Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 22 July 24 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikeo

[edit]

I can't find any notable sources in the article. FurryiamIAM 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) To explain better: it fails notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR. Basically wikipedia does not keep articles just because they have a website. Wikipedia requires a second party source like a newspaper article (please see those guideline links, it has to fullfill them). FurryiamIAM 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiZnanie

[edit]

I can't find any notable sources in the article. FurryiamIAM 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) To explain better: it fails notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR. Basically wikipedia does not keep articles just because they have a website. Wikipedia requires a second party source like a newspaper article (please see those guideline links, it has to fullfill them). FurryiamIAM 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enciclopedia Libre

[edit]

I can't find any notable sources in the article. FurryiamIAM 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) To explain better: it fails notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR. Basically wikipedia does not keep articles just because they have a website. Wikipedia requires a second party source like a newspaper article (please see those guideline links, it has to fullfill them). FurryiamIAM 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable Wikipedia fork. First fork of Wikipedia, part of our history. Fred Bauder 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have tried to explain myself better when I say notable sources (added to the top). FurryiamIAM 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wouldn't be WP:POINT, would it? Geogre 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is nothing to hide. Here you have a mention on one of Spain's two major newspapers. It says Wikipedia also has competitors, such as the Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, which has over 29.000 articles. Here you have a review on the other major newspaper. It says On line, open and free encyclopedia that boast not to be subject to any censorship but its own users's and that is open to the collaboration of the navigator. It is organized by countries, subject, current issues, debates. With a design-less design, its evolution, so far enthusiastic, will have to be tracked. In Spanish, as they say. It gets three "symbols" out of five.
The split itself was covered by Cyberpais on March 21, 2002. Currently offline, but this was a printed media, so you can find it in a good library. This is a transcript.
Here there is a partial list of sites linking to Enciclopedia Libre (EL).
How many more references do you think are needed to keep it? User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a related issue, if this article is deleted, does it mean that History of Wikipedia will have to be rewritten? What about Spanish Wikipedia (two out of three paragraphs talk about the split)? What about articles translated from EL or from Spanish Wikipedia that were taken from EL? User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 an obvious keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo

[edit]

I can't find any notable sources in the article. FurryiamIAM 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC) To explain better: it fails notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR. Basically wikipedia does not keep articles just because they have a website. Wikipedia requires a second party source like a newspaper article (please see those guideline links, it has to fullfill them). FurryiamIAM 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I would say that a lack of sources is the most important grounds for deleting an article. I had a look around, incidentally, and could not find any externally reliable sources, so I don't think improvement to bring it in line with policy is possible. I'd be delighted to be proved otherwise, but the burden of evidence is really on those wishing to keep it. Ziggurat 22:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battling High School

[edit]

No google hits, unsourced, can't find any references whatsoever. This has the feel of a hoax or a fictionalization of the creator's life problems. I'm listing it here to see if we can reach consensus about its reality. -- dcclark (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possible misunderstanding here. This is not a real high school. Even the article does not claim that; it claims to be about a series on the Disney Channel, but there's no evidence to support that contention (It's not mentioned in that context by either Google or the Disney Channel). Perhaps you would reconsider your vote under the circumstances? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete A7. Mangojuicetalk 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir araghi

[edit]

WP:N. Ph.D. candidate Should be speedy db-bio, but author removed tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clappingsimon (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go2nplay

[edit]

Nonnotable web design company, author removed prod tag. NawlinWiki 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Alaska

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Alaska also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see you're nominating a bunch of these articles. It would be better to bundle these nominations together, rather than to have 50 of them voted on separately. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion in case you aren't aware of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xyzzyplugh (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I am aware of it, but choose to do a few at a time, the circumstances differ among them and I'm not planning to do all of them at once. Some have already been deleted independently. Good advice in general though! ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another note, while I realise it may make things a bit harder for those that comment, if all of them were put up as a single item, the closing admin would really have his or her hands full closing it should the consensus be delete... there are a fair number of inbound links to clean, and by having each one separate, the work can be divided. That's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent set by deletion of North Caroline list. Fabricationary 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has a cat. SynergeticMaggot 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 05:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use the category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. Thε Halo Θ 12:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Individual malls should probably be considered for deletion as well. Artw 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category serves the same purpose. Ericj 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess I have to go against the flow here. A list such as this, if the article is expanded, offers a greater value than simply adding articles to a category for the following reasons: 1) Adding the redlinks is a nice engraved invitation to "add content". You can't do that with categories unless you just create a bunch of stub articles but it's not quite as inviting because you have to open each one to see if it's a stub. 2) These articles don't (yet) do it, but the list could include a simple elaboration giving more information than just the article title, such as "Mall 1- Alaska's largest mall, in Anchorage", "Mall 2- Some notable information about this mall, in Juneau" (sorry, I'm a pretty anti-mall person, so I'm not the best person to illustrate the potentials here, but I hope I'm making my point). Overall, I think the articles have potential as navigation and indexing tools, but that potential is yet to be demonstrated. I don't think it's a reason to delete. I don't find it much different from the articles I spend much more of my own time on, which involve the taxonomy of fish. A majority of the higher-level taxa articles (genus and above) end up merely being a list of sub-taxa, although in time, someone (like me) will eventually come along and add some really good information to those besides the list itself (just a random example: Sucker catfish). This opinion applies to all the similar articles nominated below, but I won't copy and paste it down there yet until I see what other people have to say about what I've said here. Neil916 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this and all other similar lists, whether nominated yet or not. Crabapplecove 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Arizona

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. While all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Arizona also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in California

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_California also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. (any in fact as of this writing) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Connecticut

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Connecticut also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which included this one. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Delaware

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Delaware also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which included this one. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Florida

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Florida also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which however did not include this one. Note also that these are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Georgia, List of shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state)

[edit]

We've had a bit of jumping around on this, and we've some folk recreating deleted content, which I speedied already, but I think it best to bring this one back for AfD once and for all. There are two articles in question here, which differ in their title by having or not having (U.S. state) on the end: List of shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state) and List of shopping malls in Georgia... See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state) (closed 27 may as a redirect to the one without the ()) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Georgia (closed 20 July as a delete) for the earlier discussions. I think once again, this article in all its incarnations needs to go. There is a category for this as with the other states Category:Shopping_malls_in_Georgia (U.S. state) and the list is just not needed. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Hawaii

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Hawaii also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Idaho

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all (two of) the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Idaho also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Illinois

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. It is also very incomplete. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Illinois also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Indiana

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Indiana also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Iowa

[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Although all the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Iowa also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support (none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept separate to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 05:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Off Venezuela

[edit]
NPOV perhaps, but that is cured by improving the article, not deleting it. It is not Original Research, however. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Early Day Motion cited by Seabhcan at least validates the existence of the organisation. I'd like to see more verified third-party sources of information about the group, but I think it's worth keeping it around on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending cleanup. Pretty much all WP:OR and most WP:NPOV issues are related to Venezuela itself as opposed to the group itself, and can just be removed from the article. If verified third-party sources can corroborate the organization's claims (three and a half years of activity, notable members and leaders, supporters in 30 countries), it would easily pass WP:ORG. It needs to be cleaned up (and SDS has volunteered!), but a decent article should be possible. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cfred asked for third party sources. Here are some: (GuardianUK) Indepenent) (paysite); London Mayor Ken Livingstone supports HOV (Vcrisis - anti-chavez site) (VenezuelaAnalysis) .
Some of the links David Schaich asked for: International membership: (US) (Australia) (Canada)
Other stuff: [www.cafepress.com/handsoffvenez (Cafepress)] (flickr) (PoliticalAffairs.Net) Self-Described Seabhcán 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now largly rewritten it. Hopefully all POV problems are gone. It still needs a critism section - but first I need to find sources. Self-Described Seabhcán 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. --Ezeu 14:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gordon (musician)

[edit]

Non-notable musician, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. While "chris gordon" is a common name in a google search, making it hard to determine if any of them could be about this article's topic, his band, "Marc Likes Cheeze", gets 5 unique google hits, 4 from myspace Xyzzyplugh 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete. --Alf melmac 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current political issues in the United Kingdom

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Sun (nightclub)

[edit]

Not notable at all. Cabled Substitution 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 userfy - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McWilliams

[edit]

Delete -- NN, vanity, violates Wikipedia:Autobiography -- see article history Dbchip 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka Dunin

[edit]

Elonka Dunin is a Wikipedian who has gotten a friend to write an article about her and then edited it extensively. Working as a game developer does not make her notable, being mentioned in a few magazines does not make her notable. Being an amateur cryptographer (or amateur anything for that matter) does not make her notable. Working for a company that won an award for its product does not make her notable. Being thanked in a book does not make her notable. This is simply a case of someone abusing Wikipedia to gain publicity for themselves. There is way too much of that going on these days. Also note that a previous VfD was never closed. Danny 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier AFD is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin
Comment: The article has a notation on the talk page that the AfD was closed as a keep on 12 December. I'm not sure that's actually correct but I went ahead and marked the first AfD as closed for completeness. ++Lar: t/c 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Barely on the edge of WP:NN but 3/4 of the article is, "who cares?" and apparently has tons of WP:AUTO violations. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why the first AfD wasn't closed... to my eye, it looks like a no consensus close, the arguments advanced are not clearly one way or the other. I looked long and hard at this article. I don't like to see vanity articles here. But I'm not convinced this article isn't about a notable person. The number of different publications cited, the published authorhood, the number of hits, the tie to Kryptos all seem to confer some notability. None is enough in my view all by itself, but together they seem to add up to just barely notable enough. Keep (with regret because I don't like to go against Danny, he's pretty sage). ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page is back to its original state so my vote reverts also. Delete dreadful vanity great-great-great-grandmother [was] Polish playwright, voice talent [on] etc. Neutral Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (as subject). There seems to be some possibility that this is a bad faith nomination on the part of Danny, because I disagreed with him earlier today in a Deletion review on the Musa Cooper article [2]. As for the accusation that I'm just using my Wikipedia article as self-promotion, trust me, my Wikipedia article ain't it. ;) When I need to get the word out, I use my elonka.com website. To be honest, as much as I love editing Wikipedia (I think I'm at around 6,500 edits at this point [3]), my own Wikipedia bio article is something that I tend to perceive as being drastically out of date, but I try to respect WP:AUTO and keep my fingers out of it except for very simple factual updates. As for "proving" notability, let's see: Elonka Dunin is a published author, notable game developer (some of her work is even cited as references elsewhere on Wikipedia)[4], and she's a frequently-cited consultant on the CIA's Kryptos sculpture. Typing "Kryptos" into Google shows that her site has even higher placement than that of the CIA or Wired.[5]. The elonka.com website has over 2 million page views, and the name "Elonka Dunin" is cited often in the news. Just this year alone, it's mostly related to stories about Kryptos, and a Da Vinci Code-related story, (see: Smithy Code)[6]. Recent media appearances that aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia bio (gee, I must have been falling down on the job in terms of using my Wikipedia bio for self-promotion): Washington Post [7], MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann [8], NPR's All Things Considered [9], Wired News[10] (this story was also the #1-ranked headline on AOL). Want more? Check the place I do use for self-promotion, my press page. --Elonka 03:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some of that notability applies to the website though, not to you, no? perhaps elonka.com is what needs the article? That may be hairsplitting though, I dunno. Perhaps both do. Somehow, though, I just don't see Danny as doing a WP:POINT on anyone, that may not be a good place to go. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not bad faith at all. This simply made me aware of the fact that there was an article about you. Whether it is in that article, your user page, or your talk page, you are using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and that is simply unacceptable. I sepnd many long hours every day on the phone at the Wikimedia office, dealing with people who insist that we include articles about them because they are "notable." I get it from wannabe actors, pizza parlors, inventors, bloggers, you name it. The same efforts to prove notability, the same complaints, the same personal attacks (and I see that comment as a personal attack). Sorry, but there are guidelines. Those guidelines may have been bent out of shape by process over the past year or so, but there are guidelines nonetheless. WP:AUTO is a guideline that was violated by the incredible amount of vapid information posted to this article, and by the fact that in the talk page Elonka goes on an on about where to find even more information about her. For everyone reading this I ask: Will we have an article for every person involved in the creation of video games--they are massive productions? Will we have every person involved in the creation of a film? Just look at the roller for any film to understand what this will entail. Where are the limits where we say "No, this is not worthy of inclusion. This is barely verifiable." Wikipedia is, and will remain to be, an encyclopedia, not a directory for anyone looking for attention. The fact that we are online must not be turned into a means of boosting someone's own website or ego. This is nothing more than spamming. Stating "Strong Keep" about one's self is nothing more than spamming either, and very tasteless spamming at that. oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions. Danny 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be reasonably notable abakharev 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lar. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as borderline notable. I mean, I know who she is, and she's fairly well known among other game industry insiders too, so she's probably at least as notable as many authors or musicians that have WP articles. That said, article would benefit from a stronger case for notability. --Alan Au 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to meet WP:BIO. GassyGuy 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she wrote a fairly successful book, and has a reputation among cryptographers. The article may not emphasise this enough, because it's modeled after the other biography pages on wikipedia which tend to linger on a person's childhood and connections, rather than their accomplishments and notability. I didn't know I was disqualified from writing about her because I've seen her face to face like twice at industry networking functions. Subversified 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep heh, I actually heard that piece on NPR's All Things Considered the other day coming home from work. So yes, I would say that she is reasonably notable for her work on Kryptos. Other sources on it are in fact reliable sources and as such I'm voting keep.--Jersey Devil 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (pared down at 05:02, 23 July 2006)

*Keep now that the article has been totally revamped, my previous concerns have been abated. I think it should be watched for WP:AUTO violations, I assume most of them are now gone. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments past this point implicitly refer to the new revision (= original version)

Comment the page has been reverted to its original state - voters may wish to reconsider whether what they voted for corresponds to the current state of the article. Dlyons493 Talk 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm getting confused with all the different versions. Are we now determining WHICH version is notable enough? Can't we work on the broader question of whether Elonka Dunin is notable enough to warrant an entry about her, and THEN wrestle with the specifics of format and content as one normally does with any Wikipedia entry? I'm getting the two concepts of voting for deletion, and editing an article mixed up. FWIW I think editing is needed, but we may not all agree herein where, what, who, and how. -Quartermaster 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I agree with that in principle, I'm confident that the page will revert to its original cruft the minute editors eyes move on. I was hoping we could agree on a sort of reference version to keep that in check. But the water is now so muddy, I don't think a reasonable version is achievable. Dlyons493 Talk 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I think Bwithh makes good sense: Merge what is relevant, but not really seeing a whole article here. Then again, I may be out of touch with what is considered encyclopedic. Essjay (Talk) 17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - it needs another 'ham handed' edit at least to make it relevant and not autobiographical cruft. Possibly a redirect to Kryptos and a single paragraph there explaining her relevance to it. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it could use some trimming (not quite as dramatic as the one done above, however), but for the topic itself (which is more important, in this situation, than the actual quality of the article) is notable as per WP:BIO, and as such, should be kept. EVula 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and smack somebody with a trout minnow for sectionalizing the AFD by what version of the article they were seeing at the time. I pity the closer... -- nae'blis (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This notable person meets and exceeds WP:BIO criteria. Members of the Wikimedia Foundation should be setting positive examples, not making snide comments such as "oh, and I wonder whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", which is a provocative and unncessary personal attack by any interpretation. RFerreira 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep though it may need some cleanup. If you are concerned about her edits to that page or to its comment page, the correct response is not an AfD; it would be to go through the mediation process on Wikipedia. Jacqui★ 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see any problem here. bbx 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Zippy, RFerreira and others. As for her edits, a polite discussion on her talk page along with a gentle, scholarly request that only citations from published secondary sources be included should more than suffice. Wyss 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject seems to meet a variety of notability tests. The editing of an article by the subject is not forbidden on WP, and edits are transparent so what is the problem? Aye-Aye 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article very clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. Danny's accusations that this is used for publicity don't seem to be based on anything whatsoever. I sincerely hope Elonka is incorrect in her suspected cause of this AfD. JDoorjam Talk 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments, figure meets WP:BIO notability criteria guideline and the nomination for deletion shows poor form. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm confused. Telsa and Angela and so tried getting their articles deleted, and they're definately known around the world :-) Elonka wants hers kept? <puzzeled look> IIRC Telsa had politely offered to nominate this page for deletion before. Note that Danny is very likely acting in good faith. Kim Bruning 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with Danny's reasoning in his nomination statement. I believe those things he mentions cumulatively make her notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Cla68 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most of above comments. the wub "?!" 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments, notable in her fields of game design and cryptography. Dreadlocke 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. She is quoted in The Guardian and in Science magazine and in The Washington Post + she's mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and on CNN.com + she has 25000+ Google-hits + she's quoted as a reference in a couple of WP articles + she seems to be fairly known among cryptographers + she is a published author. By the way I don't see how writing a comprehensive explanation (that includes several external references) on a discussion page could be qualified as "very tasteless spamming". And as for "whether Elonka is contacting other encyclopedias and reference works to ensure that she is included in future editions", see WP:AGF. --Zoz (t) 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per just about everyone. Everyking 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not changed the world. NN. Vanity --Musaabdulrashid 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani

[edit]

This is blatant self-promotion. The sole contributor to the article is Yogani the author and founder of the group, [[11]], (the article of which is also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP)) This goes against What Wikipedia is not in that it violates all three points of

Wikipedia is not a Soapbox:


Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and

3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability. Sfacets 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to Hanuman Das, I am learning. See my talk page for details. Apologies for the lecture, but you must admit you all have not been very helpful so far, acting more like gunslingers at a penny arcade than editors. The only purpose of AYP is to bring powerful easy-to-use yoga practices into the public domain (for free), and it seems there can be some overlap between that objective and Wiki. In fact, very little exists on Wiki on the particulars of individual yoga practices, and many new verifiable articles in this area are needed. Hanuman agrees. In any case, I understand what you are doing better now and will do my best to help out.
  • It is kindly requested that this article be moved to my user page, where I can clean it up for that purpose. If that is not possible, then I will repost a suitable version of it there when this one goes by the boards. Thanks much! Yogani 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep per here, under A1. SynergeticMaggot 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McChurch

[edit]

Term is a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary —Hanuman Das 01:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 moot. Already sent for copyright violation resolution. Ifnord 03:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kushies

[edit]

No incoming links, probable SPAM, had asked for cleanup, wikify, etc with no responses. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. -- Longhair 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Clark Burt

[edit]

Seems to be WP:NN, one stray ghit. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit taken aback by the multiple statements above that there are no assertion of notability, and thus this is amenable to (and is currently tagged for) speedy delete. Is there some consensus on how specific assertions of notability must be to qualify?
Quoting from Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which is specifically incorporated by reference in the text accompanying A7 at WP:CSD "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." I think the following are assertions of notability, and are patently "remotely plausible" assertions of notability:
"a revolutionary educationalist, who changed the way many people think about technology...best known for his views and idea...He's been credited and cited in many informational essays..."
Can you imagine a professor who is a revolutionary educationalist, very infuential in his field, cited and credited in many scholarly articles; someone who would meet WP:BIO in spades, having this same article text written about him? I can. If that theoretical article was brought to afd, minor investigation would reveal that the same "assertions of notability" in this article, though vague and not very specific but nevertheless present, were true. We might have a call for speedy keep and expand. Here a little investigation shows that the professor is not notable enough for inclusion by our notability standards (I checked google and google scholar and found nothing) But do the assertions of notability themselves need to meet WP:BIO? I think not. Rather, the assertion of notability render the article unsuitable for speedy deletion, which is why we debate the merits more rigorously here. Please disabuse me of these notions. Until then I think speedy deletion of this article is out of process.
I would also note that speedy deletion does not serve us well once we have already each taken the time to visit this deletion debate. If the article is deleted, and then recreated with a bit more text, it can be tagged with {{db-repost}}. If it's speedily deleted, that tag is not proper because speedy deletion is by its terms not a deletion on the merits.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the difference between a speedy candidate and an "assertion of notability" is all about specificness. "Joe Schmoe is an awesome guy and everyone at school thinks he's great" is not an assertation of notability for the purposes of A7 speedies. "Joe Schmoe was awarded the Awesomeness Award in 1997 and 1999 by the International Awesomeness Society, and was named in Awesomeness Today magazine in August 2000 as Awesome Person of the Year" is an assertation of notability, which would then be verified and weighed in AfD. Specific vs unspecific is what makes the difference. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Bend Placer Claim

[edit]

Should probably be transwiki'd to wikisource. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Both as a cut and paste copyvio and as a non-contextual blob, this is a speedy candidate. It doesn't explain what it is, where it is, what it does, etc. Geogre 12:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Canderson7 (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fury

[edit]

Prod (with the reason of possibly being non-notable) was removed. It seems like some of the notability claims are exaggerated, but I can't tell, so for now my stance is neutral [changed: see below]. Ardric47 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland House, Northumberland

[edit]

This article is for a house with no noted importance or encyclopedic value. It reads like an advertisment and comes from an IP of a known vandel. SirGrant 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE (A7: Unremarkable people/groups). TigerShark 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elcid

[edit]

Contested prod. NN singer, doesn't even claim to meet WP:MUSIC, no albums, et cetera. Mangojuicetalk 02:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Performing in restaurants doesn't assert notability. Fabricationary 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible claim to notability with assertion of an album despite not indicating whether released. However, he not listed at allmusic and the album is not for sale at amazon. In any event, this is a blatant copyvio from [14].--Fuhghettaboutit 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, so tagged, singer with no assertion of notability (saying that you recorded one album is not such an assertion). NawlinWiki 12:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artaeum

[edit]

Fictional text from an in-game book in the Oblivion videogame. Questionable fair-use of copyrighted material; at best belongs on Wikisource. Prod was removed by page creator. --Alan Au 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Left-Wing Community

[edit]

Non-notable, and if it is, then a blank article is better than this failure of WP:NPOV. Original PROD was removed, so "full" AfD. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yeah, yeah, I meant violates NPOV. Tweaked the wording... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, Transwiki. The group might feel more at home, and might actually get more interest and responses, transwikiing their content to Anarchopedia, the "people's encyclopedia" and a self-described experiment in anarchy. Unfortunately WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. Comparatively speaking, we're actually a pretty staid bunch here. --Shirahadasha 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Club Anonymous

[edit]

Article is about a campus club located at a university. No (inter)national parent organisation exists, and the club is relatively young (founded 2005). No verifiable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Genuine website with genuine bitter people!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) .

Presumably college students in NZ are old enough to at least get bitters instead. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arckiv.

[edit]

Delete either per WP:CORP or a NN building. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion, with redirect. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnStar Privacy

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Only 95 unique ghits for "OnStar Privacy" which is extremely low since a good number of occurrences of the phrase have nothing to do with the website in question. The article was proded and the prod tag was removed by the stub's creator on the grounds that the site is referenced on howstuffworks.com. However if you go to that page, you see a nice little blue button titled "click to add your site to this list". Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I still don't 'get it'. How exactly does being linked to on the OnStar article make the website notable per WP:WEB? In fact isn't this an additional argument for deletion since it is duplicate content? Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated when someone tried to {prod} it, the reason it is separate is to keep the main article from getting longer and being defocused. It’s appropriate to mention there, but its not appropriate to try and put all of the content from the stub I made into the main article. Its not duplicate content – it is two separate articles where each covers a different aspect of a very general and expansive subject. The OnStar article is about how OnStar works and this stub is about someone’s site that points out flaws. If you all want to delete it, I dont care. I think its valueable information to the main article and I stand behind its creation. --Shortfuse 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the community seems to be split between delete and merge, no one is on my side for keep save one, so perhaps I am putting the blinders on because its my own work. So I'll amened my vote to merge and redirect. Perhaps it is better to do it that way. --Shortfuse 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mind you I certainly don't oppose to a redirect, even though OnStar Privacy is unlikely to be a search. Pascal.Tesson 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jurvetson

[edit]

Nominator 67.181.45.197 says, "Not notable, looks more like business advertising than a encyclopedic article". I abstain. NatusRoma | Talk 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steve Jurvetson is perhaps one of the 10 (5?) most influential Silicon Valley venture capitalists alive today and is pretty clearly notable if you search in business publications. The article could stand improvement but this is a Keep to my way of thinking. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I appreciate the apparent insight, I think documentation of Jurvetson's notability in the article is more important than making the argument in the afd. I am especially annoyed with the comment he's looking for investments, which makes the article sound like an RFP, or advertisement. Tychocat 12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nod. If the article doesn't get fixed, userify it somewhere then if consensus is delete, I'm thinking a really bad article is NOT better than no article. this one isn't the worst out there though but ya. (as a note, any good VC is always looking for investments so saying so adds nothing to the article anyway) ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ezeu 14:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it quite odd that he would be considered a "non-notable" considering he is an extremely well known businessman. I agree that it should be cleaned up however. ExRat 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'an extremely well known businessman' is quite a statement, don't you think? That makes me think of Larry Ellison, Sandy Weill, Henry Paulson or Dean Kaman, not 'Steve Jurvetson'. Honestly, who the hell is Steve Jurvetson??? Desertsky85451 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try Google.com - non-notables don't usually register 53 pages of exact search results. ExRat 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said 'well known'. Well known is different that notable. I did not dispute his notability; I merely pointed out that he is not well-known in any way, shape or form. Desertsky85451 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I knew who he was though. Apparently 53 pages of other people knew who he was as well. ExRat 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll I'm very proud to have had this discusion with one of the really cool 54 people who knows of the amazing and brilliant Steve Jurveston, Venturer of Capital ;)Desertsky85451 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find Jurvetson neither "amazing" or "brilliant". I was simply saying that I disagree with the idea that he is "not well-known in any way, shape or form". There is no need to be snarky. My point was, within the realm of business, he is rather well known. And it was 53 pages - not 53 single people. ExRat 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I understand what you are saying, but still disagree. Jurvetson has not merely been on two-bit magazines. He was recently honored as "The Valley's Sharpest VC" on the cover of Business 2.0 and chosen by the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner as one of "the ten people expected to have the greatest impact on the Bay Area in the early part of the 21st Century." He was profiled in the USAToday, New York Times Magazine and featured on the cover of Worth Magazine and Fortune Magazines. In the world of business, that is "rather well known". ExRat 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Friday (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people with tattoos

[edit]

It's essentially impossible to make a list of every celebrity that has a tattoo. Tattoo should document some of the people who are known mainly for their tattoos, but this list of people who just happen to have tattoos is excessive. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear timeline compared to reality

[edit]

Blatant original research, combined with some wild speculation about the intents of the game designers and events not actually depicted in the games. This was prodded, but it was deprodded without comment by an anon who never made any other edits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Librarianship Award

[edit]

Internal award within a University Faculty Clappingsimon talk 04:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia. Can you show me exactly where "Internal award within a University faculty" is listed as a reason that an article can be deleted? I scanned the deletion page but didn't see the reason you gave. I don't doubt you but just want to see where I'd find this information in the future. --Headtale 05:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand the reasons people want to delete this article to a point but am curious how Wikipedia can claim to be the "sum of all knowledge" when everyone wants to delete an article about something that has legitimate purpose (or at least, as legitimate as stub articles about small villages in England that have less inhabitants than this award has had nominees over its existence or one line articles about reality TV show contestants. Something's out of whack here to me - am I off-base completely? --Headtale 07:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep. Nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canillas de Albaida, Málaga

[edit]

Nothing at all here. Just a comment by User:Cariad. Delete -Royalguard11Talk 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete under G1. The text standing alone is not nonsense. The text in the context of appearing under the title of a location in Andalusia, is.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Coleman

[edit]

Vanity article. The creator of this article uploaded several images tagged with "(c) Michael John Coleman I created this image", so apparantly, this article is an autobiography. There's a good chance that the subject is notable, however, as this article is original research and unverifiable, delete. BigDT 04:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga and the Region of Peel controversy

[edit]

Part of POV-pushing campaign by WikiWoo and already handled in full (it's a copy/paste job) in the article on the Regional Municipality of Peel where it belongs. OzLawyer 05:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article was created by concensus after much work of the Wiki community. You even agree that it belongs on the Peel Region page. It is an important issue in its own right and other wikipages such Mississauga and Caledon can link to this page to cross reference issues relevant to them. Also as other Reegions such as Waterloo and Niagara start getting into similar controversy because of the ingrained Regional Structure in Ontario it may become necessary to refer to what's happening in Peel Region on their pages sicne that will certainly happen in some, if not all, of the other Regions at some point in their evolution as Urban Areas and the need of Cities to go Single-Tier in these other areas.WikiWoo 05:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The articles for the Regional Municipalities are the logical place for such discussion. There is no need for a separate article for something that fits fully within another article. In addition, you can easily link to sections of pages like this. OzLawyer 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you win I suggest we rename this one "Ontario Single-Tier/Regional-Tier Controversies" and it can include this one and expand into other areas where these types of problems do and will occur. Maybe treat each Region as a separate section in this page. WikiWoo 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide reason
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Little Pieces (film)

[edit]

There has been no activity in regards to this for quite some time now, and considering the chances of it actually going through with production I don't see why it should remain. If they do go ahead with production at some point then it should be re-added once it has become notable. R.E. Freak 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Optioned" + "discussed" ≠ "actually made". Thousands of projects fall apart in Hollywood every year. That process is so common and routine that it is not worth noting. Fan-1967 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be, if you could actually come up with a story on exactly how this one fell apart, and why this one did, and how that's significant. But right now it's just one more stalled project that may never happen. Recreate if that changes. Fan-1967 01:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of the penny

[edit]

Non notable film. prod and prod2 tags removed Clappingsimon talk 05:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squizzle.com

[edit]

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo Sagas Event List

[edit]

See the AfD for a similar Zatch Bell list. Reasons are identical. I would have prod'ed this, but the author would just remove it. Danny Lilithborne 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castlebrook High School

[edit]

Non-notable high school, orphaned article, Google turns up nothing substantial. Seems like promotional fluff. R.E. Freak 05:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Obey

[edit]

Candidate for state election. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Naughton Clappingsimon talk 05:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I singled out Massachusetts because of how they have structured the 2006 article on the general elections. By contrast, North Carolina has no article for the 2006 general elections, so for the same issue in NC, I would have suggested merging the information into an article on the lines of North Carolina House District 42, 2006 election. As a matter of feasability, I figured it is easier to keep the current structure for Mass. than to redo all the articles for challengers in all races in the state. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if BD2412's conditions can be met. An also ran in a state legislative election isn't particularly notable. If, for some reason, a candidate is particularly noteworthy then I say he would merit an article, but someone who runs once and loses won't be of interest to anyone after the election is over, and to very few while the campaign is ongoing. --Briancua 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidacy alone does not make one notable. Neither his accomplishments nor his stance on the issues add to his notability. The only outside link is to his campaign wev site, so I suspect a bit of WP:VAIN as well. No sources cited. There are many areas where this article fails to meet Wikipedia standards, so politics doesn't enter into it. --DarkAudit 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO needs a guideline on election candidates Clappingsimon talk 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - bd2412's condition's have not been met, and I don't think they can be. Candidate has never held public office, and is running against a six-term incumbant. I can only find two articles that mention Obey as a candidate; one criticizing Obey's statement that "Once again Senator Walsh has shown that she is bought and paid for by the gay lobby on Beacon Hill," implying that he is a one issue candidate only concerned with the gay marriage issue [16], and one on a different candidate that features a quote from Obey.[17] -- Vary | Talk 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted by Wiki alf, per A8. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Whitener

[edit]

This is a blatent advertisement. It contains very little substance. The biography is about an individual who may have negligible significance.Jay Carlson 06:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link and don't see an obvious copyvio ... if it is a copyvio then it should be listed as such and since it is a new article could be CSD {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.kenwhitener.com/about.asp}}
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. --Ezeu 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How useful directories on the net ??

[edit]

Nothing but a list. Fails WP:WEB. Also considering speedy deletion. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 06:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cydney Grossman

[edit]

NN, very few Google hitsJianLi 06:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Bastiat's debate with Proudhon

[edit]

not notableJianLi 06:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Then will replace with redirect to Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. Ifnord 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teter and McDonald

[edit]

NN comedy team whose only google hits are retreads of this article. Only claim to notability is being the act during the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire, of which their involvement is covered in sufficient detail on that page. Shaunvader 06:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP for future generations. I gather the copyvio that BlueValour is talking about is the screenshots, I am following up on that, but if its just the screenshots it doesn't affect the existance of the article. Herostratus 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPVI-TV Anchors

[edit]

This is Listcruft, NN, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Perhaps each station is notable enough to be given an article. But not the collective anchors and reporters of each station, and surely not individual anchors/reporters JianLi 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JianLi 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rje 19:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodLounge

[edit]

Deleted as PROD, then contested on my Talk page. Procedural nomination, no vote. Prod reasons were non-notable website, failing WP:WEB, Alexa Ranking 600,000+  RasputinAXP  c 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this AfD as there has been no discussion, continue (well, start I guess) below the line.  RasputinAXP  c 07:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry Updated - updates aded to entry in the hope it is now more relevant/suitable - keeping in mind various other podcast directories are also listed within wikipedia --Darkaz 05:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X exists, so Y must too isn't a valid reason to keep an article.  RasputinAXP  c 11:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. --CharlotteWebb 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia

[edit]
Original nomination

Given that Encyclopædia Dramatica has been successfully AFD'ed, I think it would be worthwhile to review the original KEEP decision in the case of this page. I would hold that Uncyclopedia is no more notable or verifiable than ED, so given that ED has been deleted, then to be consistent, Uncyclopedia should be deleted also. --SJK 07:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Q0 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It's been Slashdotted and has appeared in many mainstream places, including here. MER-C 08:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination - well, given the fact that it has been slashdotted, and ED hasn't, I think that could serve as a good reason to exclude ED and include Uncyclopedia. I would add, that by the same logic though, if ED were to be slashdotted, that would justify a deletion review of ED. --SJK 08:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [changed my mind; I'm not voting one way or the other, I just want to hear what people think --SJK 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • I hardly think being on Slashdot establishes notability. The Register may be a better source, but I don't knw. As far as a deletion review for ED, I'm pretty sure it's already happening. And just a note, I am not arguing for or against Uncyclopedia, just as I avoided the ED deletion mess. I'm just saying, I don't think being on Slashdot = automatic inclusion criterium. GassyGuy 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I opposed ED deletion, I'm not going to fight it any further -- I really don't care that much about (if someone else wants to DR it, that's their problem). However, I do care about consistency -- if ED is to be excluded, yet somewhat similar Wikipedia-offshoot sites included, then we need to come up with a good reason to include one and exclude the other. I agree that Slashdotting is not the best criteria -- but its better than none, and its not too bad a criteria. "uncyclopedia site:slashdot.org" ~ 568 ghits; "encyclopediadramatica site:slashdot.org" - 319 ghits. So both have been "slashdotted" -- albeit not in the sense of having a main article about them. 568 is bigger than 319, but I don't think its an order of magnitude difference. And note that neither has (as far as I am aware) been "slashdotted" in the sense of being featured on slashdot as an article; they've just been mentioned in the discussions. So, what is the rule/principle here? --SJK 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I think the Uncyclopedia article on adding a 200Gb hard drive to the iPod Nano was slashdotted? In any case, the main difference would appear to be that Uncyclopedia is not just one single wiki; it's a community of related projects hosted as twenty-two individual language wikis across multiple sites in the US, Canada and Europe. There are currently six Uncyclopedia projects which are above a thousand pages each. (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://nonsensopedia.wikia.com http://de.uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://hiki.pedia.ws http://inciclopedia.wikia.com http://zh.uncyclopedia.info in English, Polish, German, Finnish, Spanish and regular-script Traditional Chinese). Is that enough to be notable? --carlb 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice note: The reasoning from the closing admin for ED was that ED was only sourced to itself. The first 20 references in the uncyc article are itself. SchmuckyTheCat 14:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Note: all of the articles (date) in baseball have been moved (or soon will be) to the baseball wiki at baseball.wikia.com. per the TransWiki decision at this AfD. Herostratus 14:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 transwiki. Mangojuicetalk 15:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2 in baseball

