it's still going on in some way) unless and until reliable analysts start saying that it's a new conflict. The parallel with Afghanistan (where a civil war involved Soviet action and then continued after they'd left) seems valid enough at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, if the conflict is deemed to be a new one, my guess is that this isn't going to be anything like the right name. Given the multiplicity of combatants, it's hard to say what will be, but "Second Somali Civil War" could well catch on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Jayron; Wikipedia only reports after other people say so. We don't invent a term for a change. --humblefool® 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for now. Those things are sticky. Imagine hearing a Somali warlord on BBC-WS: "We killed those traitors because we are at war with Eritrea! There is even an article on Wikipedia!". Stammer 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Even the first source cited in the article discusses this in terms of Ethiopia's involvement in the Somali civil war. JChap2007 06:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral and don't know what to do why was Rangeley so swift in creating this article? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think we should simply work on this article because all it really is is a high-importance matter that's just a stub article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, that's kind of what we're doing here. As I see it, "working on the article" involves both adding text to it and making certain it's named correctly and should be here in the first place. If there happens to be a source out there calling this conflict by this name (and editors more knowledgeable than I have said there isn't), then it should be added to the article and so forth. As it currently stands, though, there's a number of people suggesting that the best way to do things is to merge this information with another article - where it can be worked on - until later on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect per above. Foreign involvement does not remove its status as a civil war. The Somalian civil war is not a country versus country conflict, even though various countries help opposing sides, the war is largely fought by Somalians. Besides, content is still substub. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for now. Like the Afghan Civil War, this is a civil war that has gone through different phases. We should begin by adding to the Somali Civil War article and then split it up from there.(Am86 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC))
• Merge into the current period Somali Civil War (2006-present)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

then make a disambiguation.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• By definition, a civil war is between memebers of the same nation. if there is a conflict involving external aggressors, it ought not to be recorded under a misleading title. -- Simon Cursitor 08:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A fair point, but the Afghan Civil War article cited earlier on here is a good example of an article which breaks with that definition. Should it do so? I'm not sure, but it certainly does. The point about Wikipedia is that we're bound by what other sources refer to something as, so if this conflict is referred to as a "civil war" (as it appears to be), then a civil war is what we must call it. To call it something else would be a cardinal sin. Likewise, one can argue until the proverbial vaches return to la maison that a given world leader shouldn't be called a President or whatever, but if that's what people call him, then that's what we have to call him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To add to what BigHaz has said: It does not matter what this conflict SHOULD be called. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for changing the terminology. It is NOT a vehicle for changing ANYTHING. The only valid question is what do people ALREADY call this conflict. They call it the Somali Civil War. There is no compelling evidence of widespread recognition of a different conflict, or a different name for this conflict. Ergo, merge the non-redundant information into the Somali Civil War article, and redirect this one. It doesn't need to stay. --Jayron32 17:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--Nielswik_(talk) 14:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Merge --Nielswik_(talk) 14:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with existing article if journalists and commentators are not drawing a strict distinction (despite my belief that they are separate and distinct), but the main article should be VERY CLEAR that this is a seperate conflict with different participants and roots. Also, define "Somali Civil War" at the outset as an ongoing set of distinct conflicts. Riverbend 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy merge into Somali Civil War (2006-present) per above and then disambiguate. —Nightstallion (?) 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just a case where a discussion should have been held before putting something up for deletion. The article could have just been moved to that name to begin with and we could have avoided this lengthy talk and instead put the effort into writing the article instead. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. —Nightstallion (?) 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well put - page discussions seem to sort out a LOT of issues, a deletion nomination so shortly after the page was made seems way severe. Riverbend 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Chaos

Age of Chaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod was removed because it was previously contested, although the previously contested prod stood for 28 days before someone removed it. Anyway, no reliable sources to verify anything, and no indication of meeting any criteria in WP:WEB. Alexa ranking floating around 700,000 and very few related Google hits (after the first one and the wikipedia article, there's mostly stuff about other games of the same name, a few game directories, and an article on the war in Iraq. --Wafulz 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

--note: Nomination is incomplete as of now, there is no link coming here from the article. Unfocused 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. "Players online: 14" - that pretty much says it all. --- RockMFR 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely non-notable, as per RockMFR. - jlao⁰⁴ 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable fan cruft. Xdenizen 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 28 day prod shows it's hardly the most active article. Trebor 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mud ad. One among tens of thousands, with nothing to distinguish it from any of the others. —Cryptic 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Portable E-Mail Appliances

List of Portable E-Mail Appliances (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a really bad use of lists. I can possibly see this being useful as a category, but it's not even worthy of that. No definition of what is included as a "portable e-mail appliance". Also seems pretty spam-ish. --- RockMFR 04:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a list should be able to provide more information than a mere category would. This list does not do that. Let it be a category, we don't need this article. --Jayron32 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC's comment. EVula 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Trebor 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per other users. Useless article: too short list, topic looks too specific, no definition of "portable e-mail appliance" given, no information that would not be given by a category as well. JIP | Talk 11:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per TBC, not even a list, what do you mean by "portable e-mail appliance", specify please. I don't see any need for such listcruft and this violates WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "...may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness." Unmaintainable by its own admission. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KCLI

KCLI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vanity article created by User:Kcli-tv. I couldn't find anything in the FCC's TV station database [8], nor could I find any third-party sources for this TV station. --Iowahwyman 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a station that hasn't even signed on yet. If it's real, there will be reliable sources for it eventually. Let's wait until that happens. --- RockMFR 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for crystal-balling as per nom. Eddie.willers 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Crystal balling, vanity, spam cruft. Xdenizen 07:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can be recreated later if notable. Trebor 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They said they REQUESTED KCLI-LP. Ask Kcli-tv what it is now, do an FCC query, and go from there! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wait 'till it's notable †he Bread 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. When it starts broadcasting it should be located at KCLI-LP. If the current content can be sourced and if it is rewritten to cleanly show it as planned and it is still going to go on air this year then the article could be created with the {{Future}} tag. Vegaswikian 07:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man Movie History

Spider-Man Movie History (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete as nom. Article utilizes poor grammar, spelling, capitalization, syntax and does not seem to follow naming conventions. Information displayed is largely non-neutral POV and becomes especially worrisome—speculative and inacurrate—as it describes Spider-Man 3. No sources are cited and images are not used sparringly. While an article for the Spider-Man series of films might be nice, this is poor substitute. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. None of the reasons cited are reasons for deletion. Deletion should be based on the article's SUBJECT (is this a topic worthy of having an article on?), not on the quality of the writing therein. Tag it for cleanup, but don't delete it. The article might need a rename/move to a better name, and needs NPOV cleanup, as well as referencing, but the Spider Man movie franchise (as a cohesive unit) is a notable franchise, much like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or Austin Powers. This is a badly written article, but a notable subject. Definately keepable. --Jayron32 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The whole article would have to be completely erased and re-written from scratch- just googling any random set of words will show it's a copyvio. --Wafulz 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Well-intended, but the whole thing is a copyvio from assorted websites and movie descriptions. Anything that isn't a copyvio is original research. Unfortunately, because of the copyright issues in this article, there's no chance of turning it into a useful article like Spiderman film series. --Wafulz 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Utterly redundant article made up of original research, crystal balling, copyvio (e.g. [9]) and POV fancruft trivia. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article consists of redundant content and speculation. --Metropolitan90 08:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nothing salvageable. Postdlf 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, original research, totally redundant, there are copyright problems on the article, so this article has to go. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT, WP:OR ect ect †he Bread 23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sad Delete It's a shame, but it's just a huge series copyright issues and OR and it could have been something good. Delete it so someone else can make something relevant and public domain. Robovski 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - in principle a valid article but current version has huge problems as documented above. --Matthew Humphreys 09:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 05:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BYYAH

BYYAH (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not meet WP:V, no references. Contested prod (two separate prods). Wikipedia is not a repository of comedy sketches. Risker 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Far too minor to earn an article, and too unlikely of a search term to merit a redirect. --Wafulz 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only 331 ghits, and half of those appear to be in Chinese. Caknuck 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trebor 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Prod was never contested, simply removed without comment. In my prod, I wrote "No assertion of notability; a video on youtube isn't necessarily notable." That is still the case; nothing has changed. -Amatulic 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Already listed on List of Chappelle's Show skits. No need for its own article. BYYAHH! JGardner 00:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete: it's not just a youtube video, it's on tv an dvd as well, it sure as hell isn't in chinese, what happens to be going on with your computer? a LOT of stuff is less than likely to earn a redirect, half of wikipedia is uncommon, isn't that kind of half the fun?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexican1 (talk • contribs)
  • It's an incredibly minor skit with no reliable sources or verification, making it original research. If people want to learn about Chappelle skits, they can go to List of Chappelle's Show skits. --Wafulz 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, it's irrelevant what the rest of Wikipedia is like; we're concerned with one article here. If you have a problem with others, either fix them, redirect them, or propose them to be deleted. -Amatulic 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Recreation of previously deleted page, CSD A4 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinstack

Pinstack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A BlackBerry user forum which does not meet WP:WEB. There are no links to the website (aside from links from its own forums) and no independent reliable sources to verify anything. Has an Alexa rank of around 40k, though I should mention it's a forum for an e-mail-based device, so the Alexa rank might be skewed a bit. Wafulz 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Most probably spam. Xdenizen 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] probability-based strategy

Probability-based strategy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

vanispamcruftvertisement Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominating both Catalin Barboianu and probability-based strategy for deletion.

