Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 userfy to User:Thewanjala, although I'm not really convinced that's very useful considering the author's only edits are to this article. If the author never returns, I'll delete it later if someone reminds me. - Bobet 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Wanjala

I cannot fathom why an encyclopedia would warrant an entry on such an ordinary gentleman. Salad Days 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete of vanity article(although a better autobiography than most vanities have been). Jcam 06:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's clearly a vanity article. ~ Lav-chan 09:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity, all is vanity. And boring too. BTLizard 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. MER-C 12:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to article creator's user page. After reading Wikipedia:Userfication, I have ascertained that this indeed can be userfied. (I'm only being cautious here because I misjudged an AfD before and said userfy when it really wasn't allowed). --Nishkid64 18:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Nishkid64. Danny Lilithborne 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - violation of WP:VAIN --Ineffable3000 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy—Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. WP:VAIN is probably too harsh. Vanity articles that make no plausible claim of notability may be speedied. Those that offer some claim of notability, however remote, are usually sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This one has enough notability, however remote, to warrant this thoughtful review. That said, in my judgement it does fail Wikipedia:Notability (people); specifically the requirement that "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field," since none of the other criteria come close to being satisified. Williamborg (Bill) 00:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• userfy this please article created by new user we must not be too harsh Yuckfoo 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 the content, make a new redirect to Enlargement. - Bobet 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enlarge

Came across this page while clearing out stubs, seems to me that this page is inherently dicdef and cannot be anything more. What is here now seems to be a unique mix of dicdef and POV pushing Deville (Talk) 06:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - what a confused article though. I guess if someone knew what it was about and cared .... but otherwise def del Nigel ^(Talk) 12:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is just spillover from the disagreement that surrounds The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, specifically History of the "Protocols of Zion" (AfD discussion), not an encyclopaedia article on the subjects of enlargement or expansion of books. There is nothing worth retaining here. Per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), redirect to enlargement. Uncle G 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Kirmissel

Not notable - only one minor role in not very important program. My prod was deleted without response or improvement --nkayesmith 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, notability is not established now. --LiverpoolCommander 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Danny Phantom is a popular kids TV show, but that's not the point. Having only one appearance on TV isn't enough for Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merlien

Article has been marked WP:V by one editor, prodded by me, fails WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Business commenced in 2006 cannot be notable. Delete. --Richhoncho 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. Not notable. MER-C 07:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - deeply spammish. BTLizard 10:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP, and really not-notable yet. --Nishkid64 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete—Fails WP:CORP. Perhaps later - Williamborg (Bill) 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. Orsini 01:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nair Tharavadus

A completely unsourced and unverifiable article that tries to list families belonging to the Nair caste of Hinduism. There are thousands of such families in Kerala, and hence it is totally un-encyclopedic to have such a listing. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article is unsourced and unverifiable and Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory.Clt13 08:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:V and WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—message left with various editors of article in hope of brilliant rewrite which saves this. Lacking such improvement, consider this a vote to delete per nom. Williamborg (Bill) 06:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article contains various details on families which are just POVs...as said totally unencylcopecic even historically...perhaps the 600 original families shoulc be listed rather that these thousands- bhargav—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.105.125 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as per the nominator. It has curiousity value, though, and may be moved to the user space of the creator(s). Tintin (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete:This provides an excellent opportunity for people around the world to gather info and in future could be expanded to help understand the history of their own families. can't understand what is wrong with it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krishnap13 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment. See WP:NOT. m:Wikipeople or Wikitree is the place for this.Clt13 06:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhava Tharavads, Wikipedia has a big problem with inordinately long lists of redlink family names in Indian castes. I'm all for trying to solve the problem, but it's one with a lot of work and resistance attached. Additionally, I confess: I actually gave up on notability checking Indian caste list pages a long time ago. It seems like an almost insurmountable task that would just incur the wrath of scores of vanity posters. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - If it were possible to actually verify and source these claims, then it would be possible to have a page. But I guess the task is next to impossible. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്) 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As the poets affirm

Previously speedied article that still doesn't seem to assert any other notability than getting #8 in a local music poll. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pseudomonas 09:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC with independent press coverage in the Ottawan Citizen, Ottawan Sun, Exclaim etc [12]; a fact conveniently ignored by the nominator. Kappa 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You also conveniently ignored that a. WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a policy; b. as it stands, none of the quotes on the TuneVault site have been verified; and c. they don't have an AllMusic entry. Providing verification of the magazine quotes and other important information (such as what notable independent label they're on) would be more helpful than making snide remarks. Danny Lilithborne 20:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —ExplorerCDT 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If this was previously speedied should this not be speedied as reposted material? --Spartaz 21:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment An article can only be speedied under G4 if it went through the AfD process before and the article is a duplicate of the one deleted under that AfD. Prods and previous speedys don't qualify. Danny Lilithborne 00:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of that. That is very useful to know. Thank you. --Spartaz 17:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Indrian 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 16:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Requests... The Funeral

Just another rumoured name for The Re-Up album of Eminem, but this one is a combination of two rumoured names. An article named "Final Requests" has already been removed. Michaelas10 07:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, until confirmation and verification that this is the name is proved, it should be deleted. --LiverpoolCommander 08:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prolog 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMugle

Non-notable website. Alexa rank 45,958. Delete per WP:WEB. Haakon 08:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - not notable Nigel ^(Talk) 12:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per failure of WP:WEB. (Haha...EMugle).--Nishkid64 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Orsini 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 19:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cassieiswatching

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}}

The subject of this article does not have enough notability Criptofcorbin 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable (at this point), maybe if it becomes more of an Internet meme it can be re-created. --LiverpoolCommander 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability. --Haakon 11:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Nigel ^(Talk) 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Hello32020 13:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• In case you didn't notice: The first video has caused a treasure hunt and is rapidly gaining in popularity. If there is no article now, it will be almost impossible to add the history later, while now there is enough people out there looking for clues and able to write on this article. This page should stay for the next four weeks to find out if this will be as popular as lonelygirl15 or not. --84.178.84.89 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced article about non-notable four-day-old-potential-internet-meme. Let me also note that the argument that people will forget all about this in a matter of weeks or months, which seems to be what the anon suggests, is probably not the best way to argue notability. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per anonymous user who, as they often do, make good cases for deletion when they think they're defending the article. Danny Lilithborne 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, not notable enough at the moment (although they said that about lonelygirl15) --Tim1988 ^talk 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, not notable enough... •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 02:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article has recently been edited with sourced material and references. I was intrigued by the original article, which lacked many things, and spent the better part of yesterday trying to get to the bottom of this with reliable information from valid (and citable) sources. Right now there is too much evidence to suggest that this may still have an official tie to the lonelygirl15 creators, and the two mentions in the NY Times are notable as such. Many Wikipedia entries have never had that kind of recognition, yet their pages remain. If this is all forgotten in a month, it can be deleted then, no? Insincere 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is an intriguing topic that had many, many followers, and their main avenues of discussion and information (lonelygirl15.com and Alissa's board) were both cut off, making it much harder for people to keep up. Plumpy 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This topic has garnered reoccuring national attention. Other sources of compiled information on the topic are lacking. 18 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.56 (talk)
• Delete per nom; if it gets enough attention, perhaps a spin-offs section can be added to the Lonelygirl15 page. Phaedra777 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Totally. this has captured much of the internet and it's growing still. Possibly the most gamejacked ARG in history. Zazaban 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can see why this was nominated, but a lot has changed since then. I believe this will be an important landmark in whatever genre this turns out to be. It's become an enormous and controversial internet phenomenon. Inkwell 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ARGjacking something that isn't even determined to be an ARG (or even a game) does not make a wikipedia article. Kids playing on YouTube can get their own stand-alone wiki to compile the CIW story, which can be added later as a spinoff from the LG15 wiki article, if warranted.
• Keep Topic has garnered enough attention, and has newly updated sources and references. Furthermore, it warrants a separate page, as the Creators of lonelygirl15 have since disavowed all connections to this project. Ravensgrace 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cassieiswatching has been a significant enough part of the story that the creators of LG15 had to address it in a formal announcement, their first since the LG15 story was "outed". Many people running into it online will come here to find out about it, and it has at least a mention in the NYTimes. - dharmabum 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; There are several forums available to document this. It could be added later once it's nature is determined (ARG, hoax, etc.). The current article also does not objectively cover the topic, as it interests a too narrow group of people at this point, and will most likely just be made vehicle for promotion. Vanillaflava 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, I committed the "highly inappropriate" step of advertising this topic by posting about it to the unfiction forums. Sorry, I didn't realize that was super-frowned upon at the time. In my defense, my posting (which I can't link to because the forums are down now) encouraged only wikipedians to come here and didn't advocate for creating new wikipedia accounts just to vote. Also, it seems that people attracted by this posting have voted both ways, not just "keep". Anyway, sorry. The forum is down and doesn't appear to be coming back with the old data anytime soon, so it seems my message contributed about four or five votes here, tops. Plumpy 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cassieiswatching is an immensely popular interactive fiction ARG; most other ARGs have their own wiki pages, sources are cited, and the page is a useful overview of this particular ARG. RichardAdams 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Content should be merged with lonelygirl15 article; maybe make the cassiewatching page into a redirect? Lhall 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Just because it's Internet culture doesn't mean it's not notable. We have articles on far more obscure things without them being challenged as non-notable-because they have nothing to do with Internet culture.

From a technical standpoint, this meets Criteria 3 on the Web Content Notability standards. -Toptomcat 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I think it deserves a footnote in the lonelygirl15 page, but it is not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. Marsman57 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. I just see this as an advertising it's non notable doesn't ad anything but is just a buncha clips. Secondly it's taken over a lot of the lonelygirl article just as advertising. SirGrant 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just out of curiousity... advertising what? The "cassieiswatching" YouTube poster has no products to sell, and the Wikipedia entry has been created by fans of hers, not by an involved party promoting the videos, which is drastically different than advertising. The question is whether CIW is notable, not an ad-hoc assesment of whether the article was created purely by CIW's authors to promote it, which is unlikely considering the number of people who have contributed to the article. - dharmabum 10:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Cassieiswatching has been mentioned in th New York Times, and is not nearly as obscure as it was. It is not selling anything. - 23 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Keep -ryan-d 11:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia has articles about a lot less popular and a lot more specialised topics, like Skiploom or Elaan of Troyius. I believe this shows, that the goal of Wikipedia is not becoming something as big as a print encyclopedia anymore, but something a lot bigger. Anyway: Every article only takes a neglectible amount of database space and if there are people interested in an article, it should be kept. --84.168.10.167 16:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and SirGrant. This is Wikipedia, not Tiger Beat. --Aaron 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

comment Why are wikipedia users so often hostile to internet culture. A artilce about Internet culture is more likely to be deleted than a less notable article about something else.... Zazaban 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Think for a minute, delete voters: LG15's article was initially deleted in a similar vote, until I nominated it for DRV and it got undeleted by an overwhelming majority, and of course since then the article has been hugely in demand. The right and wrong of that situation is clear. Wouldn't deleting this be making the same mistake? I have no doubt about this being notable. The phenomenon has reached such a level that all aspects of it, including spin-offs, are notable as well. Everyking 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think deleting lonelygirl15 was a mistake. Nor was it a mistake to bring it back. The notability of the subject changed and thus it was brought back. That is the way it is supposed to work. Lonelygirl15 being deleted was not a mistake at all, in fact it was perfect example of the wikipedia deletion procedure working exactly as it was designed to. Criptofcorbin 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I certainly hope it wasn't working properly in that instance, since she was plainly notable already when that first debate took place. We just had deletionists reflexively voting against something because of the subject: "just some blogger", "a fad" (some people think fads are non-notable), etc. It was more notable the second time around, yes, but it didn't switch from being non-notable to being notable in that time period (about a week, as I recall). It was just a bad decision. Everyking 08:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP** This article goes with LG15, taking it away would leave newcomers to the story researching left with no information on the background of the videos.
    • • You remember wrong. It was almost a month apart. It couldn't have been a bad decision it was just the right decision at the time. It went from have a majority of people favoring deletion the first time to a unanimous keep the second time. What was the difference you might ask? Perhaps what made her more notable was that she appeared in several main stream media news services and put out an additional 7 videos averaging over 500,000 views where her old views were closer to 200,000. I don't think wikipedians are idiots.