[edit]

Not encyclopedia worthy enough (some events) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am nominating the following all "<date> in baseball" articles because of the same exact reason. (If someone would like to help me put of the AfD tags I'd appreciate it... putting up about 160~180 tags isn't fun ._.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pages Deleted

[edit]

The following pages have been, or will be, deleted per this discussion. Links are being added here to allow “backlinking” to the discussion in the event that someone attempts to navigate to them and questions why they were deleted.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Summers

[edit]

Withdraw nomination The article has improved dramatically and now has sufficient claim of notability and enough verifiable content to let it evolve naturally. Dlyons493 Talk 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) The article has had multiple tags removed without content change. Most recently it has been deprodded with a request for more time. I doubt if notability can be established for this person, but if it is during the AfD period I'll happily withdraw this nomination. *Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 08:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) This is not at all true. As I've mentioned to Mr. Dlyons 493, I'm new to this Wiki business and I thought one could actually be allowed to begin an article before it's excoriated for lacking all the things I'm attempting to put into the article in the first place--including refs! What is significance in mail art? I ask. How does one prove that? Mr. Summers has been working in all of these fields--including mail art--since 1973 and I believe you're too quick on the draw, Mr. Dylons 493. Didn't I read someplace that it was common courtesy to notify a writer before one deletes text? Or did I just imagine that? White flag up here and please let me write this article before you delete it. Thanks, Jesse[reply]

  • Comment- Consider the clock ticking. The stub, as it stands, does not meet WP standards as noted, but I'm willing to wait a couple of days to see how it improves. I think the tags on the article give plenty of explanation as to what needs to be done. I will further refer you to WP:NOT, and WP:BIO. I am also willing to try answer questions on my talk page. Tychocat 12:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article just got placed. Before nominating for deletion, at least give the article a chance for improvement, and to have the tags addressed. Without spending a lot time looking, it does appear that the artist may be notable enough for an article. But I'll reiterate, give the article a chance for improvement. -- Whpq 15:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources are cited, the guy has been featured on CNN. He's notable enough under WP:BIO and satisfies WP:V. This article needs a big cleanup, but it's not deserving of a delete. Allisonmontgomery69 16:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -First, thanks to Mr. Diyons for his help in working with this text, and to both of the positive voters here. Next, some plans: I want to mark the Summers article clearly as a stub today, and to continue to add to the text. I'm trying to provide some context for Summers' art activities with my ref. to "first wave, second wave" intermedia artists and will try to expand on this. If you could please remove the screaming deletion notice, which is literally a dark cloud under which I must work--but keep the discussion--I'd really appreciate lessening the psychological tension here. This is a heck of a lot of work to do "under the gun" as it were! Your cooperation ferevently asked for. This article deserves to exist. Thanks! Jesse
  • Comment-Thank you so very much! We'll continue to work at it. Jesse
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 due to lack of verifiability. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.S. Chathunny

[edit]

Procedural nomination of article that I deprodded as not obviously non-notable but perhaps difficult to verify, at least in English. This is a supposedly major South Indian businessman who lived from 1919 to 1990. Article is POV and needs a cleanup and references if it is kept.

The article was prodded by User:Eluchil404 with the argument that the subject was a "Business man who does not clearly meet WP:BIO reads like an obituary but wikipedia is not a memorial". Nevertheless there is enough claims to notability here that I think this should be brought to AFD: "top business tycoon in the Seventies, with interest in Hotels, Hospitals, Tile Industries, Retail and Wholesale Textiles, Hardwares, Pharmacies, Real estate, Liqour etc."

Keep in mind that he died before the internet era and lived in a part of India that is probably not as well-connected as other parts of the world, and that googling and other searches may need to be done in Malayalam or other languages of the region. up+land 09:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Computerjoe's talk 20:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim LeRoy

[edit]

Air show pilot whose achievements and awards do not seem to reach the level of notability required by WP:BIO. Eluchil404 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 09:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --JoanneB 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowden Mavericks F.C.

[edit]

English football club that plays in divison nine of the Mid Sussex Football League, 17 divisions below the professional level, consisting of teams that are little more than village or pub teams. Delete Oldelpaso 09:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 any relevant content to Bernie Ward. - Bobet 13:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Donut

[edit]

nn group. only 71 ghits. Would speedy but they claim to have thousands of followers. --Pboyd04 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As a talk show phenomenon, we have to discount the host and station as non-independent sources. The WSJ article mentions the organization, but they are not the subject of the article. Insufficient evidence of notability. In fact, with Wikipedia excluded from the google search there are 9 unique hits of about 30. This is about as close to unheard of as you can get. GRBerry 01:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: With roughly three decades on the air, including two years in national syndication, the Church of the Holy Donut has long since established its notability. Goofle hit counts are notoriously deficient when it comes to subjects that predate the Internet ether, and the lengthy history of Bernie Ward's on air 'sermons' to his congregation of followers on a 50k watt clear channel far outstrips the lesser notability of the many single tv episode articles and one hit disco wonders that populate Wiki namespace. Ombudsman 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. It's claim of thousands of members is unverifiable; and besides, were it true, thousands of members of a religion is hardly notable. What have the Holy Donuts done? Raised the dead, built hospitals, hold parades where everyone weas a Fez? NO. parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Among the significant contributions made by Holy Donut congregants has been their many gifts to the annual Thanksgiving food can drive for St. Anthony's Dining Hall. One year, when Ward's contract had not been renewed by KGO (AM), the station was literally inundated with thousands upon thousands of cans; that clear show of support by congregants for one of the many causes advocated by Ward and the Holy Donuts had a direct impact on KGO's ultimate decision to continue broadcasting his talk show. With regard to the thousands who have claimed their membership on air by accepting an individual congregant number, surely KGO and its listeners would have raised hue and cry if the numbers were massaged in any way. Indeed, the numbers assigned to congregants represent a not-too-subtle poke at the sort of accounting deceptions and numbers manipulation that have contributed to the increasingly common phenomenon that statistics can be, and often are, misused, i.e. the "71 ghits" premise used above to misrepresent a subject that predates the Internet. Ombudsman 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll get more mileage out of the ghits irrelevant argument if you add citations to independent, older media articles that are primarily about this organization. I remain unconvinced that this meets our standards for notability. GRBerry 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was part of a club in college that gave 10,000 cans to a charity and that was all of 100 of us... Your story doesn't really help your case too much. --Pboyd04 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Bobet 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Banks

[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced that this term is in wide use and when it is used, that it is only because of the group listed in this article. The sources provided on the talk page include testimonials from Senators and Representatives (who will support anything generally) and documentary series. The series is funded by the FoR ENC group [18] (sorry its a cache) as well as the other documentary listed [19]. I am concern that the article reads like an advert for the company with all the TMs and things like the captions of the photos and the only resource given. Also a concern of mine is that the article was added by User:Kmills, the "Project Development Associate" for the group. The user and an anonymous IP who appears to be the same person added "____ is located in North Carolina's Inner Banks region" to many North Carolina articles, effectively spamming the article and term. Delete as an advert or, if people are convinced it's an okay term, clean-up to remove the advert nature of the article. Metros232 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Where to start on this one? Inner BanksTM--advertising; "branded the Inner Banks by the Foundation of Renewal for Eastern North Carolina (FoR ENC)"--neologism. "Becoming a popular destination" --according to who? JChap (Talk) 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I think this article should stay, but needs some cleanup and neutrality. It sounds like an advertisement. (I'll put tags to show as such) I personally have never heard of the Inner Banks, but I don't live on the coast; I'm in the Piedmont. I think it's a great term that should be used more often to refer to cities somewhat near the coast like Jacksonville and Lumberton. I wouldn't consider Fayetteville a part of it though... it seems too far west. According to this article, the term "inner banks" and the "outer banks" are just subdivisions of the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina, similar to how the Piedmont Triad, the Foothills, and the Triangle split up the Piedmont region. --TinMan 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This project is actually funded by the Golden LEAF Foundation, which in turn is funded by the North Carolina tobacco settlement. FoR ENC is a non-profit, and does not benefit from "advertising" this brand. FoR ENC owns the trademark to ensure the brand is not misused. As far as "'Becoming a popular destination' --according to who?", the Inner banks has been featured in the Boston Globe, Business North Carolina Magazine, Impressions Magazine, as well as several newspapers (just look at News & Observer summer series on the Inner Banks to see many articles on the impact that development and tourism is having on the Inner Banks, they are doing an entire summer series on this issue because of the fact that it is becoming such a popular destination). As for "I wouldn't consider Fayetteville a part of it though", the Inner Banks refers to the many rivers and intracoastal waterways of eastern North Carolina, Fayetteville is on the Cape Fear River and has worked with FoR ENC to have an article placed in the IBX Newsletter that features Fayetteville IBX Newsletter Winter 2005. Fayetteville sent the article (page 2 of the Winter Issue for 2005) to FoR ENC because they want to be a part of IBX (by they I am referring to Fayettevilles Travel & Tourism department). What I don't understand, maybe someone can explain it, is how this article can be viewed as advertising when Wikipedia has articles on the Outer Banks, the Piedmont Triad, and the Triangle when they are all nothing morBold texte than regional "brands" serving the travel and tourism sectors. I suppose the Inner Banks should be relegated to a blank hole on the map... I suppose the region is underserving of a "brand" since it is the home to many poor and minority people? I have provided more than enough outside sources to prove that this term is in use throughout the region and shown that it has been used outside of the region as well. --Kevin R Mills 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 09:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the trademark symbol and logo picture have been removed. I also did some searches on Google and it seems to be a term that is used with the approximate meaning the article gives (I'm not certain about the area covered, as I did not do an exhaustive search on it). Also, the usages were not associated with the foundation. It would be nice if the article had additional references, though. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must stay, this is what it is - the inner banks !

  • Delete. Speaking as a North Carolinian, I can say with certaintly that there's is no such place as the "Inner Banks." It is a marketing concept invented fairly recently to lure tourists and retirees. I suspect that if you polled North Carolinians most wouldn't know what you're talking about. The term appears nowhere in any of the standard N.C. history or geography books or in the N.C. Gazeteer. Neither does it make any sense in geologically. It's ironic that Mr. Mills cites the recent stories in the Raleigh News & Observer as evidence of the popularity and existence of this mythical place since those stories deal primarily with the social and environmental consequences that rapid development is having on rural waterfront communities in Eastern North Carolina. -- gen. ludd 08/02/06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 01:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preston FM

[edit]

Non notable local radio station with limited audience. The article appears to have been or is still being used as a form of "blog" or advert for the station doktorb wordsdeeds 09:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this is normally true, I am from Preston and know this station only covers a limited area based around the University. It is barely "local" at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 12:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judea Declares War on Germany

[edit]

Not notable, the article is a short rebuttal of a silly argument on a fringe website (the IHR); no evidence that this is a widespread anti-semitic canard

  • Delete this is not independently notable, and I would not trust the Daily Express as a source anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, that's the whole point of the article (that the Daily Express headline was misleading, and is now being misinterpreted). Seems like useful historical information. NawlinWiki 12:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic essay (and WP:NOT a soap box in any cause, good or bad). It is a common enough Holocaust denier trope on usenet, but there's no reason to comment on it in isolation. If, and only if, there is some good reason (which escapes me) for mentioning the Holocaust denier interpretation of the Express article elsewhere on WP is there any reason to dissect it. As I said, I don't believe there is such a reason, so there's no reason for the rebuttal/explanation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this content belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it should be merged into a relevant article, not be a separate article. --Metropolitan90 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the myth actually is quite widespread amongst anti-Semites and the far-right, not unlike they mythical Kosher tax. It's referred to quite regularly on Stormfront, Holocaust Denier David Irving promotes it[20] and it is also promote on sites like [21] - there is even a "documentary" film promoting the thesis[22]. I agree, the argument spread by anti-Semites is silly and ahistorical but so are many canards. It is useful to have an article that reviews the actual facts. Homey 18:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a more holistic article on such Holocaust-related hoaxes. bd2412 T 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NawlinWiki. Historically important, and still referred to today, as shown by HOTR. Picaroon9288 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 MOVE material in Daniela Alonso to Daniella Alonso, which is apparantly the correct spelling, and make Daniela Alonso a redirect to Daniella Alonso. (I moved the material as a simple copy-and-paste move, considering that (1) it's a very small article, (2) the articles under both spellings have a significant history, and (3) I do not know how to do this page history merge which is spoken of. If it wasn't just a stub I wouldn't close, but this is one of the last remaining for this date.) Herostratus 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Alonso

[edit]

This article has an incorrect title. This article should actually be at Daniela Alonso. Daniela Alonso has already been created so I can't move the page. I have moved all of the information to this article. Daniella Alonso therefore simply needs to be deleted... godgoddingham333 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 ALL. Rje 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANBy, ANCo, and ANEc

[edit]

These pages should probably be deleted. They are essentially copies of policy/regulations relating to Al Nabad (which itself seems like POV and advertising in my opinion). I thought of nominating these articles to be merged into the Al Nabad article, but their content is unencyclopedic. Transwiki'ing crossed my mind as well, but this material may be copyrighted and I don't know much about that sort of thing. I think these three articles should be deleted and minimal content from them mentioned in the Al Nabad article if possible and useful. Of course, I'm hoping more experienced editors can weigh in on the matter and come up with the proper solution. BigNate37T·C 10:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 but send to WP:CP. Proto::type 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Durie

[edit]

Notability/importance in question. ghits:[23][ --NMChico24 10:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stubbed it after tagging it. The previous version was this. It is not all verbatim, but it is in parts and other parts are very close paraphrases:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23| John joined the Jesuits and there is little doubt that he was ‘Jesuit Durie’ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23
becomes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23| John Durie joined the Jesuits and there is little doubt that he was ‘Jesuit Durie’ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 23
.
Changing one or two words does not make it original work. I asked the creator just now for an explanation re copyright status, we'll see. Verifiability means WP:RS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Ngina

[edit]

Wife of Kenyan president, not exactly notable Computerjoe's talk 10:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - German Wikipedia has a more substantial article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_Ngina Also Kenyetta was a very notable person --Michael Johnson 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Dark Lily

[edit]

This appears to fail everything, including WP:NOT, WP:VAIN and WP:NPOV, unreferenced, unnotable, there is a webpage, but... that shouldn't save it from Delete--Richhoncho 10:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep recommendations are very weak in relation to established policy. Rje 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny English 2

[edit]

The Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. The external link is dead. WP:V, WP:NOR and much more applies Computerjoe's talk 10:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is actually a film by this title when/if it ever comes out then maybe restart the article. It doesn't exist yet and if it ever does, it may even have a different title. Snakes on a Plane is an example of how working titles can change. Delete --Guinnog 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - WP is not a CB etc - films should not be on here until a release date has been fixed. BlueValour 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Butterface was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 15 votes to delete, 2 to keep. Postdlf 06:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Butterface

[edit]

Butterface was speedy deleted as patent nonsense but does not qualify, since it is not unintelligible or lacking in meaning. More than 24 hours after a request for clarification made to the deletor I've received no reply, so here it is after undeletion as an out of process deletion. This listing by me neither supports nor opposes deletion - it's just required by undeletion policy. Jamesday 18:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NB: Content was Butterface: A female who has a very good-looking body but an ugly face (comes from "Everything looks good but her face"). Used by males. Since then the content has been updated.