Catalin Barboianu is an apparent vanity autobiography [10] written by User:Infarom. Infarom Publishing House is Catalin Barboianu's employer, and publisher of three of Barboianu's books on Poker strategy (and apparently no books other than these three). The article asserts that Barboianu is a notable mathematician, whose major work is probability-based strategy. The ISI WoS lists no peer reviewed publications for "Barboianu C*". The probability-based strategy article "phrase "probability-based strategy" appears only once in the ISI database, and refers to another concept. I can find no evidence that this is a notable mathematical concept. The concepts described in the article appear to refer to the optimization technique known as stochastic programming. In over ten years' experience with stochastic programming, I've never heard of the term "probability-based strategy" used in conjunction with these ideas. The probability-based strategy article claims to refer to game theory concepts, yet none of the material presented has any game theory relevance. In summary, I can find no support for the claims of scientific notability, or evidence that this is anything more than vanity article by an author of books on how to play Texas hold-em. Note: another article by the same author Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philosophy_of_probability. Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Catalin Barboianu, but KeepDelete probability-based strategy. Non-notability of the author is not transferred to what he writes about. -Amarkov ^babble 05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes you think that probability based strategy is notable? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a valid branch of game theory, but I realize it's already covered in Mathematics of gambling. So delete both. -Amarkov ^babble 15:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both neither are notable. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete Barboianu, unless independent sources are found establishing notability. --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• redirect probability-based strategy to mixed strategy. (Note that it's not important that the current article isn't about mixed strategies; that doesn't stop it from being a reasonable redirect from the title). --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• procedural comment I'm not sure it's really correct to combine these two AfD's; it's sometimes done for a large group of closely related articles added at the same time, but it does make things more confusing. --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  In retrospect, you are totally correct, I should have made two AfDs. Pete.Hurd 06:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both, no redirect. Not even the name is notable. —David Eppstein 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, no redirect (although the author is weak). The mathematical concept would not be mixed strategy, but elsewhere in game theory; however, the title is a WP:neologism, as far as I can tell. The author may be marginally notable; not as a mathematician, but as a gaming (gambling) author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, no redirect' - vanispamcruftvertisement. Xdenizen 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per Pete. --Zvika 08:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, one is self-created about the author (regardless of notability), the other is term invented by the author not used elsewhere, so article is at minimum original research. 2005 08:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both WP:OR, WP:COI, no redirect (the "probability-based strategy" seems to describe the expected value criterion in decision theory rather than a mixed strategy in game theory and as such is not a commonly accepted term). On the author, if "his most important contribution was on decision theory, placing the concept of probability-based strategy onto a firm mathematical foundation" he should be added to the List of reinventors of the wheel. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Barboianu (the article, not the person) per WP:BIO. Delete Probability-based strategy per WP:OR or redirect to Expected utility hypothesis.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That redirect target appears to be based on the current content of the article. I'm not going to be brokenhearted if the title is not redirected, but please, let's remember that the current content is 100% irrelevant when considering a redirect. The only question is, is it useful, non-confusing, and non-tendentious to have this name redirect to the other name? (Also, there is no requirement that a redirect be notable) --Trovatore 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this argument is persuasive, endorse redirect of Probability-based strategy to mixed strategy. Pete.Hurd 16:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't that encourage him to add his cruft to the target of the redirect? I don't think that's an outcome we'd want. —David Eppstein 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand this concern, but 1) the two topics are very different, 2) I watch mixed strategy and 3) I am confident that standard proceedures will work should what you suggest comes to pass. Pete.Hurd 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Is this "notability" a mandatory criterion in wikipedia policy? And, if yes, who establishes the catalogues, papers or directories that give this attribute to a person? It is hilarious that people like Daniel Negreanu - famous gambler (and probably other hundreds of "notabilities") may keep a biographic article on wikipedia, but a mathematician and author working on gambling math is not allowed. He has to reach the notability of a gambler first. Oh, guys... infarom 09:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment seems to imply that there is a difference in worth between a gambler and a mathematician. But there are notable gamblers and non-notable gamblers, just like there are notable gamblers and notable mathematicians. Rray 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability is established in debates like these. We are fallible people, who must try to determine a person's impact by looking at publicly available databases. If you feel like there is evidence for Barboianu's (your?) notability, please point it out. It appears to me that Negreanu has had a larger influence on professional gamblers than Barboianu has. And, I see little evidence that Barboianu has influenced mathematicians in any way. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• We have kept both Blaise Pascal and Gerolamo Cardano. Notable work by gambling mathematicians or on the mathematics of gambling has no problem. Septentrionalis 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both as advertising and/or vanity. JIP | Talk 11:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - advertising and vanity, per above. Rray 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - advertising and vanity, no proof of authority. Torimadi 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, vanispamcruftisment, no way to make this valid. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadmoore (talk • contribs)

  Editor's firstsecond edit was today, see also Thad Moore (if it hasn't been speedied yet, self professed notable 13 year old mathematician) Pete.Hurd 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Very long-winded, essayish, original-research and unencyclopedia-style articles about some very obvious bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inventoritis

Inventoritis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This looks like nothing but a clever promotion for Atomic Creative and Tatsuya Nakagawa; see AfD talk page for details A. B. 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Points for hiding the ad. Delete. --humblefool® 06:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. +10000000000000000000 points for the Duck Tales mention in the article. --- RockMFR 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, hehehehe. Xdenizen 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clever indeed, but still a promotion. Shimeru 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. They're getting smarter, I'll give 'em that... yandman 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 11:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Only 475 ghits, so it's a non-notable neologism anyway. MER-C 11:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently I prodded it in July as a non-notable neologism and possible v-word. It's longer now, but the same applies. The points made on the talk page are particularly persuasive. Dina 11:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but possible BJOADN candidate -Toptomcat 15:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I appologize for adding additional links to the definition. I have removed the links noted. The word inventoritis has been used loosely in the VC and product marketing community for the last couple of years, but has not been well defined until recently - Product USA.--User:Tnakagawa1

If it's a definition, add it to the Wiktionary. -Toptomcat 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed that some of the comments focused on being non-notable. What is considered notable? If anyone is interested I can send them a 60pg primer on why the word is important. I look forward to your comments. --User:Tnakagawa1
  • See Wikipedia:Notability for our guidelines on this. Also see our guidelines on neologisms and why we don't accept articles on them. And in case it's not crystal clear from reading those, please do not send me the primer. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clever, but no cookie for them. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Obviously a vanity article created by the self-proclaimed inventor of the term. That makes it a Neologism and 'original research' - both of which are grounds for speedy deletion. Fails the Google test too. SteveBaker 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep - for now, with most of the basis for keeping being that it's new at the moment. Next time this goes to AfD, it will have to be fully verified and otherwise policy-compliant if it is to be kept. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of computer and video game hoaxes

• Delete: This article is unreferenced and can quickly get out of hand if developed. It is about a trivial concept and is not at all encyclopedia-worthy considering all the hoaxes were made up.--Zxcvbnm 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with respective game articles if there is any new referenced content. If not, delete. --- RockMFR 05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Need I direct you to list of hoaxes? Many articles are unstable, the only reason that it's unreferenced and unfinished is because it's recent and I haven't finished it. I didn't leave the development tag up, because I wanted others to contribute knowing there wouldn't be edit conflicts. This is information that people are interested in - more so than a lot of other lists on Wikipedia. and just because fake hoaxes (fake hoax, seems a bit silly to say huh?) may be posted doesn't mean it's unstable. I will begin to add references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with individual game articles. The list is far too broad. --humblefool® 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  List of hoaxes is far more vague. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 09:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, too trivial and game-specific information, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's only a week old, give the editor/s time to get it up to scratch. Failing that, merge referenced information to the respective articles. SteveLamacq43 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a week old. Give it some time. CraigMonroe 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A well written, well sourced list of this sort is quite useful as a research tool (which is what Wikipedia is mainly used for). Rather than deleting it, we should help the author improve it. →Bobby← 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete, this is looking awful indiscriminate because it has no criteria for inclusion. Do we just include everything someone ever made up about a video game? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft, too much trivia for an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Currently it's a bit of a mess, I'll grant you, but it's potentially valuable and very early on in its life-cycle. If it still looks like this in a month or three, re-nominate it. -Toptomcat 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Changing from merge/delete - let's give it some time and see how it turns out. --- RockMFR 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a very new article. Give it some time. (echoing above) --Fang Aili ^talk 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Give it a chance to develop for a couple of weeks scope_creep 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just like List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming all this article needs is to be scrutinized as content is added. As long as every entry is provided with at least one reference to a reliable sources(no fan forum/website speculation, only notable reliable gaming press), I do not see this article failing WP:V. —Mitaphane _talk 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. But it does need the work done. Robovski 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Trivial gamecruft/listcruft. And these are better described as rumours rather than hoaxes Bwithh 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with the "Review in a month's time" approach. This needs sources, but it would be a useful article that will cut down on gamecruft entries in the main hoax listings. -- Simon Cursitor 08:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sadly, delete SYSS Mouse 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Daniel Olsen 07:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberpunkcafe.com

Cyberpunkcafe.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Possible spam, unless it's a resource page like Distrowatch.com. Keep or delete? No vote. -WarthogDemon 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Also, they promote "Scroogle", run by a guy with an agenda against Wikipedia. That's a warning flag, in my mind. --humblefool® 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was to say sayōnara. Khoikhoi 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Zachary R. Smith Library

The Zachary R. Smith Library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod (by a group of single purpose accounts, as was the creator, but anyway...). Completely unverifiable, no Google hits, WP:COI concerns, and utterly unremarkable. Someone ha a few hundred books and lets other people browse them and take them home for a few weeks. This wiaas great news around 1600, but is quite commonplace nowadays. Main delete reason: WP:V concerns Fram 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 300 books? I think I own more than that, and I'm no library! Delete, and this might have been speedible as NN. --humblefool® 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fairly obvious hoax. What I get from the article is that Zachary Smith lets his friends borrow his books and has borrowed books from other people. The recent relocation to "Suite 3" means he has recently moved out of a house (possibly his parents') and into an apartment. JChap2007 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - If you buy that it's a library then it's utterly non-notable. If not, then it's a hoax. Either way, a violation of WP:VAIN/WP:COI. --Daniel Olsen 07:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - as per nom. A whole 300? Non notable vanity piece.Xdenizen 07:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. yandman 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect that JChap2007 has described the situation accurately. --Metropolitan90 08:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JChap2007. Got a chuckle out of it, though. Shimeru 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete from Orbit as above. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Zero ghits, thus being unverifiable. MER-C 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to verifiability concerns, also does not appear to be provably significant (existence is insufficient). Guy 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per the article: "...close to three hundred works of literature..." they forgot to add that someday he plans on filling up the rest of the bookcase too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete for being obvious WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no way to verify, is non notable, and is very obviously a candidate for deletion

-ECH3LON 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable and unverifiable. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Would this be Dr. Zachary Reluctantstowaway Smith, who costarred in Lost in Space? Edison 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I looked up the addresses on Google Maps. Both appeared to be residences a short walk from the local University. He moved from one bit of off campus student housing to another. Clearly non notable, vanity cruft. Talk page is filled with unsigned support without any references. Dimitrii 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-verifiable. Kavadi carrier 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious joke. I've had more books STOLEN than he owns. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- priate library not open to public loaning; no claim of notability -- Simon Cursitor 08:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, and probably a hoax article. A BJAODN-worthy candidate! --SunStar Net 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Rockpocket 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plain Money

Hypothetical currency reform proposed by a non-notable academic and not found outside his work. Andrew Levine 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Non-notable academic working on obscure and hypothetical subject matter. Xdenizen 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and send to academia.wikia . yandman 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a noteworthy idea; seems to be confined to just a couple of academics. Shimeru 09:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phonon Maser

This is being nominated for the same reason as the Boris Volfson article. It lacks any scientific validity or widespread interest. Michaelbusch 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wasn't included in main AfD page by nominator. Done now. --Pjacobi 07:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Lack of scientific validity" is no criterion for deletion - Phlogiston theory and Luminiferous aether lack scientific validity but are perfectly respectable articles. However Original research and lack of verifiability are criteria for deletion. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The two articles you mention are "respectable" because they describe scientific beliefs that were once widely held in the scientific community, but are not now, due to having been proved invalid with time. The article under review here has never been valid, and began with demonstratably invalid physics. So yes, I would say that "lack of scientific validity" is a perfectly good reason to delete. The articles you mention are kept because historical value supersedes scientific validity. In this case it does not.