What did I do wrong?: Obvious I made a mistake. This article has been listed for 9 days now. Everything I have read says it should be decided within 5 days. This is the first time I have ever put an article up for deletion and I tried to follow the step by step process, but it seems to me that I must have made an error somewhere. Could someone who knows more about this help me out and get this discuss back on the admins list of articles up for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criptofcorbin (talk • contribs) 08:11, September 25, 2006

• Articles often run over the five day period, especially if they're cases like this where admins may be reluctant to make the call. Everyking 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Everyking is right; the process of AfD discussion and closing is often messier and slower than it ought to be, and this AfD is just one of those that hasn't been dealt with yet, for whatever reason. (I just looked at the log for September 16, the day you started this AfD, and there's roughly 20 other AfDs there besides this one that haven't been closed yet. Sometimes admins are just slow!) In any case, I looked over everything regarding this AfD, and I can assure you that you personally have done nothing wrong at all; you put this article up for deletion exactly as it is supposed to be done, with zero mistakes. Good job! --Aaron 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; shall we have articles on everything on the Internet? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 16:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of death of English national cricket captains

Do I have to say anything? The name says it all. Oh, alright. This is complete and utter listcruft, combining two things to form an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we really need a list of causes of death for every group of people? How about Causes of death of Bavarian monarchs or Causes of death of editors of the Economist? Nydas 08:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If more of them had died in unusual circumstances, it might be a handy (if somewhat left-field) article to have around. Nothing doing here, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though it could do with proper sourcing on every line. Otherwise it seems well-researched and perfectly encyclopaedic to me. The Bavarian monarchs would be interesting too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I utterly fail to see the point of this. I suppose if it showed that a significant number of them had died after being struck by cricket balls it might tell us something, but not a one of them did! BTLizard 10:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Strong Delete as per nom Morbid stickball fancruft. Very poor precedent if kept that would lead to masses of listcruft Bwithh 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed vote to Strong Delete after revelations by User:Jguk below. Bwithh 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, encyclopedic article, and relating to notable group of people. --LiverpoolCommander 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete further to my comments on WT:CRIC -- ALoan (Talk) 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Much less notable than, say, a list of the causes of death of Bavarian Monarchs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThaddeusFrye (talk • contribs) .
• Keep per Stephen Turner. Interesting article too. Dave 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An interesting offbeat article - it certainly has a wide fanbase, see here, for example. In reply to BigHaz and BTLizard, surely two suicides, Monty Bowden (#11), and Johnny Douglas (#22) are interesting in themselves, jguk 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not "surely". Why is that interesting? Wikipedia is not supposed to be the home of lurid & sensationalist exploitative speculation Bwithh 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, OH MY GOD, did you just cite and link to to the freaking exact same article on Uncyclopedia as proof of the legitimacy of this article (and "wide fanbase")?!?!?! *I slam my head against desk, repeatedly*. Thank you for the insight, I'm changing my vote to Strong Delete. Bwithh 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You say the "exact same article" as if the text is the same; for those who haven't followed the link, it's a parody of it (and I think funnier than most of the stuff on Uncyclopedia, which usually bores me). But I don't think the existence of a parody on Uncyclopedia is a very good argument for or against keeping this one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected!! Bwithh 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - two suicides are of passing interest (perhaps more to the families of the men, but that's neither here nor there). Sadly, even a suicide is hardly "unusual circumstances", and even if it were there's only two instances thereof. As one user suggested earlier, if more of them had been hit by cricket balls and killed as a result, that would make the article more noteworthy. As it currently stands, this is an indiscriminate collection of information, being mainly natural causes of death for a particular subset of the human race. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Punkmorten 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Absurd listcruft. "List of minor characters from a forgotten TV series" is pearl of wisdom compared to this. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The article itself should stay in my opnion if it is sourced properly. The only problem it that it will open up another dimension to Wikipedia where there will be thousands of article called "Causes of death of ABC's".
• Delete how can a list of causes of deaths be so boring? Any group of people collectively will have a variety of deaths, there's nothing encyclopedic about this set. MLA 08:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the only reason to have a list article is to establish some kind of notable connection between individual items. This is just a collection of random information with no notable connection. That being said, I am half tempted to vote "keep" because the list does create fertile ground for parody on Uncyclopedia -- I'm already mentally composing, List of skin diseases of Welsh Olympians. Kubigula 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of anti-American terrorist incidents

Inherently POV article which uses original research to create a list of various unrelated incidents, none of which should be categorised simply as "anti-American" in an encyclopedia. Incidents such as the assassination of Lincoln are linked to the Oklahoma bombing under this title for no discernible reason. Have any of these acts been described simply as "anti-American"? - And how many of these acts have been described as terrorism? We don't know, there are no sources anyway. Zleitzen 08:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. At a stretch, this could almost be "List of incidents in which Americans were targetted for some reason or another", but I don't exactly think that would be much of an improvement. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Connects unrelated events in absurd way. Pavel Vozenilek 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Americans have been targeted by significant terrorist incidents and this appears to be a valid topic for an encyclopedia. Suggest renaming the article and weeding out the dubious entries. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All of the featured entries are dubious. "Terrorist acts" have complex socio-political motives, many of these motives are not fully understood and remain unproven. To reduce these motives to a singular disputed term is unencyclopedic, ahistorical and unhelpful. We already have a number of articles that list terrorist acts, List of terrorist incidents and List of terrorist incidents in the United States etc. This article is simply unneccessary.--Zleitzen 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep - an important article, perhaps rename as resistance acts or acts of insurgency?? --Frogsprog 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per RJH --Shyamsunder 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Redirect page to List of terrorist incidents in the United States, append a section "List of terrorist incidents against Americans outside the United States" if necessary. --Vsion 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep removing dubious entries per RJH above.
  • Comment What would you define as a non-dubious entry on a page such as this?--Zleitzen 14:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT for indiscriminate lists. WTF do "Barbary Pirates", John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald have in common ? If this is a valid topic, and I suspect that it is not, this article contains nothing which could usefully be included in Anti-American terrorism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Most of the criticisms above deal with the quality of the article, which is a reason for improvement but not with a valid reason for deletion (e.g. nom. talks about "needs sources" and "some entries don't belong"). A list of anti-American terrorist incidents does NOT inherently have a non-neutral point of view. I don't even know what point of view the nom thinks it is pushing. I think this article is very relevant, at least as relevant as list of wars and list of disasters.--Bibliophylax 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice that the lists you mention: list of wars and list of disasters are defined by commensurable standards - a war is a war etc. We don't have list of Anti-American wars for example. Why not? Because there can be no such categorisation, "anti-American" is a vague disputed term and is thus incommensurable. The nom doesn't talk about "needing sources", nor states "some entries don't belong" as you claim. It states that "none of the entries should be categorised simply as "anti-American" in an encyclopedia". The fact that there are no sources for this merely reiterates how unencyclopedic such a list is.--Zleitzen 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The term 'Anti-American' is too specific, however; one would need sources for each incident to allow that claim. 'Terrorist incident' can be interpreted as 'act of terrorism' or as 'act by a terrorist', the latter would need a conviction as such by court. Rename the article 'List of assassinations and acts of terrorism against Americans' (which is not the same as incidents that happenened in the US). The term 'terrorism' is nearly always a POV, but is correct in the renamed title and not WP:POV as it is objectively stated from what position the view is made: from its targeted American citizens. 'Assassinations' are not always considered terrorism (hence separately mentioned in the new title), but are just as terrorism, illegal attempts disrespectful of human life, seemingly to cause a political influence, and are most often clearly distinguishable from other 'murders'. — SomeHuman 23 Sep 2006 09:40 (UTC)
  • Comment I support the name change to List of assassinations and acts of terrorism against Americans with some reservations about it's usefulness. But it is an improvement.--Zleitzen 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-But needs serious improvement. --Boris Johnson VC 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 TO DELETE. I count 12-6 in favor of Keep, but I didn't close as Keep in spite of the numbers because the argument that the list is and has been shown to be unmaintainable is the strongest argument made in my opinion.

[edit] List of famous Nairs

Wikipedia is not a directory; The persons listed here have not "significantly contributed to the list topic" . Their contributions are in other fields and this list merely traces the caste they belong to. It is not known wheteher everyone listed here would like to be listed as members of a particular caste or whether they consider themselves to be members of a particular caste.Clt13 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, but it needs heavy editing. I'd say you've unearthed a pretty good collection of related articles that need to be either reworked or deleted, but the list itself (with some work) seems OK. On its face it doesn't seem any different from, say, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (which as far as i know is an acceptable page), but there is one difference: Most, or maybe all, of the people on the Nair list are probably unknown to English speakers and are not notable enough to have even more than a few paragraphs attributed to their articles. (I mean if you click most of those links, they're stubs that offer no explanation as to the notability of the individual, and even some of those that do have serious POV issues.) So i guess my suggestion is two-fold: (1) Go through and get rid of all the non-notable people in the list (there are a couple, but apparently not many); and (2) order it by name, not 'major area of work'. I don't know enough about India to do the former myself though. ~ Lav-chan 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If you order it by name, you might as well turn it into a category. ColourBurst 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Lav-chan Doctor BrunoTalk 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, but "unknown to English speakers" does not mean nonnotability. eg Li Bai is relatively unknown to English speakers, but is still notable enough to have an article. ColourBurst 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep interesting concept, needs a bit of cleanup though. —ExplorerCDT 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per lav-chan --Ageo020 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is pure patent nonsense. Nobody can verify the entries in the list. It is casteiest and very ofen self promotional. In many cases the listed people are those who have denounced their caste origins. It makes it doubly nonsensical. Kuntan 07:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There was an Afd discussion last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Nairs. Being a newbie and less cynical than I am now, I argued vociferously to keep that article. For a few months, I tried to keep the list sane, failed utterly and even got abused by a few drive-by editors. I can say from my personal experience that there is no way this list can be verified, or names restricted only to those who are famouse because every other editor who passes by adds names of his choice. Tintin (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a nonsense article based on casteist bias,and most of these people listed have not made any contribution to socail life

• Delete. The title is List of Famous Nairs yet 90% do not have their own page, and it is completely unreferenced considering the title is potential non-NPOV Todd661 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia should not participate in the perpetuation of the racist and discriminatory caste system. The other lists of famous caste members should be deleted as well. Wikipedia should record history, not participate in it, as far as its actual content goes. The problems mentioned by Tintin, Clt13 and Todd661 are additional reasons for deleting the list. -- Kjkolb 12:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Nair as in the case of Syrian_Malabar_Nasrani-Bharatveer 13:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Requires heavy editing. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Nair after removing all of the unsourced red links. Yamaguchi先生 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.We should check whether this list serves any purpose at all. If you go to the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and the pages linked from there, you can see that in most of the pages there is a mention of the person being a gay / lesbian. The person was famous as a gay /lesbian as well. Here most of the Nairs mentioned are not famous as a Nair. Of course it could be argued that it is a fact. Then there are many such facts and people here can be put in any of the 2000 cast wise lists, 500 District wise lists, and so on. The point is whether it is relevant. Of course, we have lists like List of Muslim actors, etc. If these lists justify the presence of List of famous Nairs, we should debate the relevance of the policy WP:NOT ("having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic"). I think that should be one of the criteria for a list and we can start the deletions at List of famous Nairs as it serves no purpose other than being a breeding ground for many non-notable, unverifiable and often fictitious Nair “biographies”. This may not be applicable to lists like List of Muslim scientists which is related to Islamic science or list of members of a community / cast who contributed something to the “cast cause” or identified with that cast.Clt13 07:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I am certain none of these people were famous for being Nairs or whatever. Caste identities of people have been banned by law and hence this list should be deleted- Manu