  • Neutral at present - it's little but a dictionary definition but I gather at least a couple of people think it has potential. We'll see. Jamesday 18:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't appear to be notable. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'd agree with the speed delete, too, frankly, because this is not nonsense, as the deletor said, but a vandal joke, an obvious one. It's simply someone's sex joke and perpetuation of juvenalia. Just informing the world of his buddies' slang. Geogre 19:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not just his buddies' slang. I heard the word used in 2000. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Were you not also the one who suggested that some high schools on VfD were famous, but couldn't state what for, or was that siroxo? :) --Improv 21:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Aren't you the one who suggested that the most famous cheese steak place in the world was not notable, or was that RickK? BTW, [30] 2/5/2000. anthony (see warning) 01:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A quick Google check suggests that the word might be a Howard Stern neologism, or is at least used on his show. If nobody expands it, delete it as a dicdef. gK 19:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Right now it's deleted (by RickK as patent nonsense), so it can't be expanded. It doesn't seem to be invented by Howard Stern, though it is a word used on his show. Deleting an article because Howard Stern uses the word is obviously ridiculous. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Looking into this, the earliest reference I can find is 11/15/1999, attributed to Howard Stern, so maybe he did coin the term. anthony (see warning) 02:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I remember this being a popular thing to say in high school, and I can think of several people to whom it would apply now...but, I don't think this could be anything more than a dictionary definition. The previous content pretty much said it all, so I vote to keep it deleted. Adam Bishop 21:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It is expandable, just like geek or nerd or asshole. If we delete this then we should delete them too. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It is far less known than those terms. --Improv 21:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Which just makes it more likely that someone is going to look it up. anthony (see warning) 22:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Expandable. anthony (see warning) 00:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, this made me laugh out loud. I nominated it as a speedy for lack of content and neologistics. If it's connected to Howard Stern and can be suitably expanded, I'll change my vote to keep. Right now, it stands as a good-natured delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your vote. It is connected to Howard Stern, in that he uses the term, and it can be suitably expanded. So why isn't your vote already keep? anthony (see warning) 02:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded. Needs to establish that it's more than just the typical attempted neologism we get here, but that it has some basis for notability. --Michael Snow 20:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN —siroχo 10:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, not notable. --Improv 15:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictdef, no potential to become encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 19:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It appears to me that it could become encyclopedic by the usual process — people adding to it and refining each other's work. The Wiki method should be effective on all articles, even those about the term "butterface". Factitious 06:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete dictdef Mozzerati 21:40, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
  • Delete Search in Google Groups for butterface yields 875 hits, fairly impressive since other things being equal Google Groups typically returns about 1/5 as many hits as (the usual) Google web search. Search in Groups for butterface -stern yields 488 hits, showing that Stern is playing a role in popularizing it but that it has an existence outside his orbit. In borderline cases I am influenced by the quality, thoroughness, and scholarship behind an article as well as the topic. I would probably vote to keep a good article on this topic. But I vote to delete this one. Some bad articles are seeds of good articles, some are not. This one is not. There could be an encyclopedic article on the topic "butterface," but this article itself does not have the potential of becoming encyclopedic. The word should be covered in our articles on slang, Stern, or whatever if it isn't already. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that there could be a good article on the topic "butterface", but that the article Butterface cannot become a good article on that topic? Factitious 06:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • I think his point is that an article has to be great from the very beginning. We can't wait for it to expand, because that might take too long, and ruin the respect people have for the encyclopedia. By this rationale we might never have had an encyclopedia in the first place, I mean, just look at the first version of Al Gore, but I think the argument is that we've grown big enough that we don't have to be a wiki any more, and should abandon the principles which made us what we are today. Maybe we could move this article to the talk page until it's great, though. This way it doesn't reflect on Wikipedia negatively, and it can still be easily expanded. Were this page truly about finding consensus, that's something that could be discussed. anthony (see warning) 14:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Yep, I'm saying that the more obscure and unimportant the topic itself is, the better the article ought to be on first appearance. By my rationale, though, a stub on Al Gore should be kept because, since Al Gore is quite notable, there is a large pool of people interested in expanding that stub and it is likely to grow. An article on a relatively obscure topic, such as Claude Chappe, however, should be decent—not great, but something like three decent paragraphs—when submitted. Reread Wikipedia:The perfect stub article. Stubs are supposed to get expanded fairly quickly. Stubs in themselves are not valuable. Their value is as a means of producing an article. Not all stubs are equally valuable. This is not a question of logic-chopping. I can write the words "Chapter 1" on a page and it has the potential of becoming a great novel. In a literal sense it "can become" a great novel. But it is not a valuable page. Collaboration and incremental expansion works well on topics that are notable enough to draw on a pool of collaborators. For very obscure topics, the article should start life in a sorta-kinda-half-decent state, because it will be a long time before someone else comes along to improve it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) P. S. Take a look at the history of Claude Chappe. Fifteen edits in two years, and the article absolutely was improved by the collaborative process—but it started out as a perfectly respectable article when first submitted. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Thank you for that explanation. It makes sense, and I agree that it's not logic-chopping. But considering that the article has already been expanded since the beginning of this discussion, would you agree that it's now sufficiently "sorta-kinda-half-decent"? I agree that it's not yet a great article, of course. Factitious 05:50, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
            • It has indeed expanded since it was created. My view is that it's borderline, and my mental coin-flip happened to land on the "delete" side. If my mood had been different I might have voted the other way. I feel very strongly that it just does not matter very much whether this article is in Wikipedia or not. I don't see any terribly good reason to change my vote, so I'm leaving it as it is, out of inertia or stubbornness or sales resistance. If it does get worked up into a decent article, than, well, I will have misjudged. That's why I'm glad that I am not the only person who votes in these things. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Personally I am very hesitant to work on articles which are on VfD. Rather than risk having my work deleted, I prefer to wait until the VFD period is over and then recreate the article in a better form. That this article can easily be expanded is obvious from the fact that there is much more information right here on the delete discussion than there is in the actual article. I think a stub article should be given at least a week to grow before being listed on VfD for that reason. As for stubs getting expanded very quickly, I should note that Al Gore remained in that original state for 9 months. One year later it looked like this [31]. Maybe things have changed, and we should abandon the principles that made Wikipedia what it is today, but if we had deleted articles just because they weren't likely to be significantly expanded in even a year's time, we likely wouldn't have a Wikipedia. anthony (see warning) 14:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • And yes, in the case of this article, it was deleted within minutes. It wasn't even given a week to grow. anthony (see warning) 14:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 00:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Dictdef. Delete, possibly move to Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 12:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN Passw0rd 14:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's nothing actually wrong with it. We have plenty of other articles on slang terms, and though this is shorter than I'd like, the correct way to fix that on a Wiki is by expanding the article, not deleting it. What do we stand to gain by getting rid of the information? Factitious 06:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: joke, dicdef, ephemeral. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Why do you consider the article to be a joke? I was under the impression that it was factual and serious. Factitious 20:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Merging it to Mullet (haircut) as an editorial decision. - Bobet 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skullet

[edit]

A neologism: a skullet is like a mullet but bald on top. Tagged for merge, but without sources not worth merging. The section into which it is proposed to be merged is also unsourced. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Nandesuka 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Brown

[edit]

This is a fan hack. I'm pretty sure we mostly don't list those for notability reasons. It says it's widely known as the most popular Pokémon ROM hack, but provides no evidence of this and that isn't exactly a notable category by itself. It gets about 1500 Google hits, but most seem to just be lists of hacked ROMS and the number-two ranked one was the Wikipedia article. Considering the article has no categories and there are few links to it from other articles, this is impressive. Ace of Sevens 11:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I decided to look into this by Googleling "pokemon brown;" over 2 million results came in, put obviously these are not all about this supposedly "famous" ROM hack. (when you put it in quotes, the number reduces to around 1.5k) The first result was this site, in which Pokemon Brown is on a list of ROM hacks. So, it exsists at least... but that was probably obvious anyway.
  • There are some fansites here and there that talk about it, so within the ROM hacking and [possibly] Pokemon communities, it is known... well-known? Known at least. Unfortunetly, notability within communitiesis difficult to research unless you're part of the group youself (in this case, the more advanced Pokemon/ROM hacking communities).
  • Meh. Delete as non-notable software. I'm still open to mind-changers, however. (not that it'll really matter; no one can be swayed when it comes to AFD) I commend you for your efforts KBM, so you get a weak keep out of me, but a keep nonetheless. It's too bad though; there are too many delete votes in to really make a difference now. I think with some cleanup it could be better... short... but better. -- gakon5 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a person that spent some of his life in ROM-hacking, I'd say that every finished and standalone hack is notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meaning that we should have as much verifiable knowledge as possible. If I'm a new person to Pokemon ROM hacks and wish to find out more about them, then I don't have to know about Zophar's domain. All I need is to come here and search for it. That's why there should be a common page about all GB/GBC/GBA hacks (like this one for NES) but single notable hacks like Pokemon Brown also deserve to have its page. xyzman 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Hello, im the creator of this hack. Aparently your having problems with notability. Let me explain something, I had a website 2 years ago when I released this hack, and it had this hack on it. I kept track of the downloads and the downloads were high, because this wasnt any ordinary hack. This was a hack that I put almost 2 years work into, and I'm working on a sequal right now thats almost 3 years in development. This hack is HIGHLY notable in the Pokemon Rom hacking Community. Just ask anyone if they know of a Pokemon Brown, and most of them will say yes. Google hits mean nothing, especially since people have made jokes about different versions of Pokemon games like "Pokemon poo Brown" or some sort. Fan sites have listed this hack as downloadable, and if that isnt notible, I don't know what is. And if this gets deleted, I've lost all faith in this site, because aparently if this would have to be deleted, and all articles shared the same fate as this in which they had question of notability, the only 2 articles that would be up on this site would be Georg W. Bush and Paris Hilton, go figure. And honestly, have you all actually tried PLAYING the hack instead of judging it as another hack? Although I do agree this article needs to be spruced up a bit. User:Koolboyman 1:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    This hack is HIGHLY notable in the Pokemon Rom hacking Community. Source? Dark Shikari 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look around at Pokecommunity.com's rom hacking boad. You have to register in order to view it. They have a hacking section where most of the hackers hang out and talk. Do a search on Pokemon Brown and you'll find result 'o plenty. User:Koolboyman 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not official, not notable, not widely used, not encyclopaedic, not suitable. Proto::type 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As above. +Fin 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no published sources. Fails WP:V. Recury 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all the sympathies to the hack author. Even if it's "notable within ROM hacking community", and you could prove that it exists or something, I believe the threshold of inclusion for all kinds of mods or hacks is very high - in this case, just show that yes, tons and tons of people play Pokémon ROM hacks, and yes, everyone who does that has played this one. Where's the claims of bazillions of downloads? Where's the game mag article? In short, sorry, no Wikipedia article until I read about this thing from Pelit or their website. Meanwhile, this could warrant an external link somewhere or something =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Magazines dont really mention ROM hacks last time I checked. Anyways, like I said in the previous comment, search pokecommunity.com, and you need to register first. Pokecommunity has the highest ammount of Pokemon ROM hackers, and do a simple search and you'll find lots of results for Pokemon Brown. And ask around if you want, people will know about it. I'm not going on an internet scavenger hunt to find out every site that mentions my specific hack, because pokecommunity.com is enough proof alone. Unfortunetly the site I hosted in 2004 is down now so I dont have _proof_ that it was downloaded that much, but it was. Not everyone who downloads it is going to comment on it. User:Koolboyman 5:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Smells like spam. Ryūlóng 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' How is this even remotly close to spam? THINK before you type next time alright, your just making yourself look bad.

User:Koolboyman 22:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep seems notableenough, we wont run out of room, alternatively have a section on the pokemon page featuring such hacks... Owwmykneecap 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a list of webstie that mention MY SPECIFIC HACK, Pokemon Brown that I just scanned over with Google.

I also did some searches for my hack, and here are a bunch of results of people mentioning my hack: http://chronotron.wordpress.com/my-web-presence/ http://www.zophar.net/hacks/gb.html http://www.romhacking.net/hacks/134/ http://www.trsrockin.com/glitchcity.html http://www.zophar.net/tech/files/gbpointers.txt http://saybox.co.uk/shout.php?action=display&user=coolcracker http://emu.panoramainternetu.pl/content.html?cs=inf_a&catid=%7C7%7C1%7C4%7C&id_a=421159 http://www.dgemu.com/gameboy-list--desc-downloads.html http://www.dohgames.com/bb/archive/index.php/t-100.html http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8KNH6U0WwL4J:www.pokemonstation.com/forums/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D4015%26sid%3D05def15bd20cd042293f34ac481cec13+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=38 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:SPWpQnx55MkJ:www.nhacks.com/archive/index.php/t-4482.html+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=40 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:yBGkEUoqcBgJ:gizwic.com/board/thread.php%3Fid%3D5885+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=50 http://www.emuboards.com/invision/lofiversion/index.php/t13138.html http://forums.supercheats.com/topic.php?topic=11761&page=2 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7jWtqp-Au48J:www.mxemu.com/romshare.php%3Fkeyword%3DPokemon+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=61 http://forums.supercheats.com/topic.php?topic=72&page=1 Quote from there: "their not fake, they exist but I'm tellin you their so boring.......just stick with the origanal nintendo games, except pokemon brown, that was the only fun hacked game!" http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:3s6KBUCQPCYJ:planetemu.net/%3Fsection%3Droms%26dat%3D191%26action%3Dshowrom%26id%3D209973+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=67 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:h0-emkUiUAYJ:www.zemula.net/forums/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D1003%26mode%3Dlinear%26view%3Dfindpost%26p%3D5452+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=69 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:klPoQi4zknoJ:www.revolutioncommunity.info/forum/showthread.php%3Fgoto%3Dlastpost%26t%3D95+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=89 Quote: "The only Completed Hack that are worth playing and is amazing is Pokemon Brown Made by Coolboyman for Red Version. There are someother hacks that have been made which are Ok but not that good. You can always Download a Demo of a Hack that is being made. Get them Here ---- http://pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=14636" http://pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=1162 - My first mention of the hack, that alone has 1,710 views. http://www.spielerboard.de/archive/index.php/t-121727 http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/search.php?kind=a&terms=ForteMaster http://mx.msnusers.com/kagomesadenocrom/romsgameboycolor.msnw http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:idYQ6jCD_qkJ:www.ultimateddl.com/23.php+%22Pokemon+Brown%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=119 http://cartmic.8bit.co.uk/midhacks/hacks.htm http://pokigry.w.interia.pl/hacki.htm

Is this enough proof of nobility, or do you want me to get more websites?? User:Koolboyman 22:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn Okay, that's good enough for me. None of them are particularly major sites, but there are enough to make up for that. There still need to be references in the actual article, though. Ace of Sevens 05:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You did check the sites listed? Koolboyman was quite literal that he found a bunch of sites that mention his hack, all are warez equivalents of catalog listings, and most say nothing more than give the download link. Tychocat 06:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 article was deleted by User:Wiki alf on request from the origninating author --Ezeu 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings

[edit]

Much as I love Red Alert 2, WP:NOT a strategy guide. the wub "?!" 11:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencerport High School

[edit]

Incomplete nomination - completing. (no vote) ViridaeTalk 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Man Series

[edit]

Article says "not available in shops," Besides 3 WP entries only one forum entry for the "series." Oh and a hotmail e-mail for ordering. Definately nn. Delete --Richhoncho 11:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanic, Bernard

[edit]

Autobiographical vanity article by processing engineer from Australian winemaker. 5 unique Ghits, can't find anything to verify the claims made in the article, which don't look particularly significant anyway. Oldelpaso 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Contributor is Bzanic which obviously lends itself to WP:VAIN. I get only three Ghits, which lends itself to non-notability. One of the three hits is a note written by Zanic to confirm a subscription. The other two go to an Australian agency called CSIRO, and it's here that I find factual problems. The article states Zanic implemented improvements to the Australian wine industry as a whole. The CSIRO website indicates that agency provided algorithms and processes to Zanic, which he is very pleased by. Zanic's testimonial here also states that production improvements occurred for the Southcorp winery, identifies Zanic as a Southcorp employee, and shows no indication of any industry-wide improvements in wine production. In the article, Zanic takes credit for industry-wide implementation of the Toyota Production System/Lean Manufacturing System. I would be willing to entertain the notion that an industry-wide production improvement would be notable, but I would need far better sourcing and citations to credit this to Zanic. Tychocat 08:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nowhere near WP:BIO, also cites no sources and is unverifiable. --Wine Guy Talk 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Jul. 25, '06 [14:00] <freak|talk>

Too Little Too Late

[edit]

Unverified. Search on google/google news and official website turns up nothing. Appears to be completely made up. Crumbsucker 12:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 and merge. Srose (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FriendsReunited.co.uk

[edit]

Duplicate article (though not duplicate text) for Friends Reunited. Suggestion for merge already posted. Suggestion made on creating editor's talk page. Proposing for Merge, redirect and delete Fiddle Faddle 12:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, AfD isn't for merging articles. If you intent is to merge the two articles, then withdraw the nomination and merge the articles. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not check this thoroughly enough. I did a search for FriendsReunited without the space and wrongly assumed that as it wasn't forwarded to friends reunited that the articlke didn't exist. It's not anything I'm particularly interested in. Thought there was no article so I wrote it. There is differerent bits of info in both so I assume they need a merge... I am still a fairly new editor. Once I figure out how to create REDIRECTS and learn to be a bit more thorough with different spellings etc, I will be a bit more productuve! haha!! My article substance came from the ABOUT US page at friendsreunited.co.uk and also the Dec 2005 BBC article about the sale of the company. So... incorporate the missing facts? --TheLedHead 12:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this may be speedied, then? Fiddle Faddle 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to see it speedied? I thought you wanted to see the info merged? --TheLedHead 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually the process form here to deletion takes enough time for a merge to happen. I should have been more specific. Merge ahead, turn it into a redirect, say here you have done so and this will wither on the vine Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. all done. I merged the relevant bits. fixed the many random commas and some other poor grammar. so delete THIS one.. whoever does that... ha! As the creator.. can I delete it? --TheLedHead 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Page is now a redirect and merged into parent article. OK, I'm bound to have done something wrong here, but no action necessary except Speedy Close Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi TheFarix. I've done my best. I did not put the article up for deletion, but I havce merged the relevant info and the original article is much better than it was factually and gramatically. If you are admin then delete away. I am new... doing my best! The article is definitely improved anyway. Thanks - --TheLedHead 13:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Sunnydale Syndrome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale-syndrome

[edit]

This topic is much covered in more detail at Sunnydale Syndrome and thus the hyphenated article should be deleted RicDod 12:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringlet (haircut)

[edit]