• MergeTo article on Volfson. The editors of Wikipedia absolutely are not the arbiters of scientific validity. An editor claiming that in his expert opinion it won't work is the very definition of Original Research. We only have the right to determine whether or not some person, patent, etc. is notable, based on the presence or absence of citations in mainstream publications. The article includes references showing that a U.S patent was issued for a previous invention, then the patent was written about, in some detail in the following major publications or the online versions thereof: National Geographic News,the British newspaper Telegraph, and the major science journal Nature (print edition.) The above makes a strong case for keeping the articles. In addition there are about 3,000 Google hits, and it was discussed at many websites. It may be pseudoscience, but that is not the criterion for including or deleting an article. Rather than deleting the article with a claim that it lacks "scientific validity," merge this with the previous invention in the article about the inventor and redirect to that article. Edit boldlyin the article the criticisms of the invention in the references, so the article serves the important function of debunking any doubtful claims. Edison 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above: widespread interest does not apply even with thousands of Google hits for Phonon Maser. If we exclude valid scientific research about actual phonon masers (that is lasing of phonons), Wikipedia and mirrors thereof, and junk webpages, there are two distinct results, one of which is Volfson's webpage and the other of which is a press release by him. I don't call that widespread interest.

Note on the references: the references to Nature, National Geographic, and the Telegraph only mention the patent as a failing of the patent office, not caring about Volfson personally. This is only one of the thousands of junk patents that are the patent office has passed. It deserves no particular mention, as the patent office's problems are convered in the relevant article. Final thought: we can judge scientific validity when it approaches nonsense, which this article certainly does. Michaelbusch 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BOLLOCKS, now with added {{db-spam}} and {{db-nocontext}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep • Some comments show exactly the problem with the american scientific community, apparently no one is keeping up with the work of Dr. Ning Li... I know it's difficult when she is under DOD contract. Check it out, note the similarities. Check out Volfson who has co-authored two "mainstream" physics-heavy patents, both with proven prototypes, and a couple of papers on geophysics. If the US government is paying for similar research, Volfson should at LEAST keep a Wikipedia article. Reactions such as these are EXACTLY why 99% of all Physic research is regurgitation Ricp31 03:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia, Ricp31! --Pjacobi 07:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The US government pays for all sorts of physically impossible research, including tantalum and hafnium weapons intended to circumvent nuclear proliferation laws. If articles popped up claiming megaton-yield hafnium weapons were possible, I would expect it in a deletion queue also.

• Comment Look what you say might be true, but you should cite the references to back up your position in support of keeping the article. Where can we we find these papers? Which patents? Xdenizen 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Meta-comment: When I searched for Volfson earlier, I did check the literature. There are zero results for Boris Volfson in the usual electronic indeces. If he has authored geophysics, it doesn't show anywhere, even on his own website, which also fails to mention any other patents. Observation: if everything the US government has paid for were included in Wikipedia, we would be buried in pork. Michaelbusch 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Meta-meta-comment: I'll dig out those links. They are older, He may have been living in Moscow or Israel at the time. When Volfson's Anti-Gravity Spaceship patent came out I thought Tim Ventura did an awesome job of explaining the vehemence of american academia when it comes to any sort of "edgy" research that may cut into grant money. I've tried to always keep my eye on and follow these Russian trained "Cold War" Physicists. Most have ended up in Government programs to never publish again. The training they received is NOT the same Physics training they are giving at Caltech. I dare a US grad student to think outside the box. Ricp31 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a member of 'american academia', my statements may be distrusted, but I know no reasonably good scientist who hasn't been trained to think 'outside the box', regardless of if it is my professors at Caltech or my collaborators in Europe and Russia. We are also taught to treat every idea as suspect. This training is consistent world-wide, and has been for decades (I have had old Russian physicists explain to me the ways by which they managed to continue working with colleagues here despite the Soviet censors). By the time we finish undergrad, certain filters are applied almost instinctively. I have reviewed Volfson and his ideas in detail. Volfson is not a 'Russian trained 'Cold War' physicist'. He is merely a man who has learned enough of physics to fool himself and a clerk in the patent office. As such he is not exceptional and deserves no special consideration. Michaelbusch 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Meta-meta-meta-comment: Michael, my apologies just noted you are a grad student at CalTech. But if it was 1880, would you delete Tesla's Wikepedia page? I'm not saying Volfson = Tesla, but with so much NOT known on the Quantum level, if someone told me it WAS Gravity Fairies... I'd have to at least listen to their argument. Ricp31 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have listened, and Volfson is not distinguishable from the four individuals I've had contact me in the last year with outlandish and completely unsupported claims. Tesla is not a fair comparison, considering his many valid achievements. This is not the place for a long discussion, so I will stop here. Michaelbusch 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep • See my comments to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boris_Volfson Volfson,boris

• Delete Non-notable, not to mention complete bollocks. HEL 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rough Consensus?

After six days, I count six votes for delete, two for keep (one of which is Volfson), and one for merge. Admins, is this rough consensus? Michaelbusch 20:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll wars

Troll wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Subject doesn't need a separate article. Flaming (Internet) and Troll (Internet) would be better places to mention the small amount of information presented here. In my view an article on this specific topic can only invite the creation of pointless lists of flame wars and troll activity. Robotman1974 07:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; you pretty much said all I would have liked to on the matter. (|-- UlTiMuS 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Robotman1974 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 07:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. yandman 08:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 08:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shimeru 09:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in addition to being unencyclopedic and unsourced, all it really says is that troll wars are wars between trolls. Gee, I wonder if duck wars are wars between ducks, and bicycle-repairman wars are wars between bicycle repairmen? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - That's a dangerous line of reasoning to continue. World Wars are not wars between worlds, nor are Revolutionary Wars wars between revolutionaries. The article certainly deserves to be deleted, but not because the name obviously implies the meaning. →Bobby← 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply In WP:CSD, criteria A3 , "Any article consisting only of... a rephrasing of the title." is speediable. I'm not sure if I would have speedied this, but reasons to delete it certainly are abundant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And I certainly wouldn't say troll wars are wars between trolls. That would imply physical violence, something that is usually lacking on the Internet... --- RockMFR 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and Glasgow Ice Cream Wars are wars between Glasgow ice-creams? ☺ Uncle G 18:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, why is that a redlink?! </surprise> And redirect this to troll, it is a plausible search term. Kavadi carrier 03:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Those sounds tasty to me! Delete. --humblefool® 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Hello32020 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too short and not enough information, links, sources and is already in more than one article. Let's delete and go home...-ECH3LON 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article is very lame and is nonsense. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Troll Internet as this is a likely search term. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, as no reliable sources have been presented that discuss usage of the term (Google searches are not reliable sources). The article can be recreated if such sources are found; the one that is in the article at current time only uses the term and does not discuss it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabocentrism

Arabocentrism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable topic. Google search didn't turn out anything, and I don't think that "Arabocentrism" even exists. MB

• Keep or Merge "Arabocentrism" seems to be a neologism, used mostly in a handful of blogs, but "Arab chauvinism" appears to be in wider use [11]. Believe this should either be moved to Arab chauvinism, or possibly merged with Pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism (though those are slightly different concepts). Shimeru 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google books and Amazon "search inside" each find a handful of books that use the term, but per Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms, a neologism isn't ready for an article on WP until there are reliable secondary sources that not only use the term, but actually discuss the term's usage itself. Therefore, this article is not currently notable as a neologism, and also not supported by verifiable and reliable sources. TheronJ 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. MB
• Keep, Merge or Move per Shimeru. Could also be merged with Arabization. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because even if this word isn't a neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is little more than a definition. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Arabization and "Arabocentrism" are two different concepts. Historically, Arabization was gradual and adopted willingly. The author of the article is purpoting that "Arab ethnic centrism" exists. Arab is not seen as an ethnicity, it's a culture, how can Arabs have ethnic centrism when they're ethnically diverse? MB
• Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, dictdef, no notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google turns up more hits with "Arabo-centrism", "arabo-centric"/"arabocentric". If not kept, the info should at least be merged with one of the articles suggested since it's as valid as any other ethnocentrism, like Sinocentrism. Egyegy 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --ManiF 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Arab nationalism or rename to Ethnocentrism in the Arab world. It is an important issue as regards the automatic (and grossly inaccurate) equating of the phrases Middle Eastern or Near Eastern with the Arab world to the exclusion of all other groups. metaspheres 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above.--Tekleni 08:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everything that's not a dicdef here is OR and unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a legitimate topic. Just requires sources.--Eupator 15:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important and valid as others have shown. DragonRouge 02:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. The article does need sources, however. Khoikhoi 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, --Shamir1 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Beit Or 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and request expert help. Rockpocket 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bassem Feghali