Banned!!. The Union Ministers still have their caste name behind them Doctor BrunoTalk 01:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The concept is sound as per the List of Muslim actors, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, etc. However, it needs serious NPOV'ing, cleaning-up, and verification. Whether these people have denounced their caste origins or not - that is irrelevant. It is simply a list. I am not sure about serving to "further" casteist agendas or whatever. At the very least, it is a list of people. I would have said Keep had the article been better written. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്)

• Comment: I do not think that the comparisons given are appropriate. A list of famous caste members contributes to the perpetuation of racism and discrimination, but a list of Muslim actors does not. A person's caste should not even be mentioned in an article unless there is a reason to, such as experiencing discrimination that shaped the person's life. Wikipedia should not help, in any way or any amount, to preserve the idea that some people are better than others due to the caste they are born into. I think that part of the lack of objection to the list is that people would probably not mind being included on a list of Nairs very much, whereas being on a list of untouchables would probably be undesirable to many people. However, if we do not have a list of untouchables because it is undesirable and racist, we should not have lists of higher castes. -- Kjkolb 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I do think the comparison is appropriate. Having a list of Nairs doesn't do anything to further "racism" or "discrimination". There is "racism" and "discrimination" on the basis of religion alone in many places. Being a member of a caste doesn't automatically mean you stand for discrimination or racism on that basis. I am a Nair, and I am proud of the heritage and culture behind that fact. I also acknowledge the various excesses and illogic behind caste rules and needless to say I think they are stupid. So how am I furthering "discrimination"? Identifying yourself or identifying someone as being from a caste is just that - identification. There is no agenda. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്) 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep- the article is very informative. giving informations on any subject under the sun is the increases the relevance and scope of an encyclopedia. Some editing may be needed. then do it. Actually i'm a Christian. But i can tolerate and respect other Castes and creeds.. Add more and more informations in wikipedia. Rosalinta 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to have details of the spouses and offspring and pets and pet peeves of these famous people, as well? Kuntan 08:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment As I mentioned above, it is tough to maintain this article because of the many unimportant and unverified entries and too many drive-by editors (See Edit history). Can any of the people who voted to save the article volunteer to keep it clean ? I hope the responsibility doesn't end with the vote. Tintin (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This debate would become very constructive, if the participants base the arguments on wikipedia policies. We are not making any value judgments or taking moral stand points. The aim is to discuss whether this list is acceptable as an article in wikipedia, wikipedia policies regarding this and also practical considerations in implementing them. Arguments like "giving informations on any subject under the sun is the increases the relevance and scope of an encyclopedia." are in fact against the policies. See WP:NOT(Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information)Clt13 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep but rename to "List of Nairs".Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep- Most of the persons got enlisted in the list of famous Nairs have incomparable contributions to the social life. Political leader Jaya Jaitly is the nephew of C.Sankaran Nair. (How many of us know that the National level leader and former M.P Jaya Jaitly is a Malayali...?). It was new information to me which I recieved from Nairs List. I have just picked a sample of valuable information. Many freedom Fighters and social reformers are enlisted in the list of famous Nairs. Are they not famous enough...? The next generation will tell that Gandhiji is not famous enough as model John Abraham or Aiswarya Rai. Somebody may ask who is Mannathu Padmanabhan...? I know only Sreesanth and Munaf Patel! Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is precisely the point. Most of us know Jaya Jaitly (she is notable and so there should be a page on her) but not as a Nair, not as some one born at a particular hour of day, not as some one who keeps a particular pet, not as some one who frequents this particular restaurant, not as some one whose house number starts with *, etc. All such lists are irrelevant.Clt13 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep- This item is much relevant in the present context.Several novel information which are not known to many can be made open for the generation.Parayanali 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, appears to be little more than an original research essay. Cyde Weys 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-European sentiment in various countries

This article is confused and has no sources. It aims to discuss the phenomenon of Anti-Europeanism in specific countries. But then confesses that the definition is still up for debate. Having never heard of the context of the term, (anti-European refers to opposition to the EU as far as I know) and am provided with no sources to convince me that it is a term worthy of an encyclopedia, I see no reason for the article. The only example offered after 6 months is Iran - the article states "As in many other religious countries, Anti-Europeanism in Iran raises from the perception that Europe is too liberal." - what? according to whom? Zleitzen 10:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the title too unspecific for an encyclopaedia and there is virtually no content. Further, what content there is consists of a single unsubstantiated assertion. BTLizard 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 17:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deleteandmayberedirect. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

This article has been here since March 2006, with an additional few deleted entries dating back to 2004. Considering that it has been on Wikipedia for 2 years without being properly referenced by a reliable source, I have an inclination that this word is simply made up, and at best a "neologism" of some sort. Delete HappyCamper 10:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is a standardized word and an actual fear, although it may have been created originally as a joke. I just now added a few citable sources to prove that. I was in the middle of clearing the article up, although it is really hard to do it reliably, seeing that most take the word for a joke. A large problem with the page is that someone removed the contents' box, so that makes it even harder to clarify. I say Keep [The Definition] [A self help page] [Another self help page] www.cafepress.com/fearsandphobias/636025 A T-Shirt company on it [This definition has etymology, but it's hard to tell if it was copied from wiktionary or vice versa]--MrRandomGuy 10:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think those are particularly reliable sources. For example, operational definitions are given, but there is no etymology provided for the word. --HappyCamper 11:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary Delete Fine, it's not a made-up word. Still doesn't belong here. — NMChico24 10:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why's that? It may not be the best article in the wiki, but that's just because nobody's gotten around to fixing it. According to the wikipedia guidelines, articles doesn't need to be deleted if "it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship." I agree, it needs to be cited more, but that falls under the third point. --MrRandomGuy 10:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment has nothing to do with the merit of the article, good or bad. It's because Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. ColourBurst 18:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. MER-C 12:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wiktionary has had hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia since 2002, four years before this article was even created. Please don't use the transwikification system as a means for avoiding properly addressing problem Wikipedia articles, and please check Wiktionary first before nominating something for transwikification. There is a prominent interwiki link to the Wiktionary article right at the top of this one. Uncle G 14:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the tip, but you could be a little less stern with your suggestions. There is a such thing as wikiquette, you know? Might want to reread that guideline. Cheers! — NMChico24 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD, and don't bother transwiki-ing per Uncle G. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:WINAD and Transwikifications. Daniel's page ☎ 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• im got a part of the wiki group or even that familiar about the site exept for a couple of school projects that ive done but thers a site called www.phobialist.com and its legitimate and everything its on ther if u wanna check it out and its not a joke u can delete this if u want just saying check out the site =)
• I've added more on. It no longer reads as a dictionary entry as far as I know. It's as relevant as acrophobia or any other fear; just because it's harder to research and lesser known is no reason to delete it.--A random guy named Jordan L. 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also, I find it odd that I am unable to locate any reliable print sources for this term. --Hetar 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. We should have an article on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think WP:WINAD applies here as this article is clearly not just a dictionary definition. There is, however a dicdef version of this article at Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. --KFP 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• REDIRECT to -phob-. The article has a brief entry for a verison of this word under the heading "Joke phobias". There are several versioons of this word. It certainly gained some attention as joke, bot no more than that. `'mikka (t) 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't redirect. Per above, oh and I can't really see anyone searching for this word so no reason to redirect it. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wine advertisement. Recury 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, appears to be some hoax or otherwise unverifiable activity. Cyde Weys 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twisting the Cow

The 'verify' tag has now been on the entry for more than a year, and no references have been added. Every one of the references either goes back to the 'Horrible histories' book, or is effectively identical to the account in that book: either they all go back to that book, or some of them come from the same source as that book. If somebody can identify that source, the article may be verifiable; but otherwise I suggest it is unverifiable and should be deleted. ColinFine 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's about time. --Haakon 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as both above Nigel ^(Talk) 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ohh no, hoax which has been around long enough to work its way into google. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, until it can be shown a hoax. It's in a book called Bloody Scotland. Via the magic of Lexis, an article in the Scottish Daily Record on June 15, 1998, opened thus:

:A new children's history book that tells how Scots used to pull the legs of dead cows was under attack yesterday. Bloody Scotland, by Englishman Terry Deary, says "twisting the cow" was popular at the Invergarry Games in 1820.

Pan Dan 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. See also article Cow tipping and complaint from Uncyclopedia that WP steals their bussiness. Pavel Vozenilek 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw my keep vote as I now understand the nom's reference to "Horrible histories" is the same as the book I cited. And upon reflection, one source, which is a children's book, is not enough for verification. Pan Dan 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Rae Trueman

Because the case is currently before the court, the family respectfully requested that this case maintain a low profile so that it doesn't go against Kelly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenelo (talk • contribs)