Delete Dicdef - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schentrup method

[edit]

original research Yellowbeard 13:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all three. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Beyond (album)

[edit]

A band without a WP article is unlikely to have a notable album. Nareek 13:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Cove (camp)

[edit]

Not notable camp. Spam? Advertising? ViridaeTalk 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 claim to fame is that it catapulted the author into the web spotlight, which it obviously didn't. - Bobet 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Stories

[edit]

Not-notable book from a non-notable author. 21 Google hits for "Sadie Stories" Zilba (the author's last name). Article reads like an advertisement and no sources are given for any of the reviews. The only "sources" don't seem very reliable. Metros232 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CITE, WP:NOT (advertisment), and is very poorly written, not wikified (and won't be without serious, and I mean serious, work), as well as WP:V and WP:CORP to a degree. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiq_Society

[edit]

A high-IQ group with twelve members according to the article. Nothing found on Google News; WP and mirrors predominate in first page of ghits. Unreferenced and apparently unverifiable, passing vain and rather advertorial spamcruft which makes Mega Society look like Mensa. For those reasons I suggest delete is in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclades Corporation

[edit]

doesn't appear to be notable. Reads like an advertising puff piece. Spartaz 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sound compression engine

[edit]

Quotes from the article : "no files have yet been successfully encoded" and "Please email Paolo devil @ ..." are convincing to suggest fails WP:NN and a few other things. Delete. --Richhoncho 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duxbury Pier Light

[edit]

Empty article. A picture and two links does not an article make. Spartaz 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I think this article can be expanded; there are a lot of very short geography articles. It just needs some T-L-C and attention. Srose (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did some research and added some information. In the process of researching, I discovered that this lighthouse does has claim to fame - it was the first lighthouse in the US to use a caisson spark plug. In light of this discovery, I change my vote to Keep.Srose (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Srose and the expanded information. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historic landmark. BigE1977 03:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination for deletion was not about the notability of the lighthouse; it was about the article having no text at all, even after it had been proposed for deletion and the PROD notice had been removed. As it has now been made into a sub-stub, it no longer qualifies for deletion as an empty article, but it still is a pitiful excuse of an article for a lighthouse. Extant lighthouses in the United States are very well documented in books and on-line, and deserve better coverage in Wikipedia than this one has gotten so far. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Rozen

[edit]

borderline notability & unsourced Spartaz 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heshmat Sanjari

[edit]

one line does not an article make. Unsourced and no indication of notability Spartaz 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venue: St John's, Smith Square
Dates: 26th September 2004 19:30
Conductor: Farnoosh Behzad
Music: Khachaturian (Three Dances from Gayaneh)
Music: Heshmat Sanjari (Deep Horizon)

Supervised Ahmad Pejman Dlyons493 Talk 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolwiki

[edit]

article about a defunt website adds nothing of value Spartaz 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Moore

[edit]

A majority at DRV overturned the previous keep closure for this article as improper, but there was not sufficient consensus for outright deletion. Hence, pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, this article is relisted for new consideration at this AfD. Please consult the DRV discussion before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Milt Hinton award and NARAS musicianship nomination, as well as the numerous articles in the likes of Bass Player Magazine, Creative Loafing, The Memphis Flyer and main Memphis newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, pass WP:MUSIC, The article needs to be cleaned up. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The artist may or may not fulfill WP:MUSIC guidelines, however the article was created specifically for soapboxing by sock puppets who are likely to return after deletion review is finished. OSU80 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC substantially. Being nominated and then failing to be awarded the NARAS musicianship is not noteworthy. Also, the NARAS musicianship appears to be a local, not a national award[36], so even less impressive. The Milt Hinton scholarship is not a major award[37] - it offers $1,000 for some private tuition for young bassists[38]. Media coverage is underwhelming - the biggest title claimed is the Memphis Commercial Appeal which has a 2 paragraph review of an album by one of its local boys[39]. The Memphis Flyer mention is just his name in a list of nominees for the best local bassist (the NARAS award) with 5 other names[40]. The Bass Player Magazine mentions are very short reviews ranging from two lines to [41] to 4-5 lines[42]. The regional North Carolina website Creative Loafing gives him 8-9 lines[43]. Other reviews cited by his site are of similar length and calibre[44]. The interviews are longer (well, they're interviews) - but they seem to be for non-mainstream websites and internet forums (the international insitute for bassists says its just a website popular amongst bassists, not an actual institute[45]), not printed magazines or well-known websites; some of these seem pretty obscure[46]. Bwithh 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we differ on the significance of these awards and nominations. Since the Milt Hinton award was recorded in Bass Player Magazine, my feeling is that it must be of some considerable significance, enough for it to be termed "major". Your mileage may vary.
    • I'm not one to insist on a very high bar for inclusion in Wikipedia because I think that this would result, to take the current example, in patchy coverage of professional jazz musicians who, like Moore, achieve a level of recognition without much commercial success. If people might read about someone and come to Wikipedia for informationm, then we should probably write about them. I'm inclined to the view that Wikipedia's purpose isn't to describe only those people a lot of us already know about; I know this isn't a universally held view. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the evidence for Moore achieving a noteworthy level of non-commercial recognition. As for the scholarship, it is much smaller and less well known than many university scholarships/fellowships/best-of-class prizes. Bwithh
    • I'm not concerned with "noteworthiness". We really aren't in the business of saying "this person is worthy, that person is not." As I suggest above, I think the criterion should be: is someone likely to read about this person somewhere and want to come to Wikipedia to learn more, and if they do can we tell them more than they already know?" --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a search engine; its an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collectionm of information. As a matter of policy, many useful categories of information are excluded - how-to's, recipes, quotation lists, the Yellow Pages etc, never mind more obscure terms that people might want to look up. Bwithh 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree completely with the policy that Wikipedia isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information." But here we're talking about an article about a professional musician. I just don't think the policy as stated means what you seem to think it means. Articles about professional musicians are very much the kind of thing one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability exists to service WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NPOV. WP:V and WP:NPOV are well served in this article; by that metric this article deserves to stay. As a well-written, fairly well-sourced article, it does not in any way diminish Wikipedia to include. For that matter, depending on the status of the label he published his albums on (M.M.P. ring a bell for anyone?), he may very well meet WP:MUSIC, with regard to the following: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)," or "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.". Captainktainer * Talk 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MMP stands for "Moore Music Productions", which seems to have been the name of Moore's personal label, Blue Canoe, for several years. Although Moore says he was a session musician, I have been unable to locate any session credits (this isn't surprising). --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for clearing that up, Tony. Know anything about Root Cellar Productions, which seems to be the label for his third album? Captainktainer * Talk 19:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Out of 17,379 CD reviews on allaboutjazz.com, there is a single hit for MMP[47], 5 for Blue Canoe (3 of them are records by Joseph or him and his band). Root Cellar is not listed[48]. Root Cellar appears to be a custom digital recording studio[49] - this is the first hit on google - not a record label. Oh, and I totally disagree with the idea that notability is easily dismissable exists only as to service WP:V etc. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, though I know some people would like to see it do so Bwithh 19:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a matter of fact, "notability" isn't Wikipedia policy, while Verifiability is. Moreover you will search in vain for "non-notable" as a deletion criterion in the Deletion policy. It is possible that you have been misled on these matters. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I do know that notability is a guideline, not a policy while WP:V is etc. but notability is not something which is simply overriden by verifiability, reliable sources and NPOV. And thanks very much for being condescending but WP:NN discusses non-notability, noting that it is a controversial topic b ut is a frequently used argument for deletion on AFD, and that it is often associated with the formal policy, WP:NOT. Bwithh 20:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't mean to be condescending, I'm sorry. But it seemed to me that you were trying to imply that notability concerns override all others. My view is that this is an interesting bass player who has been around for a decade as a recording artist. Not quite Jaco Pastorius, but certainly someone whose name does tend to crop up in electric bass and double bass circles. There is enough material to make an interesting an useful article (though I don't think the article it quite there yet in terms of quality) and in my opinion that's really all we need. The "notability" concept is sometimes useful, for instance, in dealing with garage bands and high school bands, This fellow isn't one of those and, in my opinion, it would be inappropriate to exclude his article from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable artist. --InShaneee 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once, again, I argue that this article be deleted. The various records/CDs/albums that this artist has been published under are all homebrew studios or they were never published at all (Blue Canoe Records is a digital record label/he was published directly to the internet). It doesn't appear that he passes any of the WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion.
    • He hasn't charted a hit on any national music chart (unless one counts his eMusic rating among other artists that aren't included on Wikipedia).
    • He has no gold records.
    • He has not gone on an international or national tour.
    • None of his albums have been released on a major label, or one of the notable indie labels.
    • He was not part of any other band that passes WP:MUSIC.
    • He is not the prominent representative of the music scenes in Memphis, Knoxville, or Atlanta.
    • He has not won a major music award.
    • He has not placed in a major music competition.
    • He has not performed music for a work of media that is notable (the closest to this is the fact that his music has been used during the local weather segments on the Weather Channel).
    • He has not been placed in rotation at any national radio network.
    • And he has not been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.
  • This, combined with the rampant soapboxing, including adding this artist to the articles on Bass guitar [50], Fretless guitar [51], his birth to 1969 in music [52], among other pages by Ms Frieske, and her proven and suspected sockpuppets stands that the artist and the executive producer were using Wikipedia to promote Joseph Patrick Moore, not unlike all of the musical artists who think because they put themselves on myspace that they can advertise themselves on Wikipedia, too. Ryūlóng 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some consideration, Keep. The subject is a borderline case--neither a slam-dunk keep, nor an obvious case of a non-performing garage band with delusions of grandeur. In such cases, I tend to lean keep; there is enough material for an WP:NPOV and WP:V article; Tony's proposal is a good start (though I'd remove any reference to the Grammys, the local NARAS chapter awards aren't referred to as such for a good reason). The attempt at sockpuppetry by the part of the folks at Blue Canoe (and WP:VANITY in general) can often swing my vote the other way (which is why I listed this in the first place); however, the apparent malfeasance by a Wikipedia editor in creating an {{imposter}} account I consider a far worse violation--Karen Frieske is doing what she's paid to do, promote her label and the label's artists. There is no excuse whatsoever for impersonating other users, or trying to frame them for sockpuppetry. Thus, holding my nose over all the BS which has gone on here, I'll vote keep. Further, I repeat my suggestion that folks from Blue Canoe refrain from editing the article directly, or linking to it elsewhere. --EngineerScotty 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. In borderline notability cases for dead or long-retired musicians, there's reason to lean keep, since Wikipedia is an important place to preserve historical info and pointers to the remaining documentation as they fade from memory and the easily-locatable info dries up. For borderline-notable still-active musicians supposedly on the rise, delete without hesitation, especially when the slightest whiff of WP:VAIN or WP:SPAM attaches to the article. If they're really on the rise, their notability should be increasing and not decreasing, and they can be re-entered once they're no longer borderline. Notoriety for musicians being bankable and with every Wikipedia page contributing hugely to Google rank, there's relentless pressure to ram self-promoting music articles into the wiki, tilting the NPOV of the whole encyclopedia and worsening its spam problem. That should in no way be encouraged.

    The above is on general principle. In this particular instance, there was apparent egregious sockpuppetry from marketroids at the "label" that released this guy's recordings. The logic is "Hey, if this spamming works, I get valuable exposure. If it doesn't work, the article gets tossed and I'm no worse off than before. Plus, the deletion process might waste a lot of their time, but I'm getting paid for this, so there's no loss for me. There's no disincentive whatsoever, so go for it!". There has to be a "loss" branch and so if the socking is confirmed, not only should the article be deleted, but any music articles having to do with this "label" or its performers should be banned from Wikipedia for at least a year, regardless of notability. Phr (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • That doesn't strike me as a sensible way to build an encyclopedia. If people put advertising material and promotional language into an article, remove it. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is eminently sensible. The number of people and organisations that might want to use Wikipedia for self-promotion runs into tens or hundreds of millions, Wikipedia has a limited number of housekeeping editors, who have limited time, and any article can be seen by hundreds of people before anyone decides to clean it up as most readers never edit. Landolitan 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an argument for deleting all articles on obscure subjects. I am happy that it has seldom prevailed as an argument for deletion on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As written, the general part about deleting semi-notables whose notability is supposedly increasing was specifically about musician articles. It can be generalized to articles about some other types of people, companies, and products, but certainly not to every subject. And it doesn't apply at all to borderline-notability subjects which are fading away in popular awareness (e.g. deceased subjects), for which documentation should be preserved before it is lost. I do lean towards keeping those types of articles. Phr (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems to me, that the proposal to block WP:VANITY violators and bar their pet subjects is, ahem, interesting--but entirely irrelevant to this AFD. --EngineerScotty 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The suggestion is to ban blatant abusers who try to game Wikipedia for profit (in this case by attempted ballot stuffing using sockpuppets by management at the record label), just like we ban blatant vandals. It's way too drastic a remedy for run-of-the-mill vanity editing. I agree that an AfD isn't the right place for that discussion, maybe I can separate out that part of the comment. Phr (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable for reasons listed above. He has more to gain from the existence of an article about him than Wikipedia or its readers have. Landolitan 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and vanity --Awiseman 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway, figure skates by WP:MUSIC guideline. Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh's thorough research. Non-notable musician, fails WP:NOT self-promotion/advertising. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent M (band)

[edit]

yet to release an album. Clearly NN Spartaz 14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PipelineDeals.com

[edit]

Not notable company, 6 employees, 119 unique ghits. Created by Pipeline Nick (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions are this article and internal links to it. Note that the founder of the company is Nick Bertolino... Can you smell the spam? Pascal.Tesson 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete - author request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark Insights, Inc., Aardvark Insights Project Tracker

[edit]

Non-notable company, Googling for full name returns only the company's website, "Aardvark Insights" only 3 hits, zero indication of notability per company guidelines. Also nominating the page for the equally non-notable software produced by the firm, which also fails software guidelines by a mile. Google for the software's full name again brings up only the company's own website. Article on the company was deprodded without comment by articles' creator. Kimchi.sg 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for Inclusion of Articles Hi, I appreciate your desire to keep Wikipedia free of spam. In writing these articles, I've tried to keep inline with Wikipedia guidelines by providing unbiased and objective information on the topics. We are not trying to push our warez; rather to explain the rationale for the brand new software tool (which is also free for personal use). There are links to the page from other articles in Wikipedia, although I noticed that the search engine does not yet reliably show them, perhaps it just needs some time to re-index new submissions. The same reasoning applies to the google search.

In any case, if the administrators feel that these articles violate Wikipedia guidelines, so be it. Our intent was to provide unbiased information about a new (and innovative) tool, and we tried to follow the rules.

Comment - Thanks for participating in this discussion and for making such a rational, informative response. The biggest single problem right now is that of "notability" (technically a guideline, not a policy) because the company and its products are indeed "brand new". Once they've been around for a while and have been mentioned by other sources, then it would be more reasonable to present the articles. One of our primary goals is to provide "encyclopedic content" which generally excludes "cutting edge" companies and products, at least until they are somewhat established and reported on. If , for example, a major newspaper were to do a story about your products, then we would certainly include an article at that point. Thanks again for participating :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with the Listings Then? - Well, I understand this logic, although I somewhat disagree with it. What is the purpose of providing listing of software products in wikipedia? My understanding of a communal process that allows everyone to edit an article should take care of fradulent or incorrect articles, at least on average. I tried to provide as much clear and concise information. Then again, if the public decides to kill the articles, so be it. ---Andy.goryachev 17:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There isn't really any problem with the articles themselves; they certainly aren't fraudulent or incorrect. Compared to some of the utter crap that turns up at AFD they're actually well written (In fact, I'm hoping you'll stay on as a contributor here even if these articles don't make it this time). The real issue is with the topic of the articles, their newness and lack of current notability, as well as the inabiblty to offer references (ie, to a newspaper article, trade journal, etc). I hope this helps. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

403_Forbiddena

[edit]

Japanese rock band, with some google hits, but only in japanese (sorry don't understand it), and a wiki hit in the first positions. The article is not wikified and in bad english. Does this qualify as a 'to be kept' entry? Cantalamessa 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It simply being a badly written article does not constitute a delete. Notability needs to be confirmed, certainly. J Milburn 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Cape Sorell, Tasmania Computerjoe's talk 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Sorell Waverider Buoy

[edit]

non-notable, how many buoys are there in the ocean! Will all of them have articles? I don't think so... —Hanuman Das 16:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merged - I am not prepared to go into a rave or fight over this one. The citeria are pointless on this article's raison d'etre, hope you find something more useful to vote over :)

Anyways, happy editing folks, It is only wikipedia :) So you can go home now! SatuSuro 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all - The deletion people seem to be setting the bar for notability too high; people with regional notability can still have encyclopedic articles on them, no matter how uninteresting it may be to people from elsewhere. Also, this discussion was very marred by a persistent sockpuppetteer, who certainly didn't help his cause. --Cyde↔Weys 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Russell

[edit]
Note to closing admin: I have just blocked a bunch of strongly suspected sockpuppets of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. There are now some 35 such puppets in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. I've taken the somewhat unusual step of striking their comments now, since they are deliberately creating false impressions during the debate. Some of the deleters appear genuine, so I'll leave the debate to run. Great care needs to be exercised in the closure. -Splash - tk 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like from a series of similar cfuft articles from User:Pressure Thirteen which will be nominated below. The original deletion discussion got a bit out of hand as more and more article were discovered. Adam 1212 16:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing a few related pages on this vote since they are the same sort of cruft and were all created by the same user, User:Pressure Thirteen