Bassem Feghali (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bare assertion of notability, very few ghits. Doesn't seem a very notable entertainer. Seraphimblade 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, maybe even speedy db-bio? yandman 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, unless I'm missing something here I don't see a mass of notability. Not a speedy candidate, since the assertion is that he pioneered doing something that isn't patently nonsensical (he didn't pioneer eating his own foot, for example). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • db-bio, not db-nonsense. yandman 10:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The constraint on db-bio is, as BigHaz has correctly pointed out, that if the article contains any assertion of notability it must come to AFD, where more than one pair of eyeballs get the chance to do the research to determine whether the subject actually satisfies our WP:BIO criteria. To that end: What research did you do to determine that the WP:BIO criteria are not satisfied by this person, and hence to come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted? Your rationale makes no mention of any research. Uncle G 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Was that my rationale or Yandman's rationale? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The latter. Uncle G 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Neither the "MUREX" nor the "Anjar International Festival" are in Wikipedia, and the other "assertions of notability" in this article are more generic praise: "gave a new meaning to...", "legendary singer..." than true assertions. yandman 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
            • You're not getting it, are you!!!!... First, while Bassem is an exceptional comedian, he is NOT a Legendary singer... He is actually a LOUSY singer who could not sing if his life depended on it. To the Lebanese, the Murex is equivalent to the OSCARS in the U.S. The Anjar Festival is equivalent to Woodstock in the US. Refer to Anjar International Festival The fact that it is not in Wikipedia stems from the fact that people totally ignorant of the Lebanese Culture are badgering people who know the Lebanese culture all too well!... You are doing the BIGGEST disfavor to Wikipedia...Lcnj 15:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
              • On the subject of disfavours, you aren't doing your argument any favours by attacking editors instead of citing sources as I previously encouraged you to do below. Sources are your best, and only, arguments. Uncle G 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Checking whether Wikipedia has articles isn't really research. There are lots of subjects still missing from Wikipedia (And, conversely, there are articles in Wikipedia that don't belong.). Research involves looking outside of Wikipedia. Looking at the assertions of notability in the article isn't research, either. The task of AFD is to actually check these things, not to take what the article says purely on trust, and not to ignore what the article may currently omit. Uncle G 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very limited google hits, but subject has toured internationally. We may want to consider systemic bias.
  • hummingbirdcentre
  • Cached page from http://www.cedarsusa.com/events/2006/2006.htm Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Even though there's some POV in the choice of words for the article, I think it's notable enough to be kept. Definitely needs reworking though. Gimlei 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be notable in Lebanon and was also performing abroad (US). (I added some refs to the article) Optimale ^Gu 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP - First, there was no assumption of good faith... which is THE CASE here. Second, Bassem Feghali in Lebanon has the legendary status of Bob Hope in the U.S. He is funny as hell and comes from the CORE of Lebanese comedy while introducing to Lebanon female impersonation... something that the Lebanese would have never embraced if it wasn't for the exceptional talent of Feghali. Lebanon is a very small country with very limited resources for internet exposure so you will not find a zillion articles on the net or many hits on google for MANY famous Lebanese. This is why we need to include famous Lebanese celebreties without discrimination. No one in the US would ever dispute the status of Bob Hope in he US or Louis de Funes in France. No one would EVER dispute the status of Bassem Feghali in Lebanon and in many parts of teh Arab world. Unless you are Lebanese or an Arab, you most likely have never heard of Bassem Feghali... just as much as an Arab (not Arab American) most likey has never heard of Bob Hope. The motion to delete Bassem Feghali's page is motivated either by racial discrimination or sheer ignorance of who Bassem Feghali is. Both of them stem from ignorance. Lcnj 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not a reason for discarding our discriminatory faculties. It is a reason for articles on such subjects to cite sources. Uncle G 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way was Good Faith not assumed? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Please refer to my Bob Hope analogy. I could not have made it more foolproof. The person who has requested deletion is eveidently ignorant of the status of Bassem Feghali as a very notable comedian in Lebanon. While I expect him to be ignorant of Bassem Feghali, I also expect him to assume good faith, as he should, when his knowledge is obviously very limited... and someone who knows a lot more than he will ever know about Lebanon is making a good faith effort to introduce them to Wikipedia. Frankly, such ignorance and OVER-INFLATED egos cause nothing but a waste of valuable time that should be used to introduce more unique content to Lebanon, Lebanese related matters and other unique content the world over Lcnj 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        • No personal attacks please. The burden is upon the creator of the article to provide sources attesting to Bassem's notability. You'll notice that the template says "that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". yandman 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The creator of the article DID provide whatever limited sources were available!!!!! Also, such burden is extremely LOPSIDED and it is discrimnatory against ethnic minorities (non-Americans) in the world who have limited sources and resources. Assume good faith already!!!... I can ASSURE you that YOU and everyone else on this talk have NO IDEA who "Christophe" is... Yet, I was absolutely delighted to find that someone else had placed a stub with minimal information he or she had. I came and I added what I know... Someone else will come and provide more info and so on and so forth. Enough of this unnecessary badgering for something that should have taken a few minutes!!!!!!!!!!!! Lcnj 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
            • User blocked 24h for breach of WP:NPA. yandman 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Although notability is in question, and sources referenced in the article are slim and non-journalistic, I would err on the side of inclusion. There seems to be some evidence of notability and the article needs a lot of help. --Mattarata 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani^talk 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victory Gin (2nd nomination)

This was AfD'd months ago with a consensus to merge into Nineteen Eighty-Four, but no one has done so, and I still feel strongly that there is not enough material to bother. Nineteen Eighty-Four is long enough already, and always on the brink of cruftiness. Victory Gin itself is mentioned only a few times in the novel, and almost nothing is said about it except that it tastes awful. Delete. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. yandman 10:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 11:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Victory Gin is in no way a significant enough feature of Nineteen Eighty-Four to qualify for a separate article. As to the assertion that there is a brand of gin bearing this name manufactured or available in the United Kingdom, that would need substantiation and evidence of notability. BTLizard 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• According to this, Victory Gin is "a prominent prop in the movie, as in the book". It's mentioned in these book notes. It's commonly enough known in its own right that political commentators use "drinking Victory Gin" as a metaphor, such as here, here, here, and here. This subject should be covered by an encyclopaedia.

  That no-one has merged it after a consensus to merge is not a reason to delete it. Firstly, the nominator xyrself could have merged it. Secondly, there is an argument against merger on the article's own talk page, making a case that all of the various "Victory" items — Victory Gin, Victory Cigarettes, Victory Coffee, and so forth — are better discussed in a broad scope article on "Victory" items in 1984 (which some have described as "total parallels of freedom fries"), which have been written about by the world at large. Again, that neither the nominator nor anyone else has yet taken it upon themselves to follow that idea through, or even to reply to the suggestion on Talk:Victory Gin even though they've had six months to do so, is not a reason to delete this article.

  AFD is not a weapon to force mergers to be done that one wants done, and when renominating it is a good idea to show that one has at least read the suggestions for refactoring that came out of the prior discussion. An administrator hitting the delete button doesn't get us either the aforementioned merger or the aforementioned refactoring. Keep. Uncle G 13:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now. If someone had produced the proposed Victory items in 1984, we could merge and redirect there. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll comment on this here: I think that Victory items in 1984 would just be a list of non-notable items, all pointless for the same reasons as Victory Gin. And there's nothing in the book that tells you why all these things, from cigarettes to apartment buildings, are called "Victory", so it would be an invitation for original research too. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It would only actually be original research, however, if editors went and wrote their own hypotheses and analyses, rather than using the ones that have already been written and published on the subject outside of Wikipedia — several of which I pointed to above. An argument that "there's nothing in the book" ignores the all of the critical commentary that exists. Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You have things backwards. If this article is deleted, it is impossible to merge it. Whereas merging, or renaming and refactoring, this article to a new, broader scope, article, does not involve deletion at any stage. Any editor with an account has the tools to merge, or to rename and refactor. If your actual wish is to have the article merged, then having an administrator delete the content that you want merged beforehand doesn't help you. Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Uncle G, I respectfully disagree. Victory gin is a prop, not a plot or allegory device that is vital to 1984, and I do not see how it merits inclusion here. On the subject of "drinking Victory gin" being well known amongst political commentators, well there are 87 odd ghits for "drinking victory gin", about 4 of these from nn blogs and the rest from 1984 related sites. As for Freedom Fries being derived from Victory Gin, why not just have a note in the Freedom Fries page to state this, rather than a complete article listing the various different types of 'Victory' props in 1984. As for merging, I was kind of swinging that way but the 1984 article is massive enough as it is. I think this is a topic worth mention, but certainly not worth an article. --Amists 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If it is a "topic worth mention", then your view that Nineteen Eighty-Four is "massive enough as it is" should lead you directly to the conclusion that it is time for a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout sub-article on the subject. Lo! That is exactly what we already have. If its scope is too narrow (as has been argued on Talk:Victory Gin), then rename and refactor it into an article with larger scope. It doesn't require an administrator to hit the delete button, or administrator privileges, to rename an article and then edit it to broaden its scope. Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, Uncle G you're right, in that if I think the subject is worth mention on WP then I shouldn't vote that we delete the entire article. My problem is that an expanded article on say 'Victory Props From 1984' would be no more valuable to WP than this article on Victory Gin (for reasons given above - no way is it a subject apart from the book in it's own right). I would support a merge with the main 1984 article, and I may have just done this myself, except the maintainers of this page (Talk:Victory Gin) appear to be against this course of action. In any case I'm changing my vote here to merge. --Amists 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a short rephrasing from the book itself. While the various victory items were clearly plot devices and strong symbols, they were so collectivly, not just the gin. I am sure that anything here can easily be incoorperated into the 1984 book article. If an article on symbols from 1984(Big brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime ect...) entering pop culture is created it would go there. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a plot device. But alright then :) --Amists 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not in a literal reading. My personal impression was that it was an ever present reminder of the state even when Winston was alone with his lover, but that is just one man's reading. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - bookcruft: and anyway the article is not real-world centered. Moreschi 17:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please keep this. I am a new user, and probably not able to vote, but I am an English scholar, and this and other 'victory items' are important elements to the book. They provide vital clues to how the society is being kept subservient. It would seem a shame to delete this valuable information, and I don't see any compelling argument above to do so. Thank you, Frank.

As you say, they're "important elements to the book", and as such deserve mention in the article on the book. However, they're not important enough to the real world to warrant an article of their own. The compelling argument is that we have to respect certain criteria concerning notability. yandman 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reading the 1984 article, I see that "victory gin" is mentioned: "the Outer Party's standard of living is very poor. Foodstuffs are low quality or synthetic; the main alcoholic beverage — Victory Gin — is industrial-grade". In my opinion, this sentence gives everything we need to know concerning the drink: It's foul and it's for the outer party. Anything else is superfluous. yandman 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep - AfD isn't needed for minor facets of obviously encyclopaedic subjects like this, they can simply be redirected to the subject which actually merits an article (i.e. the album article). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Give 'Em Hell, Kid

Give 'Em Hell, Kid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Provides no information not present on Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, doesn't require its own article Seraphimblade 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I know at the moment the article does not have much, however, I suggest bringing this up to WP:MCR and having them look at it and adding more information. The article was just recently created as well.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Calliste Jr.

Seems to be a non-notable hip hop music producer and occasional performer. Would have prod-ed this, but this genre of music is not my speciality, so bringing it here just to be safe. Few ghits, and a good proportion of those seem to be based off of this page [12] Lankiveil 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• neutral I am waiting to be convinced, one way or the other. On the one hand, the article claims MANY notable traits (companies founded, awards won, etc.). On the other hand, it is entirely unreferenced. If no one can come to the defense of the article in question, I would slide toward delete. If we can find some references, I would slide toward keep. --Jayron32 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 10:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - An awful article full of redlinks, and really doesnt do well to establish the notability of the artist, until I realised he recorded in the 80's as Hashim, a legendary proponent of the 80's electro beatbox genre, whereby hip-hop grew out of electronic music. Hasn't done anything else by the look of it. He's probably still dining out on royalties from 'Al-Naafiysh (The Soul)' (which generates 18500ghits). --Amists 11:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per amists. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and slap a {{sources}} tag on. Kavadi carrier 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up; his work as Hashim was pretty notable within the field. Four albums, charting single,[13] etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, so kept by default. - Yomangani^talk 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rabia City