Note: To prevent the matter of contention from being picked up in forks, I've stubified the article. Here's a link to the version before I stubified it: pre-stubbing Andjam 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Wikipedia is not here to aid a legal defence nor do families have such right to censorship of public information. The article on the Bali Nine was created 5 days after their arrest. I fail to see see how this event is any different (apart from the progress of the case). Best wishes to the families involved, and no harm intended, but information in the public arena is now public. Some exposure may very well save her arse. -- Longhair 12:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not for the reason given by the nominator but because these drug smuggling cases are very frequent and there's no evidence provided yet that this person is individually notable (unlike, say, Chapelle Corby). --kingboyk 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Difference between Corby and Trueman (at the time of article creation) = media exposure -- Longhair 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Experts in the media should have a say in how notable a person is. Andjam 12:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for a lack of notability on the part of the girl. A tragic case regardless of the outcome, and if the media end up picking up on it it will quite possibly merit inclusion regardless of the feelings of the family on the matter. Currently, though, the interests of notability and those of the family coincide. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I should probably add that I'm an Australian and follow the news closely. This was the first time I'd heard this name, which is either proof of non-notability or proof that the family have done a good job of hushing it up so far. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Although Longhair's by the book approach is admirable I sincerely believe that someone's life is more important than that. The article should be put back only once the court has stated on her case. Maybe having such a detailed account of the Bali Nine so early was also a bad thing, but with Australian medias already battering about them it was hard for Wikipedia to ignore it.Kenelo 12:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no google news hits, so not very notable. If we don't hear about her from mainstream Australian media, we shouldn't hear about her here. If she gains enough media coverage, then whether or not she has a wikipedia entry won't be a problem any more. Also, might contravene policy discouraging autobiographies. Andjam 12:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, but check it out again in a couple weeks. — Werdna talk criticism 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Partly out of concern, but mostly because she just doesn't seem notable. Google hits of any kind are quite low[13] and it doesn't seem to amount to much in the news.--T. Anthony 15:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case I feel I should add that I don't always go by Google counts. If someone died before 1960 or lived in a nation with minimal Internet access, like say Niger, I usually don't go by that alone. However being Australian I think if she were notable something more would've popped up.--T. Anthony 15:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If deletion is requested for this kind of thing, this should be done with Danny or Jimbo, not by filing an AFD. Molerat 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Although I was at first inclined to agree with Werdna, I realized that the amount of hashish Kelly Rae Trueman had could be sold for $50,000, a mere amount compared to the 3+ million that could be made from the heroin smuggled by the Bali Nine. However, this could lead to something bigger, but I really doubt it. --Nishkid64 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, nn alleged criminal. If this blows up in the media a la Corby and the "Bali Nine", then recreate. Lankiveil 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC).
• While I feel sorry for her and her family, there are no Google News hits [14] and nothing on Google News archive [15]. This seems unverifiable as it stands. Capitalistroadster 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability, not in any way because it was aked to be removedCriptofcorbin 07:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions -- Longhair 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andjam and Capitalistroadster.--cj | talk 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepWeak Delete - Simply because it has been requested that it be deleted does not make it deletable (note that we still have Daniel Brandt's article), and wikipedia is not censored. And I encourage people to watchlist the article to be sure it stays neutral and cannot thus swing the case either way. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Being requested doesn't make it notable either. Are you finding things notable about her I didn't? The Bali Nine were to get life or even death. I don't see why just any Australian getting ten years in India is notable, explain.--T. Anthony 11:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the subject has been written about by mainstream media, and Schapelle Corby ended up with 20 years IIRC, but I have changed my vote to weak delete because of a note in WP:BIO that states that multiple media companies writing about a news event only count as 1 (thus not multiple not trivial published works). Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - in a poor attempt to keep the whole "legal-terminology-thing" going here, it would set a precident for people like Brandt to have their articles deleted by pure wish. If Wikipedia was based on what people wished for, and not on the underlying policies, imagine how some articles on Wikipedia would read - POV-like. We cannot comprimise the encyclopaedia because of the subject's wishes - thats called vanity. And if you think that this is non-notable, maybe you should see all the other articles without even a single source - I reckon this would beat 25% of Wikipedia articles purely because it has a news source. I also agree with Longhar that "Wikipedia is not here to aid a legal defence nor do families have such right to censorship of public information". It goes against Wikiphilosophy. Daniel.Bryant 03:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- there is already precedent against deleting an article due to the subject's wish. Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley have both had their requests respectfully denied. - CheNuevara 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. We don't want to overturn that, nor do we wish to set a new precident allowing these people to claim this. Daniel.Bryant 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete BigHaz has summed it up perfectly. Ohconfucius 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the fact that the family's wishes are not a valid reason for deletion does not mean that the article should be kept. No evidence of notability. JPD (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note Jimbo Wales has noted in an unrelated AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination)) that you shouldn't keep an article just because the person asked for deletion. Most of the keep people haven't argued that the article's subject is notable. Andjam 10:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An event that is, at present, of itself not notable, and unless the case becomes huge (eg. media attention, or Aus. govt. clemency appeals) then it will not warrant an entry. Howver, a bad faith nomination based on the anon's reasoning in my view. Harro5 11:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be too harsh on someone new to wikipedia. Andjam 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet BIO criteria.--Peta 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Rebecca 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a not notable alleged criminal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin powell-davies

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. MER-C 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• The guidelines mention "newsworthy". There are 468 references on Google, including numerous news items. The subject is certainly better known in education circles than many college professors - another criterion.

Here are just 4:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1185807,00.html http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1755739,00.html http://www.offensief.demon.nl/oud/martinpowell.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990406/ai_n14224554 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekmcmillan (talk • contribs) _{(This is the creator of the article)}

• Delete. 468 G-hits isn't a lot, especially if half of those hits are coming from his own election website. This guy didn't win the election (last place), and in only one of the links you listed (which isn't even a news website) is he the main subject of the article. In the other three links you provided, he's just only briefly mentioned, which to my reasoning is not what I would exactly call "newsworthy". Also, this article is linked to no other articles on Wikipedia. (besides AfD live feeds on other people's user pages)--Nishkid64 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Many people have run for office and do not warrant a Wikipedia article. He has done nothing notable deserving this entry. - Triviaa 19:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and above Bwithh 01:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Joelito (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Paul Floru

Disputed prod. Autobiography. I think he falls just below our notability threshold. -- RHaworth 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of entries in the Wikipedia which have been accepted and which are very similar in nature. If anything should be deleted it is RHaworth's entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpfloru (talk • contribs)

• • Don't think RHaworth has an entry - only a user page, which is something quite different. The Golux 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Political activity sounds notable. Elected local councillor as well: someone went round creating stub pages on all the councillors in Manchester, or was it Liverpool, and they haven't been deleted. But no autobiography please, tag for cleanup and verification. The Golux 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Elected as councillor in a small borough of London. Also, no personal attacks, Golux. --Nishkid64 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't see where I made any! The Golux 17:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Totally sorry about that. Apology made on your user page, Golux. --Nishkid64 20:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. ColinFine 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the nominator's arguments. Recently (May 4, 06) elected to WCC, not an insignificant London borough. I'd definitely vote keep if he was WCC leader, but don't think he has really made his mark yet. 60 unique/248 Ghits, most of which are his own sites, or westminster conservatives, Freedom alliance sites, or blog entries Ohconfucius 04:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. Stubbleboy 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note Also nominated for deletion is Freedom Week, which was created by the same editor. Stubbleboy 01:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no independent reviews. More like an ad for his seminars. Bridgeplayer 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I obviously know Jean-Paul Floru, because he and I are both Westminster City Councillors, and in fact he is my local councillor since I live in Hyde Park Ward (though I don't think I'm breaking any news to announce that I did not favour him with my vote in May). The article is clearly autobiographical and needs checking. As far as notability of councillors goes, AfD decisions have been inconsistent. Individual councillors have been deleted, but a mass nomination of useless substubs on Manchester City Councillors (which was my idea) resulted in a keep. Here we have a subject whose notability is not just from being a councillor but also from political and artistic activity. I would myself err on the side of keep. I would also say that Westminster is a small borough, but it tends to be a lot more notable than similar sized boroughs because it covers central London: Westminster councillors are probably more likely to be notable than those from rural districts. David | Talk 11:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Menkin

Hmmm...biography with no assertion of notability other than that he spoke on the radio once (how many people have done that?). I would like to try to keep this neutral, but perhaps the fact that this person is the "inventor" of a "thought screen helmet" designed to stop "alien mind control" and curtail abductions deserves mention. But at any rate, this fails notability, verifiability, etc., etc., etc. Byrgenwulf 12:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- Actually... it doesn't fail either notability or verifiability. He gets 1000 hits on Google, is the son of the man who invented Captain Video has been interviewed numerous times onine, in publications and on radio and we can see photographs and people claiming that it works. This proves notability and verifiability. Just because it is an odd topic, granted, doesn't mean that it should be removed. What of all the porn people listed on Wikipedia? Are these people really worthy of encyclopedia articles? This is a keeper! Dwain 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Michael Menkin" gets 390 hits on Google, only 196 of which are marked as original. Several of these hits also are to different people named "Michael Menkin". This is a far cry from your claimed thousand. Also, what his father did is irrelevant to his notability (and his father doesn't even have a page). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually using just "Michael Menkin" and alien he gets 986 hits. Google Just using his name alone gets over 1200, meaning that the majority of Michael Menkins online are most likely the alien hat guy! Dwain 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, had it to show only English results. That said, the results are not actually that impressive. My own name gets one-tenth of what Michael Menkin gets (probably half of which are actually for me). If I used my real name more often online, it would be far greater. But does this make me notable? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha...delete (is this a hoax?)--Nobunaga24 14:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not a hoax. At least, the guy really exists and he really makes those claims. I don't know if his helmets actually work, though. :) Zagalejo 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability except having been interviewed on radio. His father might be notable, that does not make him notable. --Storkk 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and my comments above. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I've heard of this guy, actually. Appearing on Coast to Coast AM does carry some weight, as the show is very widley broadcast and claims to be "America's most listened to late night talk show". There are also 1,460 google hits for "aliensandchildren.org" - not that great, but perhaps larger than one might suspect. It's definitely a memorable website for anyone who's seen it. Zagalejo 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think that the relevant clause of WP:BIO should be interpreted as "anybody that has been interviewed". This is a weak opinion of mine. To interview somebody is vastly less notable than to have a real article on them. Hell, I've been interviewed numerous times on radio shows. I'd be the first one to put a {{db-bio}} tag on an article about myself. Also, the only reason that Menkin has been so extensively interviewed (without a non-interview article) is that he is so bizarre. Do we need an article on other tabloid headlines, like Devil Defecates on Cactus... and Sits Down ? --Storkk 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're just modest... :). I understand that interviewees are not inherently notable, but Coast to Coast AM has a very large (4.5 million people) and obsessive fanbase, and appearing as a featured guest is like a major league at-bat for any proponent of weird ideas. The guestlist on the website is basically a who's-who of conspiracy theorists, ufologists, cryptozoologists, pyschics, etc.

If we're not going to keep it as a separate article, though, may I propose merging it with tin-foil hat? At the heart of it, I guess I just don't like to see these quirky subjects get deleted, and I hope the information can find a home somewhere. Zagalejo 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment According to Lexis-Nexis, he's also received coverage in New Scientist (October 28, 2003) and The Toronto Sun (June 27, 2004). Zagalejo 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion of the value of New Scientist articles decreases with every day. However, I doubt they would stoop quite that low. Byrgenwulf 19:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • They weren't promoting him; this is what they said:

"WE ARE glad to have discovered a website with some really useful information. At www.stopabductions.com/main.htm you can find full instructions on how to make a "thought screen helmet" that "blocks telepathic communication between aliens and human beings".

Invented by someone called Michael Menkin in 1998, the helmet uses "Velostat" shielding, and is apparently easy to make if you follow the instructions. "Aliens," we are told, "cannot immobilise people wearing thought screens nor can they control their minds or communicate with them."

This is very good news, but can we be sure it works? According to one Jon Locke, whose picture (plus helmet) appears on the site, there is no doubt. "Since trying Michael Menkin's helmet, I have not been bothered by alien mind control," he says. "Now my thoughts are my own."

And there's further proof: "Since January 2000, aliens have not taken any abductees while they were wearing thought screen helmets using Velostat shielding."

Pretty convincing -- except that Feedback, who does not wear a thought screen helmet, hasn't been abducted by aliens since January 2000 either. But perhaps there's another reason for this that we are not yet aware of."

If you don't have access to Lexis-Nexis or the actual publications, you'll just have to trust me on this one. I may not be the best editor here, but all of my edits have been made with the best intentions. I've never tried to spread falsehoods. Zagalejo 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant hoax, as opposed to what Zagalego says.Drahcir^{my talk} 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, wait a minute... I'm not saying his helmet actually works, I'm saying that this guy actually exists, and that he actually makes these claims. Click on the links and do some research; there is verifiable info about this guy. And assume good faith, please; I'm not trying to pull a fast one here. Zagalejo 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Keeping aliens from reading your thoughts sounds like something that would be more appropriately controlled with antipsychotic medication than with a helmet of any sort. Essentially this guy is "notable" because he created a helmet to stop supposed aliens from supposedly reading people's thoughts, or abducting them. It's a bit like being notable for stopping Zeus from turning someone into a chimera. Edhubbard 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if his helmet actually works; the important issue is whether he's received enough attention for his claims. Zagalejo 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• He hasn't, though. A brief mention in a couple sources saying someone's a kook isn't notability. For instance, if this guy was a musician he wouldn't even come close to notability for these mentions, so why is he notable because he's made a tin-foil hat? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, good -- these are the kinds of arguments people should be using. Although, interestingly, WP:MUSIC says that someone is notable if he/she/they " [have] been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network". Coast to Coast AM is a nationally-broadcast radio show with over 500 affiliates, apparently the most popular American program in its time-slot, and this says that Menkin was a guest for the first half-hour of their June 20th, 2005 broadcast. Zagalejo 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but that deals with musicians, bands, and the like (for whom being on the radio is actually significant). WP:BIO is, in my humble opinion, not met for Menkin. --Storkk 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• One last hurrah For what its worth, I've found additional mentions of this guy and/or his product in the following publications (via Factiva):
  • Sydney Morning Herald (15 Feburary 2003)
  • Herald Sun (6 August 2000)
  • The Standard (Hong Kong) (31 May 2005)
  • The Journal (Newcastle) (18 November 2004)
  • New Zealand Herald (6 June 2003)
  • The Nation (Thailand) (3 February 2003)
  • The Daily Mirror (Britain) (3 January 2003)

Basically, this guy has made news on 4 continents. At the very least, we should merge the page somewhere, perhaps to tin-foil hat. Zagalejo 18:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great work finding all those newspaper articles! Dwain 18:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, indeed. Especially considering that some of the publications in question don't seem to remember having published anything on this chap...for example, the Herald Sun, which according to Zagalejo ran a piece on Menkin last month, has no entries whatsoever in its online archive [16]. Similarly for the other publications I bothered checking. Sorry, Zagalejo. Byrgenwulf 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please.  :( I used a few other search terms besides "Michael Menkin"; for example, the Herald Sun article called him "Mike Menkin": Here's an excerpt:

SICK of being abducted by aliens just as you're settling down to watch Ricki Lake? Tired of those ugly damned creatures poking your liver and extracting seed from your gonads?