There may be more, but I think I got them all. Adam 1212 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Jim Gardner (broadcaster); delete remainder. They all generally fail the notability hurdles of WP:BIO and, as local broadcasters, are lacking in global merit. In particular, strong delete Wally Kennedy, because his claim of notability is the most minimal (part-time radio anchor). As for Jim Gardner, I feel he has achieved importance, and his article should be retained, primarily for his sponsorship of named scholarships at two major universities and his Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia honors, but also for his length of tenure and long-term participation in Independence Hall festivities on the Fourth of July. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL (unless they are/were regulars at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.. I think the measure of notability of television anchors and reporters is if they are frequently on national network or cable television. If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV (and that includes Jim Gardner) then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality. JianLi 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All all of these have been merged into one of the following articles: *WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters. As idividuals they are not notable, but as a groups they are and that goes for [[Jim Gardner (broadcaster), too. By the way, the Independence Hall festivities on the Fourth of July is a purely local event with no national coverage, since it is of no national importance. Kramden4700 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All If they were on a nationally or internationally seen channel or network like ABC, CNN, WGN, WNBC, BBC. DW-TV, then they may be notable on their own. The group articles mentioned above seem to be a good solution and a model for how to deal with such people, since as a news team they may have some notability, but as individuals they are not notable, despite the fact that some of them have been on local televison for a few decades or host the local July 4th festivities. Buckner 1986 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, non-notable per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;;
  • If we keep these crufty articles we'll wind up on a slippery slope. What next? The lady who draws the lottery balls? Hey hey, ho ho, this sort of cruft has gotta go! Adam 1212 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't look at every single one of these, but a few of the ones that I spotchecked looked notable enough to keep. For others that are just one-liner "This person is a reporter", I agree, those can be deleted, but should probably be submitted for AfD individually. --Elonka 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Is this AfD a blanket nom for all of the above names, or just for Angela Russell? If the latter, I agree that *her* article can be deleted. I just don't agree with the "Delete all" sentiment. --Elonka 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a blanket nomination. That's why this is the second nomination. The first time around, the original nominator started tacking on extra article mid-stream. That's why that AfD was halted and it was relisted with a full listing at the start. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, if I have to choose between "Keep All", and "Delete All", I'm going to go with "Keep All". There's enough solid verifiable notability on some of them, to justify individual articles. --Elonka 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All All are non-notable per WP:BIO. Cabled Substitution 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all. The blanket nomination is a bit tricky because I could live with keeping the main news anchors Jim Gardner (broadcaster or people with some long history at the station like Robin Mackintosh or Walt Hunter or even Jim O'Brien (reporter) (although even these I would edge in favor of deletion, if only to avoid an unnecessary clogging of the journalist categories). I also slightly say keep Traynor Ora Halftown if only for originality. Let me also make again a point I made in the first discussion: would people arguing for keep also be ready to fight for keeping an article about the substitute traffic reporter of a network in Islamabad? If you answer yes then ok, we'll just agree to disagree. But if you answer no then I think you should reconsider your vote. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Perfectly good articles that provide useful information. That's what encyclopedias are supposed to be about. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tony Sidaway. I see that the usage of "notable" as a synonym for "interesting to me" is rearing its ugly head again: this should be stopped forthwith, please. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect information which might be "locally notable" into one place, otherwise we might as well get rid of all those articles on concepts in higher mathematics which hardly anyone contributing to this page is likely to ever either need or indeed be able to understand. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to User:Tony Sidaway and User:Phil BoswellThere is no reason to keep them all, since all of the bios have been collected into WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters, which preserves the content of the articles, gives it a better context and doesn't waste space with a couple dozen crufty articles. Individually they don't meet WP:BIO, but as collective groups they do. Do you really think that a biography of a fill in local traffic reporter is even of intrest to someone where they are doing the traffic reporting? There are standards, and these people fail to meet them. Non-notable people and higher math concepts are apples and oranges and you really should not compare the two. Those articles actually have some value, these are just pure cruft. Now do you think the bio of every local TV reporter and back up traffic reporter in the world should be on Wikipedia? Adam 1212 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say is true, then why weren't these articles simply converted into redirects to the relevant articles? If the material is elsewhere on Wikipedia, then you really shouldn't be wasting our time trying to stamp out multiple copies, but rather simply make an edit redirecting the article to the central version. It just doesn't make sense to try to delete an article that woule make a useful redirect. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see the old confusion between information and knowledge is also rearing its ugly head. There are accepted guidelines for the notability of people and disregarding those goes against a wide consensus. Pascal.Tesson 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus that "non-notability" is ground for deletion. In fact, if you ever take the trouble to look at the deletion policy, you will see that it's grounds for merging or, at most, redirect. We're not in the business of destroying information; rather, our mission is to conserve it. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, I know you know better. In fact, the deletion policy says the exact opposite what you say it does. Under "Problems that may require deletion" on the second line of the table is "Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines: [...] WP:BIO (for biographies)". That seems like consensus to me. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All each and every one of them is cruft, but the collected bios pages (WPVI-TV Anchors, WPVI-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, WCAU-TV Reporters, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters) not only have preserved these articles content (or lack there of) but collectively they meet the WP:BIO standards, unlike the individual articles which fail the WP:BIO standards. As mentioned by Pascal.Tesson above - would people arguing for keep also be ready to fight for keeping an article about the substitute traffic reporter of a network in Islamabad? I think not. Just because they are Americans on an American TV station does not make them notable. The only person I think you could argue on any of these TV lists mentioned above who is notable (and also not up for AFD) is Tamala Edwards, who was a network anchor and ABC News White House correspondent - something none of the people up for AFD seem to have going for them. If they all had the same notability as Tamala Edwards, who was a national news anchor, there would be no AFD, but since they don't they should all be deleted. Rekarb Bob 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the contents of all these articles have been merged into relevant parent articles, then we cannot delete them, no matter how much you might wish to (for reasons unknown but, presumably, worthwhile). The use of any content on Wikipedia is predicated on respect for the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. We do not violate copyrights just because we feel like it. I would appreciate if some of the people who took part in merging this content would replace the individual articles with redirects to the appropriate parent articles. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anchors, delete reporters On the one hand, you've got people like Jim Gardner who is a Philadelphia institution a la Jerry Dunphy in LA or Irv Weinstein in Buffalo. On the other hand, you've got field reporters who have been at the 3rd-ranked station for two years. Big difference. Reporters can be redirected to the (callsign here) Reporters article, but anchors are notable enough to stand out on their own. The New York market has a similarly large number of articles about local newscasters that should also go through this process. Kirjtc2 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all of these please they provide useful information and are verifiable too Yuckfoo 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per WP:BIO. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mild keep. I have noticed elsewhere on wikipedia that ALL local anchors have been requested to be included in wikipedia. I have myself added none (that I remember), but think that if the wikipedian(s) who made that request are contacted, they might object or try to recreate the article(s) later. I have only seen the one for Angela Russell, and can barely see that she might qualify as notable. Badbilltucker 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Elonka, many of these biographies are notable enough to keep. Yamaguchi先生 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do you mean WP:BIO notable? In that case I would be happy to know which of these many biographies you're talking about. I'm guessing it's not Matt Pellman. Many keep votes are seemingly ignoring that there are existing guidelines. And before I hear the "it's a guideline it's not policy argument" let me preemptively retort that these guidelines represent a wide consensus. Pascal.Tesson 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All (or at least some) of these people are well-known in at LEAST their local area. We allow local politicians, why not these? In fact, many (or all) of these are MORE well-known than politicians. I don't support deleting them all outright, but perhaps some of them should be deleted. Ram-Man 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read WP:BIO? Adam 1212 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Being well-known in at LEAST their local area seems not to meet the WP:BIO standards the way I read them. JianLi makes a very good point about them not having any national notability by appearing on nationally broadcast channels. I also agree with him/her when he/she says "If we include every two-bit personality who has appeared on local TV (and that includes Jim Gardner) then Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate repository of information, vulnerable to the adding unverified information faster than we are able to verify it, cluttering the encyclopedia and pulling down its general quality." Each and every one of these people is a "two-bit personality" and that includes the people who have been not good enough to escape local TV for decades. Which leads me to wonder are some people voting to keep with their hearts, because they have seen these people for years? I really think that locals should maybe recuse themselves from the discussion since they would be bringing some bias to the table. Irv Weinstein in Buffalo is just as non-notable as the rest of thsese people whose "Degree of celebrity is too localized, parochial and minor." And just because someone claims that they read somewhere on Wikipedia that "all local anchors be included" is meaningless without sourcing it. Cheesehead 1980 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this blanket nomination is fraught with problems. The biggest is that the blanket seems to cover minor reportes who have been with the station a mere few months, which really doesn't make a strong case for notability. And on the other hand, Jim Gardner is also covered which by the sounds of it, he is rather an iconic figure in the local broadcast area, who would pass the bar of notability for me. -- Whpq 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Gardner does not meet the WP:BIO standards just like the rest of these people. Being allegedly well known in your hometown is meaningless unless you have a wider - read national or international - notablity. None, I repeat none of the people listed along with Tom Jolls or Irv Weinstein or the other copule hundred local tv news anchors in the US. These are all cruft articles and need to be deleted. Adam 1212 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why must "widely" be interpreted as national or international? The WP:BIO guidelines specifically state that the criteria you are citing are "not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". The articles for each of the news anchors and reporters need to stand on their own merits. That's why I have a problem with this blanket deletion. It is a blind application of a guideline being interpreted as a rule without due consideration to a bolded admonition not to simply delete when the guidleines are not met. Achieving an iconic status within a locality works for me. For somebody like Jim Gardner, the information is verifiable, and will still be verifiable 10 years from now as he has been inducted as a broadcast pioneer. A keep for me. Applying the same sort of critical review to Angela Russell, there is a different outcome. She may become notable enough in the future, but for now, it's a delete or merge. -- Whpq 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of swimming coaches

[edit]

POV, unverifiable, no criteria for inclusion. Category:Swimming coaches does the same, and significantly, is up-to-date I@n 16:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Bull

[edit]

This is simply a proposal for the logo for the EU's 50th birthday. There may well be hundreds of entries, and none of them belong in an encyclopedia, except for the winner. Nydas 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Agbareia

[edit]

non-notable. will anyone care about this in 100 years? —Hanuman Das 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Plus (fuel)

[edit]

non-notable, fails WP:V, WIkipedia is not a crystal ball —Hanuman Das 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references and innuendo in Rocko's Modern Life

[edit]

This is entirely original research including lots of claims of "possible" references. A typical example of something that is listed there is "The rainbow is a sign of homosexuality, and alludes to the ambiguity of Rocko's sexuality." This article is uncited, unverifiable original research thats far more appropriate to a Geocities page than Wikipedia. Clearly delete. Wickethewok 16:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has now been rewritten and moved to a new location, which is a big AfD no no. It's completely different. And while it's better, it's not, in my opinion, a good stand alone article topic. It should be covered entirely in the main Rocko's Modern Life article. So, if we vote on the old content, I stand by delete. The new content should be merged. None of it should remain in its own article. And User:Rlk89 needs somebody with experience to explain proper process. GassyGuy 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. You are not prohibited from editing or moving articles on AFD, but it would be better without the double redirects...Kotepho 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously editing articles is fine, but I thought moves were supposed to occur after the fact. My mistake if not. GassyGuy 03:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've conversed with him in his talk page. I don't know, I tried best to explain why what he did was wrong but he thinks he did nothing wrong even with the two removal of the afd tags.--Jersey Devil 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Still no information has been sourced. And the content of the article is still of dubious nature. The content of this article is still going to be "stuff that some Wikipedia editors consider to be sexual innuendo", rather than having any reliable sources. I would go as far as to suggest that the intended content of this article is indeed unverifiable as I don't think there would be any reliable sources containing this information. Wickethewok 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE (as vandalism) because "article is obviously ridiculous". TigerShark 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Klanishnikov

[edit]

possible hoax, only 10 Ghits, almost all WP or WP derived; fails WP:BIO and WP:V —Hanuman Das 17:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people with piercings

[edit]

Similar list to List of famous people with tattoos, which I nominated for deletion yesterday. This list looks somewhat better but is still essentially not maintainable. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piggyback art

[edit]

non-notable neologism applied to/by only one artist. Article itself states "a search of Google with the words 'breen' & 'edbreen' excluded results in a mere 140 results." —Hanuman Das 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Dokdo. Mailer Diablo 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dokdo belongs to the Republic of Korea. Telling this to all japanese sons of the bitches! Oki islands is also Korean islands too. North Korea, Please fire one nuclear missile at japan. Both koreas can join forces and launch an invasion on japan with China's help.

Russia can help too by supplying weapons to China and North Korea. Japan is now very weak, just like a ripe fruit ready to be pluck and eat!

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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD G1). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Homan

[edit]

WP:OR, just someone who's written something by themselves on wikipedia main namespace. Doesn't need to be here. Delete -Royalguard11Talk 17:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G1... unsalvageable and incoherent, no meaningful content or history. --Kinu t/c 20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, bio without assertion of notability. The subject of the article, who is only mentioned in the last paragraph, is a struggling creative writer with no credits to his name. At best, userfy this and let the author keep it around, but this does not belong in the article-space. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Assembly Cache

[edit]

Appears to be WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information -- 9. Internet guide for some random software. meatclerk 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted (CSD A7). bd2412 T 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Larry Feldman

[edit]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO (the first line of the article is "Larry is the type of man who will often go unnoticed."). Speedy tag and prod tag both removed. ... discospinster talk 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7/bio. I REALLY hope this wasn't written by Larry himself, as that would be truly pathetic given the gushing and aggrandising prose... it even goes as far as "If more people in the world were like him, then the world would be a much better place." I wish I were joking, but it's actually there in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I put up the prod, and to be fair, the article was cleaned up a bit and the prod was disputed on the talk page. Regardless, I still think Larry is not notable and the article doesn't meet WP:BIO. Jetsfan28 and Pdthemvp24pd have contributed all the content, and neither have made any non-Feldman contributions at this point. -David Schaich 19:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeBirds VFW

[edit]

Non-notable clan by the looks of it. Doesn't need its own entry. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. This might even qualify for Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A7- Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. Delete -Royalguard11Talk 18:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Ammond

[edit]

Deprodded and cleaned up by anon but still does not make any clear claim of passing WP:BIO. Eluchil404 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cluedo characters

[edit]

I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds that it is unverified, contains a single source that violates our policy on reliable sources, is filled with weasel words, violates our policy on neutral point of view, and smacks of original research. Ordinarily I believe in cleanup first, but the article as it stands is so full of original research and unverified statements that I believe it best to scrap it and start over. There is so much work to do in separating out fact from fancy that it is not worth it, in my opinion. Captainktainer * Talk 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see this article as irredeemably bad. Needs sourcing definitely, cleanup for sure, but not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firstly, I believe the nominator is mistaken about the article being "single source". I created this article by merging separate articles on each character. Perhaps he mistook that as a single-editor article creation. It was not. Secondly, in terms of its existence, this article satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article on Cluedo and this list are long enough to spin the list of characters off as a separate article, per the guidelines. Thirdly, I agree with much of the nominator's criticism of the content of the article. I didn't write any of it. There is a lot there that sounds like speculation and original research. This does not affect the merits of having an article on these characters, as long as material about the characters is verifiable in principle. I have no idea whether the information in this article is supported by materials published in the game, the computer game, the movie, the musical, the TV show, the books, and the spinoff games, but it seems ridiculous to claim that information about characters that have appeared in so many media cannot be verified. Finally, the appearance of these characters in so many media as well as references to them in pop culture probably qualifies them as notable in their own right. This article probably needs some heavy and critical editing, and contains much that should be removed, but deleting it altogether would not be in accord with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Srleffler 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By single source, I mean that there is only one source (not even a reliable source) in the article. As for "verifiable in principle," that does not meet the verifiability policy that I posted for all discussion participants to read in my nomination for deletion - as the policy states, The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. There are no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, therefore Wikipedia should not have this article. Not that I do not in any way dispute the article on notability grounds, but that is not the primary reason to delete an article. Failing policy is grounds for deletion, and this article fails the tripod of core policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Captainktainer * Talk 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are, of course, the game, the movie, the books, the musical, the TV show, etc. Yes, the article should cite its sources. Failing to do so is not grounds for deletion, however, only grounds for a good cleanup. Note also that the standard is verifiability, not that the article has been verified. An article that hasn't been verified, but can be verified is fine. The policy forbids articles on topics that cannot be verified. From the policy: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Any reader can go rent the movie, read the books, etc. The contents of the article are therefore verifiable. If there are specific claims within the article that are not supported by any of these sources, they should be removed, but that is a different matter from the question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on the Clue characters.--Srleffler 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the policy says, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources," and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." There isn't wiggle room to say "There could be sources provided, and we should leave those statements in because someone could check and find sources." The only source in the entire article that remotely qualifies is the link to the Clue Musical cast page- and even then, that information is only valid for the Clue Musical cast, and would probably be better treated on the Clue Musical page. At this point, if I were to edit the entire article such that it complied with Wikipedia policies, we would be left with two sentences per Clue Musical character, and the page would be a slam-dunk candidate for merging. The deletion policy specifically indicates that articles filled with Original Research should be deleted (not deleted and protected, just deleted; pages can be deleted for reasons other than notability or encyclopedic worthiness). If a statement is uncited, it's original research.Captainktainer * Talk 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your article, Iron_Heroes does not have a single citation and is full of facts. By your definition, it should be deleted. I have taken the initiative (WP:BE BOLD) and marked your page as needing citation and added fact reminders to first paragraph -- though really you should be adding a citation for nearly every sentence in the entire article, as they are all facts. Liu Bei 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment You're incorrect about the citations - the book itself is the source for most of the claims (and I have added and am maintaining the cite.php format); page numbers are helpful but not mandatory. Nevertheless I will be adding page numbers over the next month as I have time, and I have added external links for claims not directly related to the book. I am going to assume good faith and not take this as an example of retribution for "attacking" a favored article. Captainktainer * Talk 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If a book is the source of the claims in Iron_Heroes, why can't we just cite the Clue novel once in this article? Liu Bei 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would probably be fine for now, so long as it's clear that the claims are from the novel - and anything not from the novel or another cited source would be deleted, of course. The preferred solution, of course, to prevent fact challenges, would be to add page numbers. Captainktainer * Talk 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As of yesterday, this article has references to eighteen books, and the film. This of course doesn't change much: it only makes it a very well-referenced crummy article. Another editor, however, has gone through and cleaned up the text a bit, removing some of the speculation and poor writing. I'm sure there is more to be done...--Srleffler 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong here that a good cleanup wouldn't fix - certainly not a deletion candidate. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Captainktainer has not sourced his claims that this article has violated Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I recommend this AfD be immediately terminated as these claims must be considered original research. Liu Bei 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Beg pardon??? Almost none of the statements in the article are backed up by reliable sources. I bring for example the Colonel Mustard section. "Weaving together the strands collected from Clue mythologies and Hasbro's lore" - that's a patent example of original research. The closest thing managed to a citation is "there is a rumor from the movie" - that's very doubtful, and doesn't answer the questions about the veracity of the entire rest of the article. For that matter, please read WP:V again - the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article, not the editor proposing deletion. I would ask in return that you provide evidence that even the majority of statements in the article are properly sourced per WP:RS. Thank you.Captainktainer * Talk 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was being facetious that since most AfD nominations do not source their claims outside of wikipedia, they should be considered original research. (IE - they would need to get another webside to corroborate the claim that article X is against wikipedia policy). It was an attempt to show how ludicrous the original research/verifiability policy is. Liu Bei 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Verifiability and Original Research policies only apply in the article namespace, not outside. And whether it's ludicrous or not, it's Wikipedia policy, which overrides consensus. Captainktainer * Talk 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Book of Mormon