A verifiable but non-noteable tract of land in Karachi, Pakistan. The Google test presents 219 results, the top two being Wikipedia. The remaining articles are links to real-estate sites, definitions of "Rabia City", lists of bus routes and other local information, or unrelated links. Karachi makes no mention of this neighborhood, and Gulistan-e-Jauhar makes cursory mention of it three times. Aside from being a large residential neighborhood, it appears to have no specific notability. Per WP:LOCAL, this article contains none of the "should have" content, consisting only of "should not have" content. Compare this page to Napier Road, another neighborhood in Karachi, which makes a specific argument for its notability. Consequentially 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep verifiably real and I'm sure someone would vote to keep every school in the place, too. Carlossuarez46 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 10:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I see nothing of encyclopeidc value. Pehaps mention it at the Karchi article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is a populated residential area, I don't see why it is less notable than any of the other place articles. I think instead of deleting the article, a local tag and some time may remedy the situation. If in a few weeks the article is unchanged, I may vote diffently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Did you try searching in Urdu? I'd imagine you'd get more results (and more relevant results) than searching in English. Andrew Levine 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, does anyone out there know Urdu? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Andrew Levine 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Neat, that is a good thing to know. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Really hard to say with this one. If this is a place (or will be a place) where residents/businesses cite as their address - i.e. (in Arabic, of course) 123 Karachi St, Rabia City, Karachi, Pakistan - then I'd say keep. But right now, I'm not sure if it even fits that criteria. --Oakshade 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep real place, verifiable and populated; it may even have lots of (notable?) schools in it (schoolaholics take note). Carlossuarez46 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Schools, and by this rumor [14], another thing. --Oakshade 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Gulistan-e-Jauhar. It seems to be a project by some builder, not notable enough to deserve a separate article. utcursch | talk 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't agree that an article about a neighborhood should be kept only if the name is used in postal addresses. As HighInBC points out, we have other such articles (e.g., Turtle Bay, Manhattan). JamesMLane t c 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an Advetisement to me. Either delet or merge as per User:Utcursch. --Marwatt 17:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dlohcierekim. Todd661 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible Experience

The Bible Experience (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In my view the subject doesn't meet any notability criteria, and article reads like an advert. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed, not notable and reads like an advertisement. Xdenizen 11:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's an advert --Amists 11:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite The stars in the thing make it notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. WMMartin 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable advertisement. Hello32020 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement, Wikipedia is not your advertising company, approach Clear Channel, if you want to advertise. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Despite, barely, showing notability with newspaper mentions, this is clearly advertising. Perhaps someone may recreate it in a neutral way, but even then notabiliy is shaky. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a brand new product. We don't even know if it will have staying power over the years. Not every celebrity collaboration ends up having a lasting impact. This one might not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The news items don't carry this product over the threshhold of notability for me at all. Could be just a small "flash in the pan." And the article is an advertisment, which is a no-no. OfficeGirl 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voden inscription

Voden inscription (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unsourced nonsense based on nationalistic sites such as: [15] [16] •NikoSilver• 11:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it appears to be a hoax, see the 92 ghits. Also not verifiable since most ghits are emails or usenet posts. MER-C 11:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep (and cleanup) if verification at least from reliable press sources can be found while this AfD is running. By verification, I mean verifying that it exists and that it was analysed by experts. If it's a forgery, it's still an interesting one and may deserve an article. Fut.Perf. ☼
  • Comment I will withdraw nomination when such sources are included, and when the forgery issue becomes clear in the text. In fact, if these two conditions are met, and someone else tries to AfD this, I'll vote 'strong keep'. •NikoSilver• 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable per Future perfect and Wikipeida is not a soapbox. If verfication of actual existence, keep without propaganda-esque language and tone. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite as notable Belgian nationalist hoax. :-) -Toptomcat 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It was an interesting article. I couldn't tell from the article why it might be considered a hoax.--Mike 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I please ask people to reconsider their votes. I don't think there's been a single archaeological find that someone hasn't considered a fake. Moreover some notable fakes are in themselves very important because they are very good indicators of cultural values such as the jesus box (the osary of the brother of jesus I think).

I spend a lot of time looking at inscriptions that may or may not be fakes and if all of them got deleted I'd have nothing to work on! I think this web site gives the other side of the coin:[17] without a great deal of research I can't verify whether the actual item is genuine, but what is very clear is that an object exists and that this is a real subject. Clearly it must be reported in a neutral way - and that is a real concern with the article (especially given recent posts) but not a reason (as yet to delete)--Mike 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Without verification this could damage wikipedia's reputation, that is why we require verification. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an inscription called the "voden inscription" (there's a picture)? If there is whether or not it is genuine, the next question is whether it is notable, if it has articles written about it then it prossibly is.

1. The Wiki-article is not a hoax, the inscription may be, but the Wiki-article isn't!
2. It isn't unverifiable - there's a picture, the wiki-article is verificable, it is the item that is difficult to verify and as far as I'm aware Wikipedia doesn't have the power to delete it! (See WP:GOD)
3. So long as the article properly tags that some consider it a fake, it will not damage Wikipedia's reputation.

The only rational I can see for deleting is that it is not notable enough - and the only comment on that seems to say it is!--Mike 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you will find Wikipedia:Verifiability pertenent to this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I found just one press clipping online that seems to verify that this item exists and was taken to Greece over objections from the Bulgarian curator of a museum, but no information about the allegations of forgery, claims of historical significance, etc. Since the most recent events regarding this item happened in 1997, someone may have to go to the library to find good sources. It appears that most of the websites that mention this item for nationalistic purposes have relied on very sketchy sources and when you follow their references you find only a couple of tripod pages which no longer exist. None of them seem to have actually seen the two newspaper articles which they mention in their websites. Also I see a red flag when the creator of this article claims to have made the photograph provided with the article. Really? Who is this person who claims to have personally been present with the item in question, which has been kept under lock and key by government authorities for nine years? I don't even feel confident that "Voden inscription" is the appropriate name for this item, so I can't even support the idea of making this a stub. Ecyclopedic content must be verifiable. This is not. Delete per HighInBC OfficeGirl 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep undoubtelly item exists, regarding it's authenticity seek opinion from experts having nutreal point of view excluding state archaelogists-inscriptionists from Greece, Bulgaria (as Dr Bozhidar Dimitrov) and Republic of Macedonia.If genuine reveals unkown historical facts of great impact in Balkan history as: 1)Tsar Samuel was crowned by pope Gregory V before 989 A.D.and not in 997 after Tsar Roman of Bulgaria's death, as Dr. Dimitrov holds, 2) His official title was Tsar of Bulgars and Romans, 3)In 10th c. Byzantine capital was considered residence of Great Evil (Satan), 4)Samuel's state was extending from Serbia to whole Greece,5)On 989 AD Voden, present day Edessa, was the Bulgarian capital, 6)Verifies Bogomils movement participation in Samuel's Empire via dark historic figures as Jeremiah from Melnik probably founder of Bogomilism and Gabriel the Bulgarian bishop of Moglen or Muglen province and ,7)Reveals that Tarnovo is Samuel's birthplace, 8)Confirms 18th c. sources that Samuel's father was Shishman Han of Tarnovo (present day Great Tarnovo) and 9)Clarifies Bulgarian character of Samuel's state. Compare Bitola inscription. Old Slavonic inscriptions of 10th - 12th c. are extremely rare, fewer than 10. Bost 09.33, 8 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.58.248 (talk • contribs) 07:35, November 8, 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless/until authenticity confirmed (at least to over 50%) and material similar to Bost's is included to allow non-experts to know why this inscription is so critical. --- Simon Cursitor 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until Greek authorities release confiscated inscription free to publicity for authenticity test performed by indepedent foreign experts.Why Greek ministry of culture keep it in secrecy for nine years? It's obvious that some guys in Balkans favour the hoax aspect for ever avoiding archaelogical confirmation.Tamin 22.41, November,8 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.11.51 (talk • contribs) 22:00, November 8, 2006 (UTC) - who also corrected the comment of "Bost" above [18]

• • Comment: Unsigned votes above are obviously related. Also, the main contributor of the article appears under the name User:Kaltsef which directly relates to the name in the e-mail address of the author of such sites (click 'submit your e-mail' below)! One more IP (87.202.166.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is making alterations to the two stricken votes ([19],[20]). And another one: 87.203.84.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ([21]) •NikoSilver• 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Blocked the 87.202 address for vote-tampering here and for an unrelated 3RR offense. Any more IPs of those ranges turning up here with similar edits during the next 24 hours should be reverted on sight and reported. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - While the argument is potentially interesting as that of a 19th century forgery, unfortunately no decent source appears to treat the subject, judging by the search I made on the web.--Aldux 13:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a notable hoax. I couldn't find much references about it, but I couldn't for Bitola inscription either. It appears that texts about various inscriptions aren't too popular on the Internet, but that doesn't make them non-notable. Nikola 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep strongly -Inscription's striking importance caused the forgery theory propagated by a Bulgarian historian who never saw this item. Who else can persuasivelly align to this? No one until Greek authorities deliver this incarcerated item free to international academic community for authentification. Every inscription is considered primary source of history and prevail to posterior ones-- Bost 08:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.116.222 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep; although a case for merge and redirect was presented, it failed to gather concensus during this AfD discussion. If anyone feels the merge and redirect option requires more discussion, please use the articles' talk page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get Out of Jail Free card

Get Out of Jail Free card (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A card in the game of Monopoly. OK, so maybe it is mainstream enough to be a metephorical idiom in English, but I don't think that is enough. I was going to redirect it to References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture or even to Monopoly (game), but thought the best way to deal with it was having it deleted.

• Keep It's in the pop culture enough to be used in movies from time to time. It is something someone might actually look for in an encyclopedia. Not paper Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep This is one of the few times I would actually invoke "WP is not paper". This is certainly not a topic any normal encyclopedia would cover, but I think the phrase and penetrated the English lexicon enough to be notable in and of itself. (Sidebar: Though I generally dislike Monopoly, I have two t-shirts which are orange and yellow, one stating "Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200" and the other stating "Get out of jail free- this shirt may be kept until needed, or sold".) -- Kicking222 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's in the pop culture enough to be used in movies from time to time. It is something someone might actually look for in an encyclopedia. Not paper(I agrred with the above rational so I stole it :0) )CraigMonroe 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's ok, I release my work under GFDL. LOL. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Merge as below. I dodn't know there was a "References to the board game" etc. article. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge to References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture; I am not sure how the article can actually be expanded. - Mike Rosoft 14:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture. Not substantial enough for its own article, but the metaphor is widespread and it doesn't do any harm to put the redirect in. WMMartin 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Mike Rosoft. -Toptomcat 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Gimlei 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect This is too small of a topic for it's own article, a section in the Monopoly article or the References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture article will do for most of it, and the trivia section for the rest. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per WMMartin. As a metaphor this is something that is pop culture and should be retained. Get out of Jail Free should really have it's own section at References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture. If it gets too big it could always be forked back to this namespace.--Isotope23 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Isotope23. FreplySpang 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per WMMartin. Danny Lilithborne 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Mike et al. TJ Spyke 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- certainly a widely-used idiom in UK; granted only since the game was created, but then again "Dalek" and "Vulcan" are idioms no-one would object to recording: they mean more than their words say. -- Simon Cursitor 08:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, strong don't merge. Easily worth enough to have its own separate article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dlohcierekim --mcpusc 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough on its own. --- RockMFR 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dlohcierekim. Definitely needs expansion, though, for general use in pop culture. Chubbles1212 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Dlohcierekim and Kicking 222. It is notable, and certainly deserve its own page; at the point where the phrase is being cited in popular culture (and I'm certain I've heard it in a movie or two; just don't remember which) it deserves even a token entry. Speaking of which, it most certainly needs expansion. Ourai ^т _с 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Trump