Sounds to us like you need the Thought Screen Helmet.

It's an ingenious device that American Mike Menkin says may help people who have been abducted by aliens. Not to mention those who would like to avoid the experience altogether.

Menkin, of Bellevue, a plush suburb of Seattle - and incidentally only an Apple Mac's throw from the palatial home of Bill Gates - says it works by blocking alien telepathy and mind control.

"My device consists of a leather helmet lined with layers of special conductive plastic, the same material used to prevent static electricity damage to printed circuit boards," he explains.

"When worn over the head, I believe the device may insulate an abductee from alien telepathic control.

"Its function is not proven, I realise, but a shield for blocking alien telepathic control is worth trying......"

And it goes on like that. I don't think I should copy the entire article. I also used "thought screen helmet" to find some of the hits.

Addendum: I just noticed that there was a typo on my part; the Herald Sun article was published in Augst 2000. Zagalejo 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Herald Sun's online archive goes back to 1990, apparently, and I searched simply for "Menkin", which means that even if they ran an article on an egg salesman named "John Menkin" something should have come up...but nothing did. I also searched The Daily Mirror, The Standard, the New Zealand Herald, and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Now, to be charitable, we could say it might just be that the newspapers themselves don't put minor, humorous back-page sort of stories on their websites. But, if this is the case, then is this guy really notable? If in retrospect his story is not one that newspapers consider important enough to put on their sites, then should Wikipedia be bothering with him.

Look, I understand the humour here. Hell, I have been chuckling about the guy all weekend. But, Wikipedia is not a hall of fame for cranks and loonies. It is an encyclopaedia. This chap is simply not a candidate for an encyclopaedic biography. While tin-foil hats, as a pop culture phenomenon, probably deserve mention, his particular brand of them (made of Velostat, not tin-foil), is in all likelihood not notable enough to be mentioned either. Byrgenwulf 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a subscription to the archives? The free search -for the Herald Sun, and most newspapers actually - is limited to articles from the last thirty days. In any case, the articles do appear on Factiva. I invite anyone with access to Factiva to run searches for "Michael Menkin," "Mike Menkin", and "thought screen helmet" (individually, not in combination with each other). All of the above articles should show up. Zagalejo 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose: I don't have a subscription to the Herald Sun (why would I?)...one simply cannot be too careful, especially when dealing with a subject like this, which is apt to attract the certifiably insane; my sincere apologies for any undue insult I may have caused, Zagalejo. Nonetheless, whether or not Menkin has had a few tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-disparaging newspaper articles about him, I still maintain that that is insufficient to meet criteria of notability. I would not be averse to a (brief) mention of the "thought screen helmet" in the tin-foil hat article, either (I also enjoy the idiosyncratic humour behind this whole thing) - I just don't think that someone who makes Velostat hats to stop people being "abducted by aliens" merits a biography in an encyclopaedia. Byrgenwulf 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think that's a fair objection. Really, my vote was only a "weak" keep to begin with, and I'm suprised I got so caught up in this discussion. :) No worries, Zagalejo 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the article is essentially three paragraphs long, and the only "notable" contribution Menkin has made is in the context of the Tin-foil hat perhaps the content in this article would be best merged with that entry. Then, the "contributions" and the appropriate value of this invention and its inventor are all integrated, with some appropriate caveats. However, I still feel that the current inventor is not noteworthy enough to have his own bio page, so my vote is still for delete as per nom. Edhubbard 23:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as joke ;-) Someone crackpot enough to have been picked up by newspapers around the world. Judgement on whether to keep or not would really depend on the articles. News agencies often syndicate human-interest or light-hearted articles for the amusement of worldwide readers, and I suspect most of them on meakin would have been tongue-in-cheek (ie trivial) articles, though, and would more likely than not count as one coverage per WP:BIO. I would support merge to Tin-foil hat and redirect. Ohconfucius 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, almost all of the articles are tongue-in-cheek, but, FWIW, the Factiva hits were all unique articles. They were written by different people, as far as I can tell. I'd be perfectly content with a merge, though. Zagalejo 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, with Tin foil hat. Jefffire 10:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps two sentences or thereabouts could go in tin foil hat; I don't believe that's substantial enough to call a "merge". Junk food news spouted during the silly season doesn't automatically count towards "notability" in my book. Anville 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep and do not merge please there is enough non-trivial coverage for bio guidelines Yuckfoo 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Tin-foil hat?

• Proposal: Judging by the above, we seem to be approaching a consensus that we should merge what is useful here into Tin-foil hat. To satisfy those who voted for delete this would probably have to occur relatively quickly, but then at least the material that is important to those who voted keep would be kept in some format on wikipedia. What I wouldn't want is for this to start all over for the merge discussion. Is it possible to reach an agreement here without retagging? (vote by putting a # and then your signature with four tildes ~~~~) Edhubbard 07:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think something like this could be merged into the article?

Individuals who believe they have been abducted by aliens occassionally use variants of the tin-foil hat to assuage their anxiety. Since 1998, for example, American UFO researcher Michael Menkin has widely promoted his homemade "thought screen helmets" as a means of blocking mental communication between humans and extraterrestrials. The helmets are made of 3M Velostat, and Menkin has posted assembly instructions at his website, stopabductions.com^[1].

The unusual invention has made Menkin a target of tongue-in-cheek newspaper and magazine articles throughout the world ^[2][3]. Thane Burnett of the Toronto Sun remarked, "His thought screen helmet isn't the only thing which confounds aliens. They apparently haven't learned to use a phone directory, which is how I tracked Menkin. But when they do come for him, they won't get Michael Menkin's mind" ^[4]. Among his supporters, however, is the paranormal-themed radio talk show Coast to Coast AM, who featured Menkin as a serious guest on June 25, 2005^[5].

I think this is perfect. It includes some mention of Menkin's appearances in the media (both positive and negative, with statistical weight towards the tongue in cheek), is relevant and could flow nicely into the tin-foil hat entry. It seems appropriately encyclopedic, and NPOV. Nice job. I have one quibbble over one word choice, which is "target" in the phrase "has made Menking a target of..." Edhubbard 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about, "Because of his unusual invention, Menkin has become the subject of tongue-and-cheek tongue-in-cheek newspaper and magazine articles throughout the world"? And, looking back on it, I could probably chop off the last four words of the first sentence, since I would assume that would be obvious within the context of the article. Zagalejo 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent). I think subject is better than target, and agree that there are some things that would be clearer in the context of the article. I think tongue-in-cheek is the standard phrase over tongue-and-cheek. But these are tiny details. I think that this is quite good now, and all we need is to see if the other editors who have been voting on this are pretty much in agreement, and we can go ahead and do this... Indeed, you could probably add the text you've suggested to tin-foil hat now, and then we can just see if others are in agreement to close the AfD and delete. Perhaps we give it another day, since the AfD has been pretty active? Edhubbard 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, tongue-and-cheek was a typo. :) Zagalejo 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll merge the text into tin-foil hat now; if people object, I can always take it out. Zagalejo 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In favor of merge:

1. Edhubbard 07:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
2. At this point, I don't think it has much of a chance as an individual article, but I don't want to get rid of the information entirely. Zagalejo 14:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Good work on the paragraph above - it will make a delightful addition to tin-foil hats, indeed. Byrgenwulf 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
4. I'd prefer to delete (as per my comments above), but I suppose merge is ok with me too. Again, I stand by my opinion above, but since this isn't a vote, I'll say that I don't find this proposal too unreasonable. The reason I'm not very gung ho about merging is that crackpots and quacks always have some article that they could be merged into. Just in this case though, it's an article that might fit. --Storkk 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposed to merge (keep):

Opposed to merge (delete):

[edit] Close debate?

I am assuming, since there haven't been any votes recently, that we can close this AfD, with a final decision of deleting the article. The material that Zagalejo wanted to salvage has been moved into Tin-foil hat, so there's no reason to keep this article. If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll close the debate, and we can have this article deleted. Edhubbard 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Burg

POV advertisement for a non-notable amateur video production. ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Hello32020 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ad.--Drahcir^{my talk} 19:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Orsini 01:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Peter Shearan 15:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject doesn't meet criteria in WP:CORP, and it has no independent non-trivial publications to verify it.--Wafulz 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. No real consensus to merge, but that's not a concern of afd anyway. If someone wants to merge, no one stops it (at least based on this afd). - Bobet 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum controversy

The article makes sweeping POV statements that tend to condemn what Santorum said. The controversy is not any more noteworthy than incidents by, among others, Howard Dean, George Allen, and Joseph Biden, who each have their controversies described in the text of their biographies. A nearly identical summary exists in Santorum's biography, which should be sufficient to discuss the controversy. On account of it being a redunant entry, a biased article, and lacking meaningful support (for instance, the "defense of remarks" section is largely ad hoc), coupled with the fact that it's not any more noteworthy than similarly-situated controversies, it should be deleted. The incident will still remain in the official Rick Santorum page. Zz414 13:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom, gratuitous and redundant with coverage in Rick Santorum#Remarks about homosexuality. Pan Dan 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see the POV here, the article covers both sides. Perfectly valid content branch, the entry at Rick Santorum can be pruned, the article is already 53kb long. I'd like to see some more sources though. ~ trialsanderrors 18:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to Santorum's page. This is an obvious POV fork.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Rick Santorum. Taking a minor controversy and creating an article out of it is blowing the issue out of proportion. If this issue becomes another Watergate, then I'll reconsider. --physicq210 22:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per trialsanderrors. This is an article surrounding statements made to the AP, and political fallout and public reaction. But it does need to be renamed specifically to what the controversy is. Maybe "Santorum controversy on homosexuality" or something like it. It needs to be expanded and wikified. It is a CONTENT FORK NOT A POV FORK. The main article touches on the subject, this article goes into detail. Arbusto 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to the Santorum page or outright delete it since it is already contained on the Santorum page.Bagginator 06:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to Santorum page. Will inevitably be used for POV pushing purposes as a seperate article.--Jersey Devil 07:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge No more notable than Lott's career-jeopardizing praise of Strom Thurmond a few years back...shouldn't get more than a mention in his bio. —ExplorerCDT 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the info would be too unwieldly to put into the main Rick Santorum article plus there are several facets of the controversy that are intrinsic to the controversy but not neccessary to the article about the Senator. For instance, the coining of Santorum (sexual slang) was directly related to the controversy and not really the Senator himself. Reference to that in Senator's main article is inappropriate but it fits perfectly in context of the controversy. Agne 00:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think the popularity of the "santorum" slang term bestows notability upon the controversy that spawned it. I also don't buy that this is a mere content fork. It isn't even the only controversy the dude's been involved in! I won't assume whoever split this off from the main article had political motivations, especially because this may have been a bigger news item three years ago, but having a separate article now gives undue weight to the events comparatively.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the brunt of contention is the notability of what happened. It was distinctly notability with a firestorm of attention. Looking at the discussion above, the vast majority deems the content worthy of inclusion but in what format? As its own article or merged with the main Senator's page.Agne 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"It was distinctly notability with a firestorm of attention." But any more so than incidents of Biden, Dean, or Allen? I mean, even Dean Scream redirects to Howard Dean's main page, and that certainly had far broader political and cultural implications than this incident. I just think it's as notable as any other political controversy, but doesn't warrant its own page. It's on Santorum's page under "controversy," and that's enough.