[edit]
  • This actually has the wrong title--it should be JACOB, not BOOK OF MORMON. I couldn't figure out how to change it. So, instead of deleting it, could you show me how to fix it, or fix it yourself so it makes more sense? As it says, Jacob is a character in the Book of Mormon. This Jacob is completely different than the Bibical Jacob. Remember, just because you don't like the article doesn't mean others won't be looking for it. Thanks. Reds0xfan

There is already an article on the Book of Mormon, and this article seems to be only about a character from the book, Jacob, anyway. Delete, as there is already a very good article on Jacob. J Milburn 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - why not redirect: who'd it be hurting? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that redirects are cheap, but who is going to search for this? Danny Lilithborne 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering someone made the typo once, someone could make it again. Redirects aren't just cheap, they are absolutely free (unless a potential article could be made in its place, which isn't an issue here). zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isn't a typo article, it's an article created through a badly written "redlink" at Book of Jacob. Danny Lilithborne 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, default to keep. Moving it to a better name is an editorial decision which anyone can do if he sees fit. - Bobet 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of persecuted Turkish writers

[edit]

Delete as POV fork. Subject already covered under Human rights in Turkey --Kilhan 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is a needed part of the history of journalism. (UNFanatic)
  • Keep it! The broader topic is indeed covered, but such lists are very handy, and concise instruments. Moreover, this lists includes names that were not covered in the article Human rights in Turkey. So it adds extra info. To be kept therefore. --Lucas Richards 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, useful list and includes parts that are not covered in Human rights in Turkey. Englishrose 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this list will not likely become a "handy and concise instrument" as the criteria for inclusion are too vague (define "persecuted" and, for that matter, "writer" since the list claims that it will include "other persons"). If it adds extra info to the article on human rights in Turkey, that strikes me as the best place for it. There or the pages of the writers themselves. To say that it's related to the history of Journalism only broadens the inclusionary criteria further as there were many journalists persecuted under the early Republic (to say nothing of authors, poets, writers etc). Not that it's not a useful topic to have information on, just that it's not a topic to have a separate article on. BigHaz 22:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: deleting it would reduce the value of Wikipedia. --Rudi Dierick 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's not the strongest of arguments. In what way would deletion of this list reduce the value of Wikipedia?BigHaz 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several reasons: 1. that lists contains names that are NOT included in other pages (yet), 2. The prupose of lists is providing of a kind of an easy index (sort of table of contents) into other, more detailled information, 3. Conciseness of information. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the lists is still rather short, so there is no 'huge' value in it yet. Of course, that are only my feelings about it. On the whole, I rather favor keeping this list. --Rudi Dierick 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Persecuted" is inherently POV. Orhan Pamuk was charged, but the charges were dismissed; hardly "persecution". The author of the article confuses being charged and being convicted; I corrected one instance but there is more. The list form is not very useful for this. And what are the criteria? Should Nazım Hikmet, Aziz Nesim and Yaşar Kemal be included? From the article I cannot tell. --LambiamTalk 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are not very clear:
1. the fact that you provide some potential names for possible inclusion, isn't that a good reason for KEEPing it?
2. When checking the definition of persecution, there appear to be some good reasons that suggest Pamuk is indeed persecuted. the def. speaks about 'persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.', so the fact of a condemnation or not is irrelevant here! persecution is about mistreatment. The legal harrassment, the public attacks on his person and reputation are therefore relevant indicators. --Rudi Dierick 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Apparently, the fact of just speaking about 'persecution' is already enough for you to pretend that anybody saying there is persecution is only describing a POV, and that it can just be censored away. So, according to that principle, you would be allowed to remove any article from Wikipedia that speaks abouit persecution. Just to show how ridiculous your reasoning is. --Lucas Richards 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About your suggestions:
Nazım Hikmet : appears certainly an important Turkish writer, but the article in Wikipedia does not provide any of the reasons for his exile. So, probably there was persecution involved, but that should be clarified.
Aziz Nesim : not found in Wikipedia, nor in any of the +/8 975 online dictionaries accessible over www.onelook.com(You cant find him because his name is Aziz Nesin(not with m)if you search for Aziz Nesin in wikipedia you will find him)
Yaşar Kemal: appears certainly an important Turkish writer to, but the article in Wikipedia does not provide any indication of persecution. So, this too should be clarified.
By the way, why did you suggest these writers? --Rudi Dierick 07:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those responses washes with me. Where the first issue is concerned (the idea that more names means that it's more "keepable"), the point is being made that the criteria are sufficiently vague that the list will become unwieldy. Hikmet was (as far as I can remember) in trouble with the early Republic for totally different reasons than Pamuk was controversial in the last few years. A similar comment can be made about the definition of "persecution" - define "persistent", for example. If a "writer" (someone who writes - a "Turkish writer", therefore, can be as broad a category as any ethnic Turk who writes anything) is routinely woken up by his next door neighbour's pets, is that "persistent mistreatment"? I'd imagine not, which means that the definition of "persecution" is similarly vague. BigHaz 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'persecution' is not an exact, say mathematical category, but that is NO reason enough why we should not be allowed to use this term. --Lucas Richards 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as a particularly good reason why this term shouldn't be used. As an encyclopedia, we're in the business of presenting facts. Now, while it's a fact that Orhan Pamuk (an author I greatly admire) was charged and later had the charges dropped, there's considerable dispute throughout this discussion as to whether than constitutes "persecution", which is what having him in this article means occurred to him. The same goes for any other writer we have on this list. You might say that X was persecuted, I might say that X was served with a lawsuit and someone else might say that X had it coming all along - who's right? With such a vague word as "persecuted", we can't really tell. However, there's no disputing the fact that Orhan was charged at one point - which is a fact relevant to his particular article. Likewise, there's no disputing that some of these other writers had various things happen to them as well. Do they constitute persecution, though? You say yes, but others say no. Therein lies the problem with this article, it's an attempt to analyse facts in such a way that your take on the matter is upheld while someone else's isn't. BigHaz 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one would follow your line of reasoning, then it would become impossible to speak about persecutin here, because the persecutor and his sympathisers will then off course object, and that would be it. If you would be really applying the Wikipedia approach, should you not provide a clear definition and an way of evaluation whether that definition applies in this case so that you can avoid the pitfall of giving a veto right to the persecutioners and their sympathisers? --Lucas Richards 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have no objectiona against mentionning on the page with the list of persecuted writers that some people object to this or that case being a case of persecution, but only ill-fated prosecution. --Lucas Richards 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's exactly my point. The only definition of "persecution" that you've put forwards so far is one which is open to interpretation. If there's a definition of the term which doesn't allow for interpretation along the lines we've just been discussing, then it might be worthwhile to use it. As it stands, we're dealing with a vague term which has no right being here in the first place. I'm not "giving a veto right" to anybody - merely pointing out that this article moves from presenting fact to presenting opinion. The object of an encyclopedia is to present fact and allow the reader to form his or her own opinion. As far as mentioning the dispute over the term goes, that's a good concession to have made, but I don't think it's enough - we're still left with this vague term floating around. BigHaz 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wau, and what thn would you say from the contributions from other persons on the Wikipedia pages for those writers that already have an article in Wikipedia? All those articles CONFIRM what I say, being that they are persecuted. For Pamuk, there are 19 references! All rubissh? Or is it just that your militancy is so stgrong that you did not check any of these sources, and just voted a POV, instead of looking at the facts? --Lucas Richards 11:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles talk of their persecution (an opinion), but rather their prosecution (a fact). You are, and have done before, attempting to give the reader your interpretation of events, (no matter how widely held), but they are still interpretations and not facts. --A.Garnet 11:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, all those occurences of sources on internet that EVERYone can easily find and that speak about 'persecution' of Orhan Pamuk, that's all only my personal implementation? Just have a look at (bold typeset from me):
  1. Christopher Orlet, "Turkey wants to join the EU; however, its persecution of Orhan Pamuk demonstrates that the "sick man of Europe" is far from ready to join the civilized world."[56]
  2. Julian Sanchez at www.reason.com on December 13, 2005 03:16 PM : "Pamuk is puzzled by the "paradox" of a nation so committed to becoming European simultaneously gripped by the sort of "virulent and intolerant nationalism" that gave rise to his persecution—and Pamuk is, as he notes, scarcely alone among his countrymen on this score.", [57]
.....
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucas Richards (talk • contribs) 16:05, July 25, 2006 (UTC).
That might be a good idea. Or maybe even better: 1. move the explanations into Human rights in Turkey, and 2. Keep the list for reference, and as an index to the articles of the writers, ...
  • Delete First of all Hrant Dink is Armenian not Turkish. Also, these people in the list are unpopular among Turkish citizens. We don't want you to use the name of our country with these perfidious people. With respect, Deliogul 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way you justify your reasons says already quite sometime about the climate in Turkey against those people. The fact they're unpopular is NO reason at all for Wikipedia keeping silent on this! The same goes for your feeling he's "perfidious". These appear good reasons for me that confirm that many Turkish people persecute those writers. --Lucas Richards 10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This topic does not have the generality and value to become an article. Furthermore, with the vague usage of the word "persecution" and disputable nature of the subject, keeping it will favor nothing but more discussions and disputes. (btw, I have no relation whatsoever with Deliogul :) DeliDumrul 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a repetition of arguments that were already answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Richards (talk • contribs)

DELETE appears to be to very popular among the Turkish contributors here. Among more neutral sources, the opinions are more divided, with a majority for KEEPING. And among those, there is at least already one fervently pro-Turkish militant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Richards (talk • contribs)

This seems a rather disingenuous series of remarks. To begin with, there are only two Turks who have responded, which is a comparatively small number when taken as a whole in relation to everyone who's responded - I'd also suggest that commenting on the argument, rather than the person making it, is probably for the best. As far as the "neutral" sources go (presumably "neutral" means "people who aren't Turkish"), there are in fact 4 who've suggested it be kept, with 3 suggesting it be deleted. Given the results of the CheckUser quoted here, I think we can be quite safe in saying that one of the 4 "keeps" is in fact an artificial vote, giving us 3-3. That's hardly a majority, and neither is 4-3 a consensus, which is what the object of the exercise is here, since we're not a democracy.BigHaz 11:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, constructive suggestions are very much OK to me, but here I was left somewhat puzled. Being still relatively new to Wikipedia, I've checked the not assuming good faith page, and it speaks about either NPOV contributions, either personal attacks. So could you please tell me what is a 'wikitrout' and give me the reasons why you suggets this. I find it quite stuning that you start suggesting what should be done with another contributor, without giving a clear argumentation why. Especially since I've tried to be as constructive as possible to anyone suggestion how to improve things. I only got pissed off in the past by the amount of times when contributions were just deleted, without any argumentation on the discussion page at all, not to say, without any indication that the factual info I contributed was not correct. Looking forward to a constructive solution, regards, Lucas
Further suggested reading:
Enjoy. --LambiamTalk 12:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I proposed List of people charged over their statements in Turkey or something like that. There were non-Turkish people charged for insulting "Turkishness". bogdan 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hundreds upon hundreds of people have faced charges in Turkey over things they said. Just the other day someone was convicted to a jail sentence for jocularly making the statement "I have a bomb on me" while on a ferry. Someone else was so upset that he called a customs official an idiot, something that is frowned upon in Turkey and not considered a liberty allowed by the constitutional freedom of expression. There would just be no end to it. I guess the same could be said for most other countries, including the United States. If we are to have a list, we need rather precise criteria for what goes on it, and these criteria should also be such that the list is not endless. --LambiamTalk 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be for political statements only. That should include Kurdish-related problems, insulting of "Turkishness" etc. bogdan 08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with neutrality are not a reason to delete. - FrancisTyers · 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this policy. Problems with neutrality alone are not, but forking is. BigHaz 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not the case in here: A list with clear objective criteria is not content forking. bogdan 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list with clear objective criteria is not content forking, true. However, I'm not convinced that this is such a list. There is no agreement (either in this discussion or in the article) about what "persecution" is apart from the general comment that it's something which is believed to have happened to the people on that list. Likewise, there is no indication anywhere of exactly what constitutes a "writer" ("fiction writers" and "journalists" are explicitly included, as are "officials" which is another vague term which can be stretched all over the place). Thus, we have a list of a broad collection of people to whom something hard to define has happened. I'll admit that the broad collection of people who were originally eligible for inclusion here has been narrowed a fair bit, but we've still got politicians, a judge, a number of journalists, an "editor", a publisher, an author or two, at least one publisher, a human rights activist and at least one person with no employment listed - so I'd have difficulty believing that there are hard-and-fast criteria for inclusion other than the fact that they've been a cause celebre somewhere around the world. Regarding the "persecution" side, we range in seriousness from a murder through to a complaint that someone's freedom of expression is being curtailed. So as far as exactly what happens to constitute "persecution", we're similarly vague. In other words, this is an article which exists purely to push a certain POV in a forked manner. BigHaz 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Francis's approach. List of people charged under Article 301 would be factual and precise without the pov issues. But i see no reason why that cannot be placed in Article 301 rather than a separate article. --A.Garnet 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there's also "Law 5816", which sends you to prison if you insult Ataturk:
Former parliamentary deputy Hasan Mezarcı was serving an 18-month sentence imposed in 1996 under Law 5816 for insulting Mustafa Kemal Atatürk -- amnestyusa.org
And also some Kurdish writers/journalists, charged under various other laws. bogdan 12:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could merge in the ones charged under '301 into Article 301, and find a better name for the others. Is there a "catchall" term for these kind of laws? - FrancisTyers · 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per bogdan & Francis. The title may be POV, but I think the article itself should stay. —Khoikhoi 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick comment for those talking about renaming the article to something to do with Article 301 - there is no indication that all of these people in the list were in fact charged under it, or in some cases that they were charged at all. BigHaz 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-verifiable information should be removed. - FrancisTyers · 11:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Soapy Smith. No reason not to have a redirect from this name, nothing to merge imo but no real reason to delete the history either. - Bobet 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson "Soapy" Smith

[edit]

This is a redundant article, there is already a large article at Soapy Smith Benji64 18:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything to be merged and speedy redirect. bd2412 T 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Troopers Virtual On Force

[edit]