Eric Trump (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

According to this [22] he is just a student and as it was said in the previous deletion procedure, being the son of somebody notable isn't an assertion of notability of the person himself Optimale ^Gu 13:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the superbly well-made point about notability mentioned by Optimale (declaration of interest: OK, I admit it, I originally speedy tagged it with that comment in the edit summary) Tonywalton  | Talk 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per insightful, well made points above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Little to no assertion of notability (except being the son of a notable person). Hello32020 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• No evidence of notability, badly written. Delete, at least for now. (If somebody can actually establish his notability, I am willing to change my mind.) - Mike Rosoft 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Metropolitan90 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what's not copied from Donald Trump, Jr. is made up by the creator. Google for "Eric Trump" Lithuania for instance, brings up 0 hits. Kavadi carrier 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Donald Trump. T Rex | talk 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete Though Optimale has a good point, and we could sit here all night talking about this but i would like to be given a chance to clean up and rewrite the article. if you do not like it then you can go ahead with deletion please let me have one chance to clean it up.--Andrew Chung 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Clean up won't fix a lack of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why are we here? Db-repost? Or is content now different? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• redirect to donald trump like t rex suggested Yuckfoo 01:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, upon review, this is an exact repost of the deleted version, without the trivia section. There's nothing new here, so it falls under G4. --Coredesat 06:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: deleted and redirected to Joshua, per WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahushua

Yahushua (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't know what this article is supposed to be about, but it seems to be a duplicate of Joshua, Yeshua, Yeshu, and/or Jesus. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy? and I quote, "YAHUSHUA article at Wikipedia: BLOTTED-OUT! (As of 9-25-2006)" The article also mentions having been redireced. This reads like OR or something made up in school one day. It is not referenced Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the "blotted out" comment refers to its redirection to Yeshua. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. How about just reverting it to Jofrst's edit. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• It seems to be saying "this is an alternative spelling of Joshua, Yeshua, etc and I want it to have a standalone article rather than a redirect and if it isn't I'm going to scream and scream until I'm sick" (that's how I read "If other people can post their variations of the name and not have theirs "blotted" out, than this version has the right to stay as well.", anyway). Tough. Redirect to Joshua unless the author can provide any verifiable evidence that Yahushua (as opposed to Joshua, etc) is anything more substantive than Yet Another Way Of Transliterating From Hebrew To Latin Characters. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a badly written gibbering wreck of an article! Completely POV (Just look at the opening). Not sure why we are going to AfD, since the guy who removed the speedy and added an AfD (I think) seems to be pushing for delete anyway! The Kinslayer 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Because the article doesn't seem to meet the speedy deletion criteria. - Mike Rosoft 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've had articles speedily deleted for WP:Complete bollocks before. Without sources, and with it's serious POV issue, this article certainly qualifies as that as far as I'm concerned! Not a big deal anyway, I just wanted to know for future reference. The Kinslayer 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Oddly enough, Being Complete Bollocks isn't in and of itself a SD criterion, per WP:CSD. Complete Bollocks might qualify as WP:CSD#G3, but I'm inclined to believe that this just about qualifies as Patent nonsense of the second kind: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That's exactly what I feel about this article. I guess I just used the wrong term to refer to it. I know Complete bollocks isn't an actual SD criteria, but I have put it as a reason for an SD before and had it upheld, and I honestly didn't think anyone was going to object to THIS article being deleted! The Kinslayer 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I should have been more specific. Speedy as a repost? Or can we just redirect and have done with it? On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent it being reverted to its present state. Perhaps speedy and protect against recreation? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - why is this even up for AFD? This is simply a case of petulant vandalism which can be reverted. -- Whpq 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect and close per Whpq. Kavadi carrier 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect and close as per User:Whpq Xdenizen 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP, nomination withdrawn. Fram 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Rosenberg

Tina Rosenberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non-notable academic Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The top-level Tina Rosenberg should be about the Pulitzer Prize winner and not an academic accused of plagiarism. Thus, I've rewritten the article, and perhaps if an article is going to be written about the person this AfD was originally about, it can be done with better sourcing and at a disambiguated point. Suggest withdrawal at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the prize winner Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the changed version Optimale ^Gu 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it has been rewritten. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, withdrawing my nomination per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as the AfD rationale no longer applies to the article. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nephlet

Nephlet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable neologism. Prod tag removed by anon editor. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Delte per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable article. Hello32020 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article even admits it's a protologism created last year by some kid. Pitiful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egalitarian Socialist Party

Egalitarian Socialist Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Utterly non-notable, if not a hoax or joke. No GHits outside Wikipedia and clones, no sources, no evidence that there is more than one "member" of this "party", who happens to be the article's only contributor. Prod replaced with a message asking people to join the "newly created Egalitarian Socialist Party". Violates WP:ORG, WP:V and WP:NFT, probably among others. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 14:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• That fails to meet {{db-club}} only because a club generally consists of more than one member. Fails all three of the soapbox criteria et al. Delete, perhaps speedily. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Egalitarian Party" gets 96 unique giigle hits. Newly founded party. Not a soapbox for every every newly formed political party. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - CSD A7. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - per above. shotwell 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom QuiteUnusual 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and article is POV. Xdenizen 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 07:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Hatfield

Kevin Hatfield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NN, self promotion, Google gives 1 result for "Kevin Hatfield"+DDOS, 0 results for "Kevin Hatfield" DOS-Eliminate Optimale ^Gu 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. In the event that the article stays, I'm going to go through and change the external links to Wikipedia to the standard internal links. →Bobby← 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further note - When I was fixing the links, I noticed that the page's author Khatfield (hmmm) deleted a speedy tag. This doesn't speak well (in my mind) for the article's intentions. →Bobby← 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I find no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Perhaps we could userfy to User:Khatfield. Not speediable-- there was an assertion of significance.
  • 19 unique/156 google hits for "DOS-Eliminate".
  • 278 unique out of 17,300 google hits for "Kevin Hatfield" -md. (eliminating the physician)
  • 87 unique/5,910 google hits for ECSPortal.Com+ Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Not notable, COI and fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. Xdenizen 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing a search for 'Kevin Hatfield Green Dragon' http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kevin+hatfield+green+dragon&btnG=Google+Search

Returns 64,000 Hits

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and presumably WP:AUTO. Caknuck 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Khatfield made the comment preceding mine, then went and blanked the article. Caknuck 05:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was CSD, bio. 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swab Hudson

Swab Hudson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:BIO. Seems to have slipped past new page patrollers, otherwise it's pretty much a speedy. Various vandalistic additions in the 3 days since it's been online. riana_dzasta 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vanity. Here are the ghits, (all 13 of them) for anyone interested. It's quite an amusing article though, sounds like a maddox fan. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and tagged as such for A7 (the asserted notability is obviously false bravado). I've also removed a slight copy-vio regarding the popular Chuch Norris jokes. →Bobby← 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.A.L.-E.. Continuing arguments for deletion following each 'source' indicate that we aren't ready to have an article on this yet. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall-E (film)

Wall-E (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This film has not been officially announced. The only information about the film has appeared as rumor on blogs, with each mention all referencing the other blogs that talk about the rumor. This is similar to when the W.A.L.-E. entry was removed for lack of anything factual to support the page. SpikeJones 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The film was announced by Pixar. This is a stub: keep it or else we'll have to start all over again with more information one day. Wiki-newbie 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As requested a number of times, please provide the Pixar announcement information (not blog postings) that lists director, cast, plot, release date, etc information. SpikeJones 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Comingsoon.net says Later that same summer, the mysterious new animated Pixar film, Wall-E, comes to theaters on June 27., that is it other than some blog references. Start all over again? There is nothing in the article to start over. Nothing is known about the movie or than, It is romoured to be about a robot., delete per not a crystall ball. Once more info is available I would support this article of course. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Less than 2 years away. I would have voted to delete if the film's release were 5 years in the future. Georgia guy 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delte unless something verifiable comes along. A copy of the Pixar announcement, not just romors, would be nice. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. The comingsoon.net external link appears to reveal that Disney has announced the actual release date, which means it isn't just a rumor. Georgia guy 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. And the mention of a release date doesn't mean the film is official. The name of the film has been rumored to be W.A.L.-E. previously as well (with THAT WK page being deleted for the same WP:NOT reason). Could it be a placeholder for some other unannounced film, or it could have been a mistake, or it could actually be for a new Pixar film. Since there is conflicting information being posted in blogs (Stanton directing? Maybe not), and a release date by itself doesn't mean anything -- we go back to asking for other verifiable information from an official source that would move this from WP:NOT to something factual and supportable. SpikeJones 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The W.A.L.-E article has been recreated as "W.A.L.-E.," (with an extra period) and it is about this same film (this article is also up for deletion [23]). Wavy G 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nexis has zero hits for "Wall-E and Pixar" Uucp 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

* Delete I have seen no official announcement by Pixar, let alone Disney- and it was my understanding anyway that Pixar announced their own films, not Disney. And the supposed copy of the announcement is a poorly and confusingly worded one, at best.

I can't believe all this information about this rumoured film was added when NOTHING has been announced! And might I also suggest that the Wall-E link in the Pixar movies/short films template (on the bottom of every Pixar film's page) be removed until an official announcement is made. --211.26.115.34 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Cinescape (now "Mania") has also received word from Disney about the release date (http://www.mania.com/52676.html). I imagine plot information will be announced soon. --Psiphiorg 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• GENERAL NOTE. I'm contacting the Walt Disney Co. about a confirmation of the existence of Wall-E. To answer the question why we haven't heard something direct from the Walt Disney Co. in public: the press site of Buena Vista Pictures is closed to only (you can guess what comes next): press! Sigh, some people.. – (

empoor) 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I found an additional site declaring Wall-E's release date. I've added it to Wall-E's reference page, and you can view it here and decide if it's worthwhile. RMS Oceanic 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comment. I propose we wait and see if empoor has any success with his investigations before deleting this article. RMS Oceanic 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just get an SQL error when I go there, must be having trouble. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the URL; the "A" at the end was apparently a typo. The page announces not only the release date, but also the director and a one-word premise ("robots"). --Psiphiorg 06:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Even with the corrected URL (minus the "A"), the Animation World site still doesn't provide *any* information that wasn't already listed on other blog listings, and the Stanton as director item is already being discussed about whether or not its true. While submitted as helpful, it still doesn't supply any official facts surrounding Wall-E that we've been discussing here to the point where the article should be kept.SpikeJones 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unlike Rapunzel (film) and others, there is absolutely no official information available about this film. We don't even have an official working title. Wikipedia is not required to contain up-to-the-nanosecond information on everything at the expense of accuracy. Powers ^T 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ball and tea leaves per LtPowers, Terence Ong et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect it if you like. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viva Malta