Clearly it was notable; but how notable? I don't think it's enough to warrant its own separate article, especially at this point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per my man Arbusto. There is a strong possibility that this ordeal will be the longest lasting memory of the good senator (by both the anti-Gay right that lionized him as a hero for his stance and the left who villianized). Seriously, when you think of Santorum what comes to mind first? Any legislation he proposed or his "man on dog" comment? That is lasting notability that has a better chance of surviving the 100 year test then anything else the man has done. 205.157.110.11 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already above. VJ Emsi 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that it would be too unweildly to merge, and if merged, it's likely to become another firestorm of casual neocon POV editwars. With the article seperated, both "factions" can be pleased, and, more importantly than partisan politics, more information can be made available to the researcher. The arguments to delete or merge all seem to fall under the "well, here's an example, and here's an example, and if this example, and this example, then therefore" fallacy, which I believe contradicts official Wikipedia policy. --70.108.116.231 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I really fail to understand how this event is any more significant than incidents of Biden, Dean, or Allen? Even Dean Scream redirects to Howard Dean's main page. If you can convince me that this controversy is more significant than the Dean Scream, you've convinced me to keep the article. The fact that even the plethora of incidents related to the Dean Scream make it under Dean's main article, however, suggests that it won't be too unwieldy.

To counter this question (this is likely not the Way of Wiki, but humor me): How is this any less important than the Nobel Prize controversies, the Londonderry / Derry naming controversy, Controversy_over_Cantor's_theory, or anything else in the Controversy page? I have not yet read the Dean article - this I will freely admit - however, off the cuff, I could say that a senator's ten second outburst on television is slightly different than a senator being completely biased against homosexuals. It's a deeper issue, for starters - while there's plenty of sociopolitical commentary that could be had on whether or not Dean's Scream "should" have been more tolerated or less reported than it was, it's not fitting for a Wiki article. This, on the other hand, is more than "Santorum stated in a conversation that he is against homosexual acts, though not homosexuals, and doesn't feel the right of privacy applies to them" - or rather, it should be more than that, as anything less would be merely inflammatory. Even that inflammatory, provacative, unsourced / unqualified statement takes more words to summarize than Dean's ten seconds of fame in 2003.

Also, being that this is a relatively current event, sheer information abundance (not to be confused with information overload) may contribute to the size factor in comparison to Joe Biden - slap a ^{[citation needed]} tag or two on an article from an event in 1988, and you can hear the sound of Wikipedians one by one resigning themselves to a shorter article, rather than spending a day in a library with suitable historic archives.

Allow me to also make it clear that I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican, nor even a practicing homosexual (though, like many others, I have been called "gay" on the internet). I'm just a random surfer who has come to this page via the aforementioned Controversy page. --70.108.116.231 15:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I only use the "Dean Scream" as a point of comparsion. Yes, it was 10 seconds, but it's considered the singular issue that resulted in Dean's loss by many, and it was widely mimicked and imitated in television and Internet culture. I'm not saying that Santorum's position on this issue isn't significant. But Marilyn Musgrave is also opposed to homosexual conduct, as are many other conservative members of Congress. His remarks on homosexuality are no more significant than, say an article identifying a "Barney Frank controversy" simply because he's a homosexual and in the significant minority of Congress. It seems entirely POV fork to insist that a candidate significantly opposed to homosexual acts is a "deeper issue," but other issues, like incidents of racial slurs (Allen), plagiarism (Biden), or religiously-bigoted comments (Dean) are not "deeper issues."

As for Cantor's theory, genuine scientific debate over a scientific matter is entirely different than a "controversial" political position. While there's debate in science about whether a theory or hypothesis is sound or not, in politics we accept that different politicians have different positions. There's controversy, sure, but we shouldn't designate controversial homosexual opinions more weighty than others. This article can easily be condensed with a few footnotes to relevant articles and merged with the main article.

• Keep per trialsanderrors and Arbusto, the article needs a trimming and there's no POV issue. --WikiSlasher 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to above commenters who don't see a POV issue. Conceding for the sake of argument that the content of this article is perfectly NPOV, the article itself is still a POV fork of Rick Santorum. Pan Dan 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carsten Haitzler

Non-notable THB 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Tarret 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep. Rasterman is well known by *nix users and throws up a lot of googe hits (although many tend to be forum and mailing list entries). Article would need more content than his enlightenment contribution, however, otherwise this is simply covered in the enlightenment article. --Bcsr4ever 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"a lot"? Assuming there's only one Carsten Haitzler, he has some 53,200 hits.--Chealer 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was more that Rasterman (who is well known in the *nix community) gets more hits than Carsten Haitzler (a name I didn't even recognize). I'm otherwise indifferent about the deletion, although it appears that others with less google hits have WP entries. But the article as it stands doesn't really give any additional information, and so is pointless. --Bcsr4ever 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing to Keep. Article needs more work and content, but he is more notable in his contribution to humanity than Squilliam Fancyson. --Bcsr4ever 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination.--Chealer 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rasterman is a kind of legend among the Open Source Linux Community. The Enlihtenment project stands out in the Window Managers, the bridge between fluxbox (minimal) and KDE/GNOME (pachydermic). Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 07:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Rasterman

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WHAT!?!?--Drahcir^{my talk} 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep comments relevant. --Nishkid64 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Base World

Single one off usage by Jon Stewart referring to the Christian fundamentalist neoconservative base doesn't need its own article. It's usage in the context was specifically a reference to Senator John McCain's commencement speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University which was seen as a reversal of McCain's policies of not adhering to a single base in violation of his beliefs.

It's a neologism used only once and it hasn't shown any legs, besides that if it does get picked up it's impossible to actually predictnig this was the earliest origin considering the numerous names of the past that have been used in reference to the fundamentalist Christian neoconservatives. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Who would know what it means without this? Crazy Base World, does not refer to just neoconservative christians. I see no grounds for removing this page, it needs to be explained to people somehow. Nerdlogic 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You have made a strong argument in favour of deleting the article. If the lack of an article in a tertiary source such as an encyclopaedia article means that there is no documentation at all for this, then the article is original research, and forbidden by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you want to make an argument in favour of keeping the article, instead, please cite sources where the concept of a "crazy base world" has already been documented. Wikipedia is not for things made up by Jon Stewart one day. Uncle G 14:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per it being original research and Wikipedia not being for things made up by Jon Stewart one day. As much as I like Stewart and Colbert, they've led to a lot of AfDs/vandalism. --Wafulz 16:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jlittlet 19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per UncleG. Danny Lilithborne 21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA2

The article describes yet another suggested system for transcribing Persian into the Latin script. The article is created by the person who has suggested the system (Moslehi). A Google search [17] doesn't give much about this certain "IPA2" apart from Wikipedia, its mirrors, and its IPA2's homepage. roozbeh 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep I disagree with the nomination for deletion. I have my own concerns:
  1. What do you mean by YET ANOTHER; as long as I know, there are only 2 main systems suggested for Persian alphabet: UniPers and IPA2. Can you name others which are of great noticeability?
  2. IPA2 is not used for TRANSCRIBING Persian into the LATIN SCRIPT. IPA2 is an alphabet proposed officially to REPLACE Perso-Arabic and not to TRANSCRIBE it. I used official, because an introduction to this alphabet is officially printed in proceedings of a linguistic conference held by a reputable Iranian university. I could acquire a copy and I recommend you doing the same.
  3. I see no problem in the articles being created by RESPONSIBLE people. I am concerned about your point as it may lead to misleading actions to avoid your accusation, such as choosing an ID which does not show the real identity of the author. I really appreciate those people who are honest enough to show their real identity freely and without any concerns caused by people like you who are discouragingly manipulating other people's works here on Wikipedia.
  4. IPA2 is a general abbreviation which can stand for many full names. Pls narrow your search by adding extra info or trying other combinations. I found some with LinguistList and Iran-Daily and ProZ. They contain info which may have been created by the same person in question. But there are resources. Besides, I do not expect much from search engines for the system is new enough not to be discussed about more than it is.
  5. I also searched for your name and activities. You seem to be a biased person on this issue because you are one of the people invovled in developing a Farsi (Persian) Linux for the Iranian government. Iranian government as been againt any alphabet change and so are the people participating in Farsi Linux project who are in favour of Perso-Arabic script in use.
  6. Finally, a personal question: how many articles are there which are created by you about you and about your own projects. Do you nominate them for deletion? and how many other people are there in your camp? -Persiciser, 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to emphasize that some parts of this is a personal attack towards me. I am not involved in developing FarsiLinux, and I do not remember creating any article created by me about my projects or myself. I don't care about a switch to the Latin script either. roozbeh 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry! But I did not mean to attack you! Cos I do not know you! That was just a result of my searches with Google. About your not being involved, here are some counter-evidence cases:
      1. [18]
      2. [19]
      • Sorry, Persiciser! Would you pls announce your vote by adding a boldface vote at the beginning; otherwise, your vote will not be counted. -DrMoslehi 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC+3:30)
        • Well... just did it! I really did not know that. Can you give me the source or guide for how to vote and/or what the styleguide says? -Persiciser, 23:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Orthography reform or replacement is a matter of interest. Perhaps this article could me merged with UniPers as Latin orthographies for Persian. -- Evertype·✆ 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination details. --Drahcir^{my talk} 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral In IPA2: Eqdámiy nájavánmardáne bud vali bitaraf mi mánam. In English: It was not a fair act, but I keep neutral. -DrMoslehi 00:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC+3:30)
• Weak keep as per Evertype. ColinFine 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak KeepI don't think this article should be deleted. I think the article is informative and should not be deleted. What can happen if Wikipedia has one more article?? The author must've worked hard to write this article. Why should we delete this article and waste all the time he spent finding information on the article .etc? Also I agree with Evertype--GreatShash 03:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • GreatShash: Please don't SHOUT! It doesn't make your argument any stronger. Nor does an appeal to feelings. As you may see, I have alredy proposed that the article should be kept, albeit weakly. But your contribution tells us only that you think it should not be deleted: you do not say why. Please look at WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette ColinFine 10:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "How would you feel if your articles began to get listed for deletion?" — The very first article that I ever created here was nominated for deletion. I read the policies and guidelines, made a case based upon them, and the article was kept. Uncle G 12:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • GreatShash, thank you for improving your contribution above (though editing it in place makes my reply, and that of Uncle G, look incoherent: I would prefer if you had added a new comment). But you are still not advancing an argument relevant to Wikipedia. Please look again at WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette. The issue is whether the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia, not how much work went into it. As I said, I have already supported keeping the article, but your non-arguments (especially since the author of the article has asked you on your talk page to contribute to this debate) do not push the discussion forward. If it were a popularity vote, your sycophantic response to DrMoslehi's request would make me change my recommendation to delete - but it isn't, and I continue to recommend weak keep on the article's merits. ColinFine 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, ColinFine! I edited your bold tags and changed them to Italic because the BOT parser would count the bold votes as original votes. -DrMoslehi 21:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC+3:30)
    • Are you sure? I've no particular objection, but I can't find any evidence that votes are counted by a bot. WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette says 'Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e.g., "Keep" or "Delete"', which definitely does not suggest that counting is done by a bot. I've had a quick look at the AfD Talk page, and there is certainly some discussion about using a bot to close discussions, but I didn't find any resolution. ColinFine 19:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. - FrancisTyers · 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep – Maybe primary author could explain IPA2's significance within the article (eg. why linguistically it is claimed to be most accurate alphabet for Persian language), its current usage & PLA classes, why specifically it's controversial, IPA equivalents in table and 'Examples of usage' section, English gloss in 'Example of usage' section, etc. –jonsafari 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Not much discussion, but the article itself doesn't establish notability, and the nominator obviously tried to find something to add but failed. - Bobet 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Nero