Article is completely unsourced, failing Wikipedia policy on verifiability. It contains no reliable sources, is filled with original research and speculation, and contains unencyclopedic detail. The article has been around for six months, with frequent contributions by several editors, all of whom have not seen fit to add sources. On these grounds, I believe that the article should be deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a quick Google search yielded plenty of info (though the game is also sometimes called 4 Force Cyber Troopers Virtual On apparenty) including photos of a cabinet. It may not have been released in the US, but it exists and there's quite a lot of info about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I only found 139 hits[58], of which most were Wikipedia mirrors, two were results from Wikipedia itself, a handful of Japanese websites of unknown contents, about forty a remake of that and other virtuaroid games, and the remainder of which are attempts to sell the soundtrack. I found 2 "unique" hits for the alternate name you provided. I do not dispute the fact that it exists. I dispute the accuracy of all the facts in the article, because there are no sources. This article violates all of the content-applicable core Wikipedia policies, and a six-month editing history has not led to even a good-faith attempt to add sources. With sources to back up all the claims in the article, clearly it will be notable enough to remain. Without them, we risk spreading lies or half-truths across the internet, as with the Siegenthaler controversy. Captainktainer * Talk 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be confusing unverified (which is not a deletion reason) with unverifiable (which is). You said the article has been around for six months and has had many editors work on it. Try slapping a verifiaction template on it, give it awhile and see if things improve. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it is a valid reason for deletion. If information is unverified, it's original research, which is the second criterion for deletion. I could understand if the article had been around for a couple of weeks or a month... but the article has been around for half a year, and there is no indication that any of the information is true. Since there are no web-based sources available, and since there haven't been any major edits for over a month, and since the article is in flagrant violation of all core Wikipedia content policies, it should be deleted, barring a last minute rescue by some games-loving hero. Captainktainer * Talk 00:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete unsourced, original research gamecruft, per Captainktainer. Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Wine Guy Talk 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consider that this game rarely, if not never, release outside Japan. Search by using 電脳戦機バーチャロン フォース should be more effective. Now, the article itself seperate in two main section, I don't see much problem in Overview part as it involve only basic information. The problem is in second part, Virtuaroids. I don't think it's really an original research, it might be translated from somewhere, but I have no solid prrof on this so it's obsolete (may be this site?). It might be good idea to trim down the section and merge those info with Virtuaroid article instead, as I think they fit there perfectly. L-Zwei 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Anything not supported by references is either original research, a copyright violation, or a hoax, and should either be referenced or deleted by Wikipedia guidelines. The policy on reliable sources and verifiability is ironclad; we can't keep an article if it isn't sourced. Captainktainer * Talk 16:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - this is copper-bottomed, gold-plated, gilt-edged OR. Completely unsourced. If this stays we may as well through the sourcing policy out of the window. BlueValour 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The Virtuaroids section needs to be rewritten to remove OR or removed completely for now. That said, the rest of the article is certainly worth keeping. --SevereTireDamage 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up Whiel thsi game was never released in any English-speaking territory, it is part of the Virtual On series, some of which were released in to the U.S., so it is notable to English-speakers. It does really need sources though. It is possible a lot of the current contents are OR, but it isn't inherently OR and is fixable. Ace of Sevens 12:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pc Customization:Trend or Fad

[edit]

Recent prod was removed without comment. Article is an OR essay. Some of these details might be suitable for individual articles on computer building, but does not work as a separate article in current form. -- H·G (words/works) 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Pyrkal. Mailer Diablo 19:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PYRCAL

[edit]

redundant article, see Pyrkal Benji64 19:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect, the author started the article with the sentence (please see Pyrkal for complete article). So why is there even a separate article? The case isn't made for such in either article. -- H·G (words/works) 06:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas clements

[edit]

Nonnotable schoolboy pianist; nothing on Google; earlier versions were speediable but this one (barely) asserts notability; also apparently created by subject. NawlinWiki 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle II Circle (band)

[edit]

Band vanity page or incredible fan gushing. --CharlotteWebb 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Bauscher

[edit]

NN, as only claim to fame is notable relatives. He does not seem to techically be royalty. No vote from me, as I am unsure on the matter. J Milburn 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by User:Royboycrashfan. Mangojuicetalk 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquus

[edit]

NN band, contested prod, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Mangojuicetalk 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. In so far as the guy is notable, he is unverifiable, and in so far as he is verifiable, he is utterly non-notable. (CSD:A7) Stifle (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim aliz

[edit]

I've tried to suggest that this should be userfied, but (per article talk page) author feels it notable, so I'm bringing it here. Google returns overwhelmingly myspace pages. I think it qualifies as speediable, because I really don't see any assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, possibly WP:VAIN. -- Fan-1967 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not encyclopedically notable. bd2412 T 20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smod

[edit]

Non-notable modification for HL2 - could use a mention in the HL2 article, but I don't think it deserves it's own article. I'm also concerned the page is being used as a readme file/advert for the add-on. HawkerTyphoon 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question since certainly a few HL2 players have to wander in here every once in a while: Is this a significant or well-known mod to the game? I can't pretend I know enough about the game or its mods to know myself. -- H·G (words/works) 06:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AnswerThis is a significant mod that has been featured in magazines, has a forum dedicated to it that has had 200,000 hits and is an invaluable resource to many. Please leave the page up since the internet can handle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.160.12 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006
  • Witty Reparté Which magazines? Can we have sources? And my cat has a forum dedicated to him that has had almost 5,000 hits in the past six months - but it doesn't make it notable! take a look at this top 100. HawkerTyphoon 14:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Info The author is japanese and hasn't submitted it to any english sites anywhere, but many English sites had already gotten the site, simply by browsing the Smod community forum, and is still spreading among. Despite being relatively difficult to get and the total lack of english information available from the author the mod has gotten 200,000 hits in six months on one forum. If it wasn't a noteworthy mod it might not have got this amount of attention.
  • Additional Info The community finds this page useful and it should not be deleted. This is the second most popular mod for HL2 after Garry's mod and therefore justifies an entry in wikipedia. If you have any doubt look at Facepunch, Steam or H.I.T.. It has also been featured in PCGamer. I suspect someone is just trying to make trouble by proposing this popular mod's deletion. Please remove the page from the delete category--Fitzroydoll 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The three links you have just posted are all forum posts by the people who run Smod, and PC Gamer features HL2 mods all the time as part of it's publication - what we need is proof it's popular beyond a forum link or anything like that - a top 100? Or a review that places it in the top few mods? I resent the implication that I'm out to make trouble - hardly! HawkerTyphoon 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This goes to show how little you know about this game and why your personal opinion that it should be deleted should be ignored. Not one of the thousands of posts on those pages is by the makers of SMOD, that's all by players and fans. In any case my post was for the benefit of moderators who will hopefully observe from this that SMOD is very popular and that its page should remain in the Wikipedia.--Fitzroydoll 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As an avid fan, follower, and player of the Half-Life games, I can say with great certainty that this mod is in fact very popular, and therefore notable. Smod was a Featured Mod of the Week at Planet Half-Life. It's already been mentioned in the HL2 article for some time now. It's unfortunate, though, that the creator doesn't speak English, meaning that you wont often find it submitted to English mod sites where you can easily compare their ranking. Regardless of this, the mod has become well known throughout the HL2 community due to its outlandish, over-the-top, and amazingly impressive effects. As mentioned before, its a commonly known HL2 mod and it has been mentioned in PC Gamer before. The mod has been released for quite a while now, making it well established, and it is updated very frequently (The last update would be July 25, four days ago). The article could use a little work, but if you have no knowledge of the game, mod, or the community, then you'd be making a very large (and false) assumption saying that Smod is non-notable. MarphyBlack 09:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC) I also agree with Marphy black for the same reasons --Tom 10:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • meep. — Dunc|☺ 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Keep it is - although I request more reliable sources? HawkerTyphoon 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SMOD is one of the most noteworthy mods for HL2. SMOD is a mod so popular that people have actually modded the mod to make new mods. Including myself. The mod is extremely customisable, allowing people to totally change the location, appearence and function of weapons and enemies in the game. This has allowed people who have no coding (programming) ability to make mods for HL2, by heavily customising SMOD into a unique experience. And yes, SMOD has been in PC Gamer magazine. Also, because the mod's documentation is in Japanese and there is no english readme file, this wikipedia article is one of the few places that people can read what features are in the mod, other than people's descriptions on forums, or the Mod of the Week article on Planet Half-Life, or the PC gamer article. your evil twin 30 July 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Ferrari

[edit]

Non-notable blogger, possible vanity (author hasn't contributed a great deal except this article). He had some trouble cancelling an AOL subscription, recorded the conversation and made a post about it on his blog, gaining some limited media attention. Members of the public get interviewed on TV all the time and we don't give them articles. There's a paragraph in the AOL article that mentions the episode, and that's probably justified, but he certainly isn't notable enough for an article. There is nothing interesting to be said beyond what's in the AOL article. Delete. Rhomboid Man 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

[edit]

This is a list of completely not-notable people, about as interesting/useful/notable as a list of Richard Nixon's meals in office. Names/details on professons of random people is just a collection of tangental information. Perhaps transwiki to the memorial wiki, but delete here. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Improv 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no offense intended to anyone on the list, but as individuals they're not notable and they might not want their names re-published this way anyway. Opabinia regalis 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just a list of non-notable people, but also contains descriptions of how they survived, which IMHO is notable information. -- NORTH talk 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How they survived? What do you mean? What's notable about it? They're ordinary people in an unfortunate system -- anything noteworthy is covered in other WTC attack articles. --Improv 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --S0uj1r0 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to sep11:. Kotepho 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of the information per Improv's comment below.Weak keep Lists of casualties have been deleted already, 9/11 casualties, 7-7 London casualties, but this isn't merely a list. True enough that these semi-compelling stories would be better in Reader's Digest, but the information itself contributes to a broader understanding of the 9/11 attacks: how people managed to survive inside collapsing buildings, like NORTH says. It's not really a memorial, so I disfavor transwiki, though that would be better than deletion.--Chaser T 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Improv. Some of this info could be kept, but I agree with Improv's earlier post, most of the noteworthy info on 9/11/01 is already covered in other articles. -- H·G (words/works) 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of information in this article. I hardly se it merged into other 9/11 articles as most are already very long, but if it is it should be merged with Collapse of the World Trade CenterEyesAllMine 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until merged. There seems to be some good information in this article. One approach might be to move the information bit by bit into other articles, i.e., to delete it one fact at a time. As it gets shorter, it will be easier to decide what the loss would be in deleting it. I think the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, for example, could have a section on the evacuations. A few of these anecdotes, which include information about the elevators and stairwells, might fit in there. A section on the fire-fighting might also belong there. (These issues were definitely seen as collapse-related by the government investigations.)--Thomas Basboll 09:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admins routinely handle mergers and since this will be redirected, regular editors of these articles can retrieve whatever information they want from prior versons of the page. Keeping it until the merger is complete doesn't make sense in the context of typical process after AfDs.--Chaser T 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking more of the readers than the editors. Right now, the article includes information not available on the pages I'm working on. My suggestion was to keep this article until I have plundered it for my own purposes on, say, the collapse article. That is, not just reproduced the information there but actually removed it from here. I think the key objection to this way of proceeding would come from those who want a separate article on the survivors. I don't have a well-formed opinion on that.--Thomas Basboll 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to sep11, If info is desired to be merged elsewhere, it can be obtained from there.--Mmx1 12:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Mmx1 above Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to sep11 per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not know whether my vote counts, nor how to vote; but, if saying so is acceptable: I do tend to prefer any such history be retained. Thank You. Hopiakuta 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The accounts of survivors are important and notable information that deserve to be in Wikipedia and not just a memorial wiki. I think a merge would only clutter other articles. The best course of action would be to flesh this article out and wikify it.--Bkwillwm 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TransWiki The event may be notable, but the people involved are not. Can you imagine the mess if every terrorist incident included a list of people near the incident and how they survived? How do you even begin verifying they were in the building, near the building, got out the way they said etc. Delete, its not even something to be merged, the people who died or didnt die are just people, they themselves are not notable. Note Changed vote to transwiki, apparently its best served there then in a general encyclopedia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia has a list of Titanic survivors, who are not typically well known throughout the world, however they still have an article. These people deserve a mention as much as any other people who have survived such horrific events !!!! (Neostinker 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • That deserve marks this as an intent to be a memorial, which is explicitly against policy. I urge whoever closes this to weigh arguments, especially as how they bear on existing policy. --Improv 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to sep11 - not encyclopaedic but fits nicely there. BlueValour 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 the subject of the article if rewritten...But the contents for now shall be deal by WP:CP. Mailer Diablo 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Fitness

[edit]

Seems like advert with company link at bottom KarenAnn 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as copyvio. Can't be speedied since the article is more than 48 hours old, but there's nothing to revert to, since all previous versions are inappropriate stubs of less than three sentences. --Kinu t/c 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's going on? A major fitness company's entry on Wikipedia is listed for deletion? I'm not sure about this. Recently, somebody placed a copyvio tag, so I'm going to say delete. If we want to keep it, please put the article in their own words. Thank you. Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Keep, but must be re-writed as a company stub, as long as it does not copyright policies in Wikipedia. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write new article I have no objection to this being speedied if it's a copyvio, but it's also a huge chain that we really should have an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

[edit]

stub about non-notable prince Noel S McFerran 20:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Withdrawn, as article has improved beyond NN/linkspam stub. – Avi 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Society

[edit]

Not notable, as per Mega, Giga, etc. Avi 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ Keep The Prometheus Society is very active and quite notable. We and the Mega Society are the oldest societies selecting for intelligence at anywhere near this level, and are arguably the only established ones. Prometheus produced a hundred-page research paper evaluating all available IQ tests and setting norms at the four-sigma level. This scholarly paper is the only work of its kind in existence. http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/MCReport/mcreport.html Prometheus publishes a monthly magazine that is 72 pages long and contains various research and scholarly articles, along with works of fiction and poetry. Some of our most noteworthy articles, including perhaps the first appearance of a theory of how man evolved that has received some acceptance, can be read at http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/index.html Promking 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no gnews hits, at most one plausible scholar hits (Journal of Irreproducible Results) and no gbooks hits dealing with the society (well, not unless Ken Hudnall's Manhattan Conspiracy III: Angel of Death is factual, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case). The raw ghits include a fair number (20% or so) for the "Prometheus Society of Slovakia" which is something different. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:ORG that I can see and verifiability again limited to being a paraphrase of (actually a quote from) the group's website. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prometheus Society is mentioned in "The Know-it-all", a book published by Simon & Schuster in 2004, which was widely reviewed, as I recall. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0743250605&id=lveguMcFrokC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=%22prometheus+society%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=IhkW8XKtUsVh5K-bxdcpWCykR2s It also has over 250 hits on Google Groups, which is important for any assessment of verifiability since it's harder to skew than the main Google. Finally, it's mentioned in a recent article in the Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2813798Promking 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Angus makes quite the case for killing this article, and I'm with him. The fact that pretty much all of the content is from the society's web site doesn't help its cause. If more notability (i.e. mentions from outside sources) can't be found, the article shouldn't be found on WP. -- Kicking222 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Utterly irrelevant. Notability is actually NOT a criteria for deletion, as per Wiki deletion policy. Bringing it up as reason for deletion demonstrates only bad will on the part of whoever suggests such a deletion. Everyone can easily see: Wikipedia deletion policy that notability plays no part whatsover in determining the status of the article. No talk beyond that is necessary.StevanMD 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NN is worth reading, as is WP:ORG. WP:V is good as well. WP:NPOV is fun. WP:ADS I like. WP:VSCA trips off the tongue. Walled garden is informative. There's so much to read on deletion policy and how it works in practice. I know what deletion polocy says, but have you read WP:CSD (A7 in particular) or had a look at WP:PROD ? Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So then. It says many different things, and people end up quoting those they most like or are best suited to them, yet deletions do go on based on some mystical, elusive interpretations of conflicting stated rules. How very nice and serious for an encyclopeadia (as I've already observed before). People who spend time on such projects certainly have no value either for their input or for their time or both. Have fun.StevanMD 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment StevanMD, first off, obviously has a biased view, as his userpage states that he is a member of this society. Second of all, I would like to remind said user, in addition to the many pages Angus listed, of WP:NPA. Me voting delete on a page in which you have a vested interest is not a personal attack against you, nor should you take it as such. You telling me that I voted in bad will and that my opinions do not matter is a personal attack against me. -- Kicking222 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment For Heaven's sake, if you could keep to the arguments instead of personal derogations. If a person claims certain reasons for his actions as part of the set of rules and then we see even by his own admission that the rules are not exactly precisely set, but he still adheres to his view, albeit not consistently, as he picks the articles to which to apply *his* set of rules among myriads of articles otherwise equally notable and verifiable, then that is argument and it's an argument that clearly suggests bias. Additional problem is that no firm set of rules guides a supposedly serious encyclopaedic project, so it's subject to most anyone's whims, which makes it very unserious instead. StevanMD 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - without commenting on this article and its status here--at least not at this time, as I haven't looked into it enough yet--I would like to comment that many Wikipedia editors, including myself, see notability standards as an extension of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think notability issues have a valid place in AfD discussions, and though there are plenty of editors who disagree with this, it's not an uncommon guideline. Please refrain from alleging all such references to notability as "bad will"; assume our good faith and we'll try to do the same for you. -- H·G (words/works) 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For newcomers to this series of deletion debates I'd like to put this deletion debate in perspective and provide some history. Over the past week, there has been a deletionist attack on several major high IQ societies, and one article has already been deleted. That article concerned a reputable society, established for over 20 years, which has received extensive mainstream media coverage and gets 12 thousand Google hits, the Mega Society. Up for deletion is an article about Ronald Hoeflin, who also has received much media attention and is perhaps the leading psychometrician in the field of high-end psychometrics, and also articles about the Triple Nine Society, among others,and of course the Prometheus Society, which has produced major scholarly articles on high IQ testing.

Here's what I wrote during the Mega Society deletion debate. It's worth printing here because it has implications far beyond the rarefied world of high IQ societies.

This deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.

There are two aspects to my horror.

1. I have devoted my life to halping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.

2. I was at first skeptical of Wikipedia, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Wikipedia is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?

Several people have said that they pitied the closing administrator who must decide this case. Instead, I feel envy. This is a great opportunity for him or her to make a contribution to Wikipedia that far exceeds this individual case.My dad was a professor of administrative law and from the time I was a kid he drummed into me three things that make a fair decision under administrative law different from an arbitrary decision by administrative fiat. They are notice, hearing, and (perhaps most important) reasons. NOTICE. As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. HEARING The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. REASONS If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve

Some people have told me that Wikipedia works through consensus and not rigid procedure and rules. This may have been possible in the early days but I dont think it is now. Norbert Weiner once wrote that the limit of a small self-governing community where everyone knows each other and can reach consensus is