Nomination for deletion - subject of article is non-notable, appears to be purely a discussion board frequented by far-right activists in Malta. Worthy of a mention in the Imperium Europa article, but no need for a separate stub article. --SandyDancer 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Malta. 308 unique google hits out of 695 Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply a discussion board for a tiny community. No redirect to Malta please! They have nothing to do with each other! A redirect to Imperium Europa would not be out of place. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Can't see why redirecting to Malta would be useful - I think the page should simply be deleted. In fact I am not entirely sure we should be linking to this forum in the Imperium Europa page - Wikipedia isn't a web directory. --SandyDancer 21:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I was going to nominate this for deletion myself. I agree with VodkaJazz in that it should redirect to Imperium Europa, that is, if someone types "Viva Malta", it should take him to the Imperium Europa page. Marcus1234 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bunch of Broadcast lists

• List_of_DirecTV_channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of XM Satellite Radio channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of CW affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of MyNetworkTV affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of Dish Network channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of CBS affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of NBC affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of ABC affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of Fox affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information -- specifically a directory or a TV/Radio Guide (these articles are one, or both) -- despite the level of utility of the articles, they are not within the guidelines of what should be included in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Articles are all grouped together due to content and style. If not a "guide", then definitely a simple directory -- either way, violates inclusion policy. /Blaxthos 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - As an aside (and for full disclosure), List of MyNetworkTV affiliates was nominated for deletion on 19/8/2006, with a result of Speedy Keep

• Keep - I would argue that the articles in question are not indiscriminate directories in that they only provide a list of what networks, content, or stations are included (not unlike List of newspapers or List of television stations in North America by media market; or outside of the media arena with entries like List of airlines or List of auxiliary Interstate Highways). This information initially was contained within the DirecTV article, and was broken out once it was realized how unwieldy the information is within the bounds of that single article. If this article was a full-fledged TV guide, I would agree with you completely, but given that this is completely outside of that realm, and more of an encyclopaedic list of what is included within the service, I have to strongly disagree with you, in that they do not violate WP:NOT. --Mhking 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It certainly is not a guide, but rather a list. I see nothing wrong with it being there, and don't think it violates WP:NOT in any way. If we delete this, we have to consider a lot of lists to be guides, and remove them as well. Gimlei 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They are nominated due to being a directory, which is clearly defined as what wikipedia is not. /Blaxthos 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They're usefull articles. --Caldorwards4 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean useful or did you mean to vote delete? Kirjtc2 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Meant useful. Wrote useless on accident.--Caldorwards4 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep network affiliate and satellite radio lists Complete and maintainable lists of notable stations and channels under logical groupings (network affiliation). I'm not so sure about the list of D*/E* channels since with only a few exceptions, they have every major channel available in the USA, and is probably a big duplication of some article I'm too much in a hurry to look up right now. Kirjtc2 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Usefull. not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful lists, encyclopedic. If you want these to go, then all lists of such types have to be sent to AFD as well. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, they're useful for new users. --User:Phpcoder 3:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, they're useful. I left a comment on Talk:List of DirecTV channels#Why does it exist? about my thoughts. --myselfalso 17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information of interest to millions of people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, these aren't directories, it's actual content. --Bill.matthews 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per obvious utility. These lists do not fit into the directories prohibition in WP:NOT, they're not loosely-related, they're not a means for business, they are not program listings (ie TV Guide). hateless 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep all. DCEdwards1966 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep essentially as per Hateless. To my mind these particular lists do not meet the criteria in WP:NOT. --Matthew Humphreys 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all - "Wikipedia is not censored against something you one day dislike.". MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete all. They are clear violations of WP:NOT and specifically unencyclopedic directories. On another note, to all the editors who wish to keep these lists because other similar one's exist, please note that as I find those other directories, I will AfD. WP:NOT clearly forbids these sort of articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not trying to be difficult, but why are people using reasoning such as "well, if we delete X then we'll have to delete all these other articles too" ? Regardless of an article's usefullness, or how many other articles violate the same policy, if it violates a policy, it needs to go. "But Johnny did it too" never worked when trying to justify my actions to my mom... why is wikipedia any different? Wikipedia seems full of reasons for why it's okay to break policy on a per-case basis, but doesn't this trump the purpose of having a policy at all? Just because it's useful, or because it's done in other places, doesn't negate the issue at hand... or so I think. ;-) /Blaxthos 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • It is an all too common argument nowadays. Justifying bad behavior (or in this case articles) by pointing to other bad behavior. It's childish, and illogical. It also paralyzes progress because at the end of the day, nothing can get done because there is always something or someone else mimicking the improper behavior. You have my full support on this AfD as it appears that these articles are flagrantly in violation of WP:NOT, not to mention the question of the notability of the articles as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. No, if you're going to apply the decision to one article, then you should apply them to all articles. This is not childish nor illogical. Believe me, look at the chaos of what happened at WP:SRNC. Article standards were scattered because there was no cohesive policy across WP:USRD, and hence there was complete chaos. The arguments over this even fall under WP:LAME. That's why I cited these other articles. I was pointing out that these other articles exist because of their usefullness related to the companies that make the product. DirecTV has a programming guide Wikipedia provides. This is not a TV Guide listing, this is simply a list of channels that the programmer has available through their sources. The same for XM, Sirius, and Dish. CBS, NBC, MNTV, CW, ABC, Fox, etc., made monetary deals with their affiliates. I've used those articles before in order to do research for my own purposes; hence the reason why I became involved in editing those pages. So, that was my point of bringing up those articles. More so, there is a such thing as WP:CCC. Consensus can change. Hence, policy can change. --myselfalso 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. It is childish because seeking to have one bad article stand out becaust there are five other bad articles is what a child does to stop a punishment from coming down. As said above, "Well Johnny did it too". It is illogical because, using the argument prevents anything from being done, since the argument can be recycled each time one attempts to solve a problem. In other words leaving six problems, when we can possibly deal with all problems if we did it one at a time, analyzing each on their own merits.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. None of these lists are used as a promotional tool and all give information as to what/where it is offered. No one is told to buy either satellite radio, satellite television or watch such network affiliate.TravKoolBreeze Key author in List of XM Satellite Radio channels 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You have totally misrepresented the section of WP:NOT to make your point. It explicitly states: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable." These articles clearly violate WP:NOT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs)

Do you see any of these list as a resource for conducting business? None of these list are being used to promote, but are used for quick refrence information inwhich even the parent may not update on their website.TravKoolBreeze 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No where in the nomination is this brought up as an issue. The sentence you are using is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is claiming that the articles are serving as an advertisement. The nomination is based on the fact that Wikipedia does not allow TV or Radio guides, directories and/or schedules, which IMO is what these articles are.

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. This what it explicitly meant in what Wikipedia is not for Directories. Thus without reading this, the whole discussion which these articles should exist would make no sense. TV/Radio Guide would be if any of the list are updated daily to show what is on and a directory is a list of contacts, i.e. phone numbers, email. None of these list do either, and all the list give information about said channel or affliate. TravKoolBreeze 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A pertinent quote from the Wikipedia is not a directory section of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." (Emphasis mine) --Matthew Humphreys 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the best argument presented for keep. I don't view these articles as reference table, however reasonable people can disagree. Perhaps there should be some clarification on whether these articles fit into this exception on the WP:NOT page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think "TV/Radio Guides" may be misinterpreted by those in favor of deletion. A TV guide lists upcoming programming, which isn't the case here. The mention of "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules" seems to back this up - these articles don't contain any of these. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've requested a clarification from the WP:NOT page on this issue. I don't see how these articles aren't directories, but I think since this is a policy question, if that issue can be clarified, it will really help this discussion. At least we moved on from, "well they're other articles like this one". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Looking at a couple dictionaries, "directory" is defined as a list that includes phone numbers, addresses, and similar info. Without that information, I don't see how it would be considered a directory. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree that WP:NOT prevents an article on a talk radio station listing the names of its programs. To me, that is what these articles, which list stations and their corresponding channels does. It fall under the similar info, as a channel can be defined as a networks address on the service provider. That being said, if I get a clarification on the policy page, I will gladly change my vote. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. A schedule of programs wouldn't be allowed (and looking now, there seem to be a number of TV and radio pages that have schedules), but listing some or all programs doesn't seem to be prohibited by NOT, and there seem to be quite a few pages that do exactly that. What part of NOT would indicate that an article about a network couldn't list shows on that network? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't use the word "schedule" but that was what I was talking about. Isn't a schedule a list of programs with times? To me a list of networks with corresponding channels is the same thing. Reasonable people can differ. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: A consensus was reached on August 24, 2005 to keep about the List of XM Satellite Radio Channels in which same argument about whether or not the article was a directory. TravKoolBreeze 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on that article were due to notability, and didn't address the "reference table" vs. "directory" issue although directory was on of the factors in its nomination. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong & Speedy Keep All: Not an advertisement, and provides important lists as to which channels in every market are affiliated with the networks listed. Has been worked on for months by many editors without any objection. Nate 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per everything mentioned above. --- RockMFR 23:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep All valid information, and not indiscriminate lists like some others. Plus, these lists will be changed to reflect Nielsen markets soon enough. Thistheman 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If this information violates some policy, I'd say it was the policy that was flawed, not the information itself. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep' A lot of people worked on those articles, why delete? How is it hindering or somehow hurting Wikipedia? If you were to look up DirecTv in an encyclopedia, wouldn't it be nice to see which channels it carries too? If not, then you might as well delete the DirecTv article and all tv station articles along with it. Rewt241
• Comment -- Obviously there is massive community support to keep the articles. If my reading of the policy was incorrect (as it appears to have been), their nomination was only in good faith. The debate was educational for me, if nothing else.  :-) /Blaxthos 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (My comment is specific to DirecTV and XM as I am only familiar with those, so forgive me if this is too much of a generalization for the others.) These articles do not qualify as a "TV/radio guide" in that they do not list a programming schedule. Instead, they are tables of current channels, programming, and formats, as well as historical data not readily found elsewhere in such detail--including from the content provider. It would be a disservice to those who have researched and edited these articles as well as the community as a whole to remove such information. TopCat99 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not only should these very useful lists be kept - I'd like to see more of them (for example, lists of CBS etc radio affiliates). PaulLev 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above Patcat88 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep all. This is just trolling and vandalism via deleting proper encyclopedic articles. this is NOT Deletapedia. It's nonsense. Next, shall we nominate Main Page and List of NBC affiliates for deletion? This guy seems to not like lists of any kind. :) RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia should have every article—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.132.11 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 12 November 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 was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cockadoodi Car