Delete Looking on google (and, yes, I know it's not the end all be all of notability) "Tommy Nero" generates 5,240 hits[20]. But a quick look shows some are in Italian (Nero being an Italian surname) and this article is about an American. It also seems to be many pages not about the same guy. So the article says he is a fashion designer. "Tommy Nero" + fashion (a logical search since he is said to be a fashion designer, and hence the reason for his notability) leads to this - 882 hits [21]. I'll let the voters sift thru these links, but you will notice most are blogs and self-generated press releases matching the links on the article (www.pressreleasespider.com, www.365business.info, www.articles-hub.com, ad nauseum), and many of those are actually dead links. The constant thru all of those postings is "fashion fusion" and a place/venue called deja vu. So "Tommy Nero" + fashion, - fusion, -dejavu (if he is a real fashion designer of note, removing 2 keywords should still generate many hits) and you are down to 100[22] and most of those are just wikimirrors and myspace links. The only "war correspondent" pieces offered up are an interview of an heir of the Benz family upon his graduation from basic training (not exactly in the heat of battle) and then posted on a web site called www.prweb.com and an interview with a captain who was in Iraq, a link that is now dead.--Nobunaga24 13:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable. --Nishkid64 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bijan (designer)

Tagged and Speedied. Contested, so AfD. No vote. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Move to Bijan (perfume) although he does more than just perfume. 690K ghits for "Bijan perfume", and 100K for "Bijan designer -perfume". Also, if I correctly remember my tour of Rodeo Drive a few years ago, he was mentioned by name by the bus driver because his Bentley was always parked in front of his store. Neier 14:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There are probably more hits for "Bijan perfume" because of the countless number of online perfume retailers selling his perfumes. AFAIK, there are no online sellers of his menswear and other stuff because it's only sold through his boutiques. Wjousts 12:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known designer and retailer, notable if only for the innovative sales gimmick of "appointment only" high-end boutiques. Robertissimo 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not a speedy since the article isn't really that much now, but there shouldn't be an argument whether he's n otable. I get 217 news hits on Newsbank for bijan perfume. I see what I can add to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (do not move) per other keep votes. He is a well-known designer. --Metropolitan90 16:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Massively enormous lovely-smelling KEEP I voted to undelete this, and IMHO the issue is clear-cut enough that it shouldn't have needed an AfD at all, but whatever. Definitely a very strong keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • WHAT THE HECK!?!?--Drahcir^{my talk} 19:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • STOP making unnecessary and futile comments to AfD pages! --Nishkid64 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known designer. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Haeser

Contested prod. Does not seem to be notable. MER-C 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. A quick Google search brings up some hits -mostly minor/personal sites- but no reliable third party sources, making it unverifiable and indicating a lack of notability. Also, the article was created and written by Kenhaeser, who has made no contributions unrelated to this article. --Wafulz 16:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO and this article is not really verifiable. Can we userfy this possibly? --Nishkid64 20:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blonky

Contested prod (by the author.) Appears to be a neologism. The article is basically a dictionary definition. Quite a few Google hits, but largely because it seems to be a not-uncommon user name. Can't find any reliable sources discussing this word. eaolson 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reading the blurb for the web site that comes upon a Google Web search, it is apparent that this is simply an attempt to coin an obverse for the concept of a wigger, out of (it appears) some sense of fairness. There is no indication that this concept has been acknowledged beyond the web site and Urban Dictionary, and no indication that it has become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 15:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per G-Unit's argument above, which asserts the article as (basically) original research. --Wafulz 16:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

People do use the phrase "blonky" in conversation. You have to remember that not every one is an old man who sits in front of a computer everyday.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lassal (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2006.

• First, No personal attacks, please. Second, no one is saying that the term is never used, just that Wikipedia is not really a place to define words, and you have also not provided any reliable sources sources for the definition. eaolson 04:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable neologism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, Wikipedia does not need a separate article for each little tour of small bands listing each tour stop. Cyde Weys 02:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mum Wants a Bungalow

Fancruft, not at all encyclopedic. The Mekon 15:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Mention the tour in the main article (if it isn't already there)- all the dates are provided on another website, and there's no real point to listing them here. --Wafulz 16:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. --Drahcir^{my talk} 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to fansub. Mangojuice^talk 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomodachi Anime

WP:OR and WP:NN, google 651hit.--Rocketds 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Shinhan 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Tomodachi Anime is definitely notable in their field, and the apparent lack of links is most likely due to their not having done anything for about 8-9 years. However, they are one of the most well-known fansubbing groups out there, even though they haven't done anything for so long. They are definitely notable. I do agree that the article needs sourcing, but that would be better accomplished by marking it as needing sourcing than nomination for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless seriously cleaned up. Even if it were cleaned up, I would likely say merge. There's a lot of puffery in stating that they were a "pioneering" fansub group because they were the first to sub a sub-genre or the first to use karaoke subs. It's all unsourced, original research. --Kunzite 19:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It should be noted that Rocketds' first edit ever was nominating this article for deletion, and it was done properly the first time, without any mistakes. Therefore, it is extremely likely this user is a sock puppet being used by someone who doesn't want to nominate this under their own username. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Dattebayo doesn't have an article, I don't see how an inactive fansub group should have one. Danny Lilithborne 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into fansub. Sure, they subbed FY, and possibly were the first widely distributed group to do this or that, but I can't see a fansub group to be all that notible for WP's sake in the first place. For an anime-centric or shoujo-centric Wiki, yes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge only if sources found else delete as original research. Even if it is true and they did have a significant role in fansubbing, it needs external sources. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as original research, but preserve history. Ashibaka tock 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 13:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing In My Way

Does anybody other than an ardent Keane fan care about this song? There's nothing particularly useful here, and it's badly written from the start. Fancruft.) The Mekon 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and/or merge into the album (whatever it's called) article. Songs should not have their own articles unless they are notable, and even those are few and far between. This song is not notable at all. --physicq210 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn pending current developments. --physicq210 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends on whether it's the next single or not. Wikipedia can't agree with itself on this, as it says on the Keane page that A Bad Dream is rumoured to be the next single. If it is the next single, then keep. All the Keane articles need to make their minds up over what is/isn't the next single. U-Mos 12:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• I reverted this from its state as a redirect after it was announced as the next single. Here is a quote from Keane Weekly News:

"Yes, let's begin with an exclusive! We're very pleased to reveal that the next single to be taken from Under the Iron Sea will be a pleasing ditty called 'Nothing in My Way.' The single will be released on October 30, back by B-sides called 'Thin Air' and 'Tyderian.' The latter song is a snappy but oddly haunting electro instrumental. It's jolly good."

That was the basis of my information. If you don't feel this is reliable, feel free to turn it back to a redirect to Under the Iron Sea that can be reverted once again to an article when the single does come to fruition. GassyGuy 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Released/to be released singles should have articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's official, this is the next single. Is not a crime for Wikipedia for being the first to let know this. If you're not convinced, take a look at Keane.at header--Fluence 23:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, while I can't argue that it isn't a crime, Wikipedia being the first to host information would be a violation of WP:NOR. In this case, though, there are other sources. It's just a matter of whether those sources are reliable. GassyGuy 02:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For non-Keane fans, was the second. First for everyone else so it was not a NOR violation, see quote above. I created this article months ago. And Wikipedia resulted to be a crystal ball--Fluence 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep as it is clearly a single now. U-Mos 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0-0-1-3

WP:OR and WP:NN.--Rocketds 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. Not OR. Uncle G has added references. Pan Dan 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per news hits. --Wafulz 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Drahcir^{my talk} 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pan Dan and Wafulz. --physicq210 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the articles linked under further reading could really serve as sources. Cool3 02:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and copyedit to become encyclopedic. --Oneliner 15:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, distribution of reliable information is necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.109.218 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 September 2006
• Keep per [23]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beto cruz (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 September 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A1156 Road

WP:OR, WP:NN and WP:HOAX.--Rocketds 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Even if this is real, the article makes no assertion of the road's notability. Are we going to create an article for all roads with a market and a garage on them? (And if I hadn't heard of Norwich in a book, I wouldn't even know this road was in England.) Picaroon9288 16:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. The North American consensus is that all state/provincial numbered highways are notable, British A-roads would be at the same level of notability. The road does exist per [24]. But man does it ever need a rewrite. Kirjtc2 03:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I have completely rewritten it. Bridgeplayer 22:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. *blinks* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOCAB - Australian Online Cheater Abolishment Body

nn group.--Rocketds 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment The organization's actual name is "Australian Online Cheating Abolishment Body" --Wafulz 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I get 209 unique Google hits for AOCAB, and at least half of those are unrelated (random letters and such). The "real" name, "Australian Online Cheating Abolishment Body" scores 9 unique Google hits. Doesn't seem to have made much of an impact, nor does it appear to be verifiable using reliable sources. Oh, and it's also defunct, so no future notability is forthcoming either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For the reasons mentioned above - Chsf 19:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability problems and doesn't meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete old website for banbot and czaustralia.com website. The thing did and possibly still does according to czaustralia, however, can't find the ISP commentaries on it. Internode or Bigpond would have had commentaries at least knowing the size of their gaming networks. Therefore, have to say delete because of WP:V. Ansell 06:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry, but nn group. Lankiveil 11:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC).
• Delete - Unreferenced article of questionable notability Dugwiki 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 03:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a not notable and unverifiable group. Unreferenced and probably OR. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heart to Heart International

nn Organization--Sss6e 08:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN by any reasonable definition. --Dennette 10:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dennette. -Fsotrain₀₉ 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is being expanded everyday as I have time between college classes. --Computernoob 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Do not bite the newcomers, user produced valid response. Probably watch article and verify again if it is noteable. User:Yy-bo 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep More information has been given since submission for deletion. --Kinggober 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The above keep opinion comes from a single purpose account. Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am not a single purpose user. Good guess though. --Kinggober 16:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Definitely spammish but on the other hand, Google seems to know about it[25]. Probably does meet WP:ORG. Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, needs work though. Charles Matthews 07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable enough. -- Necrothesp 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a worthwhile organisation that is being run efficiently here. Yes the article needs slimming down and cleaning up but I am very happy for Wikipedia to have information on this charity. TerriersFan 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. --Vsion 03:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power and Interest News Report

corporation or organization for which the article fails to assert any notability. What little content there is seems to be borderline promotional or opinion. Nothing has linked to this article since its creation in 2004. Agent 86 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Although this article fails to assert the organization's notability, a Google search generates millions of hits, and shows that this organization is very notable on the international scale. --  Nishkid64  ^Talk  18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Power and Interest News Report" (in quotes) gets roughly 85,000 hits on both Google and Yahoo!. Not in the millions, but still a good number. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • KeepPINR is one of the most trusted commentaries on international affairs. Needs to be expanded though.
• Expand or Delete. Article contentless. User:Yy-bo 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• WHAT THE DANG HECK!?!?!?!?
  • By the way, Delete. Contentless. --Drahcir^{my talk} 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Having little content is not grounds for deletion- there are tens of thousands of similar stubs out there.--Wafulz 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "contentless" does not mean little content. It means no content. Having no content is grounds for deletion — speedy deletion, no less. However, this article is not contentless. Uncle G 12:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a pretty notable international publisher and its articles seem to be used pretty often. --Wafulz 17:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep. It's a notable site, but I agree the entry needs to be expanded.Samoproducer 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I have linked and stubbed the article. TerriersFan 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I added a link to the SourceWatch profile. Appears to be credible. Guy 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, powering Wikinfo really doesn't establish sufficient notability. Cyde Weys 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GetWiki

Yet another bit of wiki software, 134 unique Googles excluding mirrors, seems to be notable solely for violating GPL. Version 1.0 product despite the initial fork being in 2004. No evidence presented of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN. C56C 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. User:Yy-bo 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep There are articles on numerous other wiki packages. Should all of them be deleted because they are "another bit of wiki software"? GetWiki is certainly notable as being, thus far, the only known fork of the MediaWiki software. It powers Wikinfo, which itself had been started by Fred Bauder, who has been involved with Wikipedia for a very long time now and is an admin and arbitrator here. I do not see why it is such a problem to have this article here, especially when there are ludicrious articles like teabagging that are far, far more deserving of deletion - and yet those types of articles are never deleted, while informative ones are. I wonder, why is that??? Metaspheres 06:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The information isn't worth removing entirely. Wiki software in general is gaining popularity, and an alternative to deleting it may be the best compromise. Inmatarian 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; no reliable sources for any claim to notability. Sandstein 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination details. --Drahcir^{my talk} 20:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Quatloo 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metaspheres. Tim Q. Wells 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No sign of third party reporting, advertorial, lack of ghits very relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So the deletionists want to eliminate these sorts of informative articles about actual piece of software, yet have no problem with a pointless and nonsensical article such as Flukeman??? LOL What a joke. And BTW, WP:SOFTWARE is not an official policy or guideline, but proposed. Metaspheres 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to nominate Flukeman (or similar articles) for deletion, to see if the community actually wants it kept. Petros471 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice. So all the fanboys around here can simply votestack so that it can be kept?? No, thanks. Politics, politics, politics. Metaspheres 09:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; notability is not asserted. Ral315 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Metaspheres established it's notability. It's a piece of history regarding a fork project of Wikipedia started by Fred Bauder. Again, the information is worth saving. I recommend allowing time for the article to be ammended to reflect that it has a history with the Wikipedia project, and then revisiting the possibility of deletion in the future if this step hasn't been taken. Inmatarian 02:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Getwiki powers Wikinfo, a not-insignificant wiki. Yes, the article leaves a lot to be desired, but the solution is to improve it, not nuke it. Anyway, it's been up for over two years - so if you think it must go why have you left it till now? David Cannon 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David Cannon, although it is rather unfortunate that the developers have strayed from GNU General Public License; it would be of great benefit if they were to return to that licensing scheme. Yamaguchi先生 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - per David Cannon Unitedroad 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I do not agree on deleting the information provided entirely, but maybe it should be merged into another article regarding this kind of applications. chsf 18:10, 20 September 2006 (CET)
• keep please per metaspheres not sure really where this can be merged to Yuckfoo 21:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirected. MER-C 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of symbols on a keyboard

I'm not sure if this page is notable. So i put it here. All it is is a list of the different letters and numbers on a keyboard. Lorty 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: this has already been redirected to Computer keyboard. Pan Dan 16:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close - sorted! Ace of Risk 16:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, CSD G1. --- Deville (Talk) 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Gooding

Erroneous user page; vandalized Roanoke County, Virginia LightI3ulb 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. It's a complete hoax and utter nonsense. Not many PhD's go on to become soccer superstars, let alone earn their PhD at 14. --Wafulz 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Kuffar

Article was prodded, but had previously been sent to AfD without consensus. If an AfD discussion can't generate consensus, then it hardly seems my place to unilaterally delete it. See the previous discussion for more information. The prod reason given was "This article lacks information, and may not be fit for an encyclopedia, if you cant name who might be the masked men, or when this whole song was created, your only sayin who the song was disin' , and who might have made this song. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS MORE INFO." So, input? Luna Santin 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete . like what do we learn from this article, NOTHING. we only know that something like THIS exists, well, a lot of things exist, but we can NOT create an individual article for each and every thing created, can we!!! it does not give ANY info, just says three guys in masks made a song about some evil people like Sharon, George Bush and the Saudi King, etc. but it gives NO info on WHO they were, what they are doing NOW or DONE in the past thats worth mentioning, who made the lyrics, who came up with the idea in the FIRST place, WHEN the song was made, WHERE the song was made, HOW sond was made!!! it gives NOTHING!!! if we really wanted to know who they were makin fun of, we could just watch ojn Youtube! , and besides ANYONE can just TELL who they might be hating!!! Too Cool 13:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not sufficient...possible attack and hate message. Joan-of-arc 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep every time it comes up for deletion as notable for its impact in the UK and garnered some international interest. Many articles could do with some more info including this one that doesn't entail deletion. MLA 08:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. As for its hate value, it's completely irrelevant. The Bible and Mein Kampf both contain hate messages, and no one has ever proposed their deletion on those grounds. Taragüí @ 23:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete where's the notability in one google video and one newspaper article...which article even suggests the band has a very narrow following. this entry is certainly not encyclopaedic and not worthy of a page on wikipedia. wikipedia need not stoop to assoicate itself with hate messages.Cdcdoc 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cdcdoc.--Peta 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Episode VII

Delete - complete fancruft, never gonna happen, re-created content, etc. This article has been up multiple times (with different titles, of course), and every time it has either been speedy deleted or deleted, as shown here and here. MikeWazowski 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Apart from the above, the article is loaded with original research. And in conclusion, movies that are never going to exist don't need articles. Picaroon9288 16:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. It's never going to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermath (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 September 2006
• Strong delete - The article should exist only if George Lucas announces episode 7. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hello32020 18:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Hello32020. Besides, its fan-made. --Nishkid64 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -LtNOWIS 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --physicq210 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I believe Lucas said he would never place Ep7 in the Expanded Universe if he ever created it. So this is hoaxy original research. ColourBurst 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Orsini 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Question - Is there an article on the subject of the constant rumors that Star Wars was supposed to be a trilogy of trilogies? Can we make this a redirect there? I can imagine someone wanting to learn about an episode VII, but not with respects to a fan film, with respects to those rumors instead. Fieari 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW. Lucas has publicly stated that he has scrapped the third trilogy --Roninbk 21:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. It'll never happen, except as fan fiction. --Alex ^(talk) 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. However, the edit history is helpful if someone wanted to use it, and there's no reason to have the redlinks, so I'm going to redirect this to Storytelling instead of deleting; I hope no one minds. Mangojuice^talk 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raconteur

It is little more than a stubby dictionary definition, and a one entry dab page, the former is not appropriate for wikipedia, and the latter is redundant Guinness 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment I should add that the 20 or so articles that link there use it solely in the dictionary sense, and that the dab use is unlikely to be appropriate even for a redirect. Guinness 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator.GrahameS 04:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. I added them to the accessory table. Mangojuice^talk 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple iPod Radio Remote

Delete non-notable iPod accessory, even if it does come from Apple. Only marginally more notable that iPod socks. I don't believe it, we have a page on iPod socks. AlistairMcMillan 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because... seriously... iPod socks??? How would you even begin to justify the notability of socks?

• iPod socks
• Merge both into the iPod article. --Wafulz 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into iPod Hello32020 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Wafulz and Hello
• Merge. Michael Kinyon 12:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insurance Buster

Not notable per WP:WEB or WP:CORP. 100% spam Storkk 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Guinness 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pan Dan 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Orsini 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utah English

• Delete (Nomination) Utah English cannot really be considered a dialect of English, so the I don't think we need this article... •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment I'm not personally familiar with the dialect, but if the content is verifiable, it could probably be merged as per this comment on its talk page. Guinness 18:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not really a dialect persay, but more of just slightly different and unusual pronunciations. --Nishkid64 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move. Improper article name is not a reason for deletion. This is a dialect used throughout the Mountain West, not just Utah. However, it should be moved to the appropriate name (whatever it may be). I also removed some of the non-related or questionable info (for example, religious influences have nothing to do with language, just vocabulary). bob rulz 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Second. This isn't a dialect in the broadest sense of the term, but it's definitely a unique set of pronunciation. Very little research is available on the topic both because the field of Social Linguistics is (relatively) so new to acadamia and because few linguists are studying Utah. However, I've personally volunteered with a professor at Brigham Young University who is specifically researching the topic at the moment. (See new information and sections in the article.) Cathryn 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and merge/move according to non-AfD consensus). What's described is without question an English dialect, though the description is odd in places. I've heard the term "Utah English" before, so I'm willing to believe this is the most common term for it. RandomP 13:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)k

Keep it. Anything is considered a dialect of English if it is different in any way. If you hear a Utahan speak it, you will know what it is. And religious influences do have something to do with language, because vocabulary is a part of language.

Given the new sources, information, etc., I move that the article be removed from candidacy as an article for deletion. Cathryn 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (aeropagitica) 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Launch Giveaway

Delete. There is absolutely no context given in this article. It's some kind of contest, but who's running it and why? ^{[Check Google hits]} shows 0 results. Prod tag (added by me) removed by author. ... discospinster _talk 18:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Hello32020 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (aeropagitica) 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berthold Ullman

I don't see the significance of keeping this article. Triviaa 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable scholar. He was president of the American Philological Association, which means he had considerable respect from his peers at the time, and his death was the subject of an obituary in the New York Times. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article now has potential I did not know about before. TruthbringerToronto has made edits to expand it a bit and make it more notable. - Triviaa 20:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto's arguments, and I too get the feeling that there's plenty of stuff to cover here ([26] for example, this guy has been dead for 40 years and his work still gets meaningful results on Google Scholar, probably a lot more still-offline stuff about his work). --W.marsh 20:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nominator's change of heart. Crockspot 00:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepUllman was an important figure in Classical philology in the 20th century.[[Citizenabc 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)]]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. When Mr. Martin achieves the required level of notability, we will be able to find reputable, third-party sources from which to write the new article. Plus WP:LIVING concerns. -Doc 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rod D. Martin

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}}

This article was originally nominated for deletion here. Though because it was affected significantly by sockpuppeting of the article creator (checkuser), I relisted the nomination. WinHunter ^(talk) 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(original nom statement) self-promotional, clearly written by the person himself for vanity purposes. not notable, missing references. claims to have been "special counsel" to PayPal co-founder without citing proper sources. Wikiyoman 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article does need to be cleaned up and definitely needs better sources, but I see no reason to delete. --Wildnox 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the main discussion page for this article? If so, you may find that there are plenty of Wikipedia rules that this entry violates and therefore plenty of reasons to delete..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.167.100.41 (talk • contribs)

Many of the accussed violations seem false, I see no proof of violation of WP:VAIN as is accused. Bad sourcing and violation of NPOV are a reason to cleanup an article not delete it. --Wildnox 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• strong Delete This entry breaks Wikipedia rules in so many ways that I do not have time to list them here. It is self-promotional. It is poorly sourced. It uses weasel words. It makes unverifiable claims. From my experience, it makes at least two claims that are simply false or at best extremely misleading, although I do not have the sources at hand to verify this. It is derived almost completely from his personal website. It is written by a person who has repeatedly used meatpuppets and sockpuppets to resist all changes to it. It is part of an entire network of self-referring articles about this fellow and his non-notable friends, and the network's defenders argue that the existence of the network on Wikipedia makes him notable. The existence of this article simply flouts all sorts of Wikipedia's rules and conventions. DoctorSqueak 13:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — DoctorSqueak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete This one, though, seems to be worthy of deletion (see eric. m. jackson discussion above).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.102.213 (talk • contribs)