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}}

Cockadoodi Car (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non notable "catchphrase" (title of article), rest is original research and/or not directly related to the catchphrase, but to the movie. COntested prod, some elements improved, but main problem stays. WP:OR, non notable, the phrase seems not to be discussed (annalyzed, remarked, ...) anywhere. Fram 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Cockadoodi Car" was a phrase frequently used by the psychotic protagonist of the Stephen King novel, Misery. No it wasn't. Per the article it was used once; Annie Wilkes frequently used "cockadoodie" (thus spelt) as a general term of abuse, as I recall. Delete as OR and flawed at that. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Misery. Having the re-direct to the article on the book may disuade people from re-creating it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I disagree that there should be a redir. "Cockadoodie car" is used approximately once in the whole book/film and has no defining effect on either plot or characterisation (pace an analysis of Wilkes' repressed vocabulary and any connection between her general repression and her psychosis). As such a redirect would be akin to redirecting the phrase "Good-bye, my dear fellow" to War and Peace because Tolstoy has one of his characters say it on page 445. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect, mabye merge a short summery. This is a once used term in a notable book, unless any demonstration that the phrase has entered popular culture I don't see the notability of it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. I agree with the views of User:Tonywalton regarding a redirect. Xdenizen 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I think Annie Wilkes' imperious attitude towards literature has had an effect on all of you. She insisted Sheldon burn the manuscript she detested, and now you are all crying to "burn" this article. There is also a parallel with Mrs White in Stephen King's Carrie insisting that her daughter "burn the dress" lol. 80.43.24.255 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) — 80.43.24.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hehe, good one. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Everything worth saying about this already exists in the Annie Wilkes article. Shimeru 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE What is the matter with you people? Have you had too much 'bitchly cow corn'? Never have I experienced so much outrage on such a simple article. Merely published to highlight some of the better scenes, as a fan of the movie, I would have thought there would be some degree of appreciation for my efforts. Whereas many internet users have complimented me on such a moving and interesting article, it was inevitable a minority of miserable readers would complain. Frankly, what would Annie Wilkes say? something along the lines of "What is the matter with you people?"...I suspect. For clearly making an 'oogie mess' of her legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiman89 (talk • contribs) November 8, 2006

You are mistaken in thinking this is personal in any way. Your contributions are appreciated. However wikipedia has standards that are determined by consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE It's is not I who have taken this issue to personally. In constructing this article, I took great care in to adhering to any regulations that govern the quality of articles submitted in to Wikipedia. The points I have chosen to highlight in my article are fact based, so it utterly baffles me as to how 'some' people still choose to dispute the truth. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but certainly FACTS are undisputable, and it was my assumption that Wikipedia is suppose to be FACT BASED. So perhaps those who moan about their own interpretations of the movie, can post their offensive comments on a chatroom ELSEWHERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs) 10:32, November 8, 2006

It is not verifiability that is the issue, it is notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure if there are any merits to contributing articles on Wikipedia. Having done some research, it appears that some of those who have left comments on this page are regular pariticpants in so called controversial Deletion Drives. I am very disappointed that these narrowminded 'bullies' are permitted to continue their witch hunts and try to kill off articles prematurely. I am truly disgusted...though I refuse to be disparaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)

Notability is subjective, obviously those who found my article must have 'noticed' it. As a matter of fact, with no links or redirections in any article on Wikipedia to my page, it has done a damn fine job substantiating itself as worthwhile and therefore NOTABLE addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)

I have found the page by scanning the new pages[24], not by looking for this particular page. The majority of the page has noting to do with Cockadoodi Car, but only with the movie and the protagonists in general. The subject of the article, the particular quote Cockadoodi Car (which should be Cockadoodie Car), is utterly non notable and is not discussed in any WP:V sources, so WP:V is the issue here beyond the bare existance (but we are not here to have an article about everything that exists, no matter how minor it is). I'll ignore the rest of your post, as it goes against WP:NPA. Fram 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Credit, where it's deserved And I quote "Not here to have an article about everything that exist, no matter how minor",...well for a 'minor' article, there certainly has been alot of controversy. I suppose it is beyond some people to not have an orgasmic chill over everything. I feel defending this article is almost a lost cause. I suppost a perfect comment to describe the animosity against this article would be Clark Gable's famous phrase from 'Gone With The Wind'..but oh wait, maybe that phrase isn't notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)

Two people (one anonymous) pushing to keep this article doesn't qualify as "controversy". IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Author The anonymous person (with IP Add 161.74.11.24) is me, the author...I had no intention of masking my identity, merely as I do not sign in everytime, I leave a comment. But if you were to have read the comments by Samuraiman89 (Author) and Anonymous, you should realise the conistency and continuations of the same points made. Such immature behaviour as 'Socking' is very unlikely to be adopted by myself over such a trivial issue as this article.....after all, we're not exactly arguing about the merits of world peace, or some deeply important goverment inituative. Cockadoodi Car indeed.

What is the matter with you people

I am an avid reader of Stephen King Novels, and with Misery being my favourite of them all, I was utterly disappointed to find out that people were petitioning for this fantastic and humorous article to be deleted.

As a journalist for an independent magazine, in which the fantastic phrase 'Cockadoodie Car' was voted the No.1 most memorable phrase in a Stephen King novel (with It’s ‘can you float?' coming in a close second), I believe that all fans of the novel and movie should be able to express their own personal views and interpretations of the depiction of the Annie Wilkes character in any way, shape or form, and wherever they wish, and that is exactly what the author of this article has done. I personally think that it is utterly repugnant, revolting, vile, nauseating and absolutely appalling that some people would rally together and demand that this article be deleted. Once again I must state 'repugnant'!!! Wikipedia is a place for people all over the world to share knowledge defined as ‘the fact of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association’. With this definition in mind I believe that the author has done nothing wrong as everything that is stated in the article was something gained through the experience of reading the book or watching the movie. Nothing mentioned in the article has been falsified they are all of fact, and I am sure they were not intended to disparage the character in question. This article is merely a description of certain scenes depicted in the movie, and I think it goes without saying that Kathy Bates did not receive an academy award for her performance in this film for nothing.

What era are you people living in, the Puritan era? Is this a remake of the classic Salem witch hunts? I’m half expecting for you all to demand that the author be burned at the stake (along with the article)? Once again I must state ‘repugnant’. This kind of bullying will not and shall not be tolerated. If the author of the ‘Cockadoodie Car’ article had made false statements leading to a false representation about the book or film then I would see the need for this cause of action. But I have read the book and watched the film a countless number of times and the phrase is fundamental in describing the mental state and actions of Annie Wilkes.Oh the misery 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)M. Patterson

Please stop creating new identities just so add more to this AfD under new names. That is sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think it goes without saying that Kathy Bates did not receive an academy award for her performance in this film for nothing. Agreed, and I think it also goes without saying that she didn't receive it just for saying "Cockadoodi(e) car" either. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy I suppose everyone who supports my article is suppose to be an alternate version of me? Please do get life! I have better things to do, then to assume mutliple personalities to support a trivial article, such as that of a goddamn Cockadoodi Car. Nerd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiman89 (talk • contribs)

please refrain from personal attacks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More than happy to obilge, but I do not appreciate meritless accusations.

I wish Annie Wilkes was here now to give you all a good dose of medicine and send you straight to bed! I also hear she has superb expertise in chiropody. I'm sure she would object to all this bickering, as "It has no nobility!" lol! 80.47.141.248 15:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If she were here, she would be expected to object based on Wikipedia criteria. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No actually, if she were here, should would probably clonk everyone over the head with a typewriter, for trying to sabotage an article about her". As Ling Woo would say "I'm getting bored".

As Ling Woo also said, "I'm deaf to condescension. Right now I could hear a pin drop!" Hold on, I'm not sure I'm "comfortable" with what I just said. I think it has just set off the nervous twitch in my moustache. 80.47.162.46 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit off topic, sorry, but I must say that the AfD is one of the more entertaining parts of WP. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that a positive response for my article? "Sniff, Sniff"

He's not complimenting you, he's complimenting me and my razor sharp wit and use of Ally Macbeal catchphrases in a time of crisis. I'm not sure what I think of this article, as reading it caused a severe case of acid reflux in which I began to choke like Claire Ottoms. Bile. 80.47.148.228 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, with no credible third-party sources presented, or any other attempt to address the reasons for deletion (specifically failure to meet WP:SCHOOL or any other sensible critierion for notability). Only real arguments for keeping presented are precedent (which does not exist on Wikipedia) and the fallacious WP:INN. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liaoyang Professional College of Technology

Liaoyang Professional College of Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Verifiability, nothing on Google. AfD instead of prod to ensure lack of systemic bias. - crz crztalk 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. - crz crztalk 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Schools can be verified. No assertion of such in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, it might be speediable as db:attack. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Criticism is allowed, Mike. - crz crztalk 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • {{db-atk}} specifies that the article exists primarily to disparage its subject. This doesn't seem to (though phrases like Some teachers have no confidence in their English skills; others are competent and A percentage of the students have noticeable learning difficulties look perilously like POV without sources). 'Keep and cleanup. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup. Verifiability is an issue, but it seems clear that this college does exist: see this official Min. of Ed. list (where its name is given as "Liaoyang Vocational College of Technology"). Cannot find a website for the school, but my Chinese net skills are nil. -- Visviva 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can assure you that in the U.S. there are Ivy League schools and other leading universities charging $40,000 a year in tuition with very competitive admissions, where the technical classes are largely taught by grad students and professors who can barely speak English (although many of them have native fluency in Japanese, Chinese, or Korean). I know U.S. college graduates who went to China for a few years to make a good salary as English teachers. As for the school being real, nothing in the article sounds at all surprising. It is up to the editor creating the article to find a supporting citation. I could find no mention of a college in the town, but it is a center of the petrochemical industry and has seen widespread labor unrest for several years. Edison 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As we do with all post-secondary institutions. Lack of Google hits for a non-western institution is not uncommon and shouldn't be a reason to delete. -- Necrothesp 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has anyone done a google search in chinese? JoshuaZ 07:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per necro (w/ cleanup, poss. move per visviva.) is nommination just parochialism? the correct tag would be {{references|article}} & the relevant cleanups, no? → bsnowball 09:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was sequentially speedied and prodded on notability by two separate editors. Suspecting that the thing is notable if real, but not being able to find it on Google, and not knowing a lick of Chinese, I figured to bring it here, so you guys can set me straight. I have not voted delete. I have absolutely no idea why I am being called names over here! Should I rather have let it sit around with a prod tag to be deleted - or deprodded it and left it unimproved? - crz crztalk 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • apol if that was too harsh. my point is: is afd the place to ask for improvements? what's wrong with deprodding, taging as relevant & attempting to refer to editors with relevant knowledge? (on the last i added china stub) esp. as, i believe, necro's correct about post-secondary? → bsnowball 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If the matter had concerned tone and expansion or whatever, that would have been the course. But verifiability is the touchstone of a Wikipedia article, and I couldn't find any, so we had to have this AfD in order to establish it. - crz crztalk 12:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

from the top of the afd page: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." this is clearly aplies to a 2 day old stub without references, what u are saying wld surely only apply after weeks → bsnowball 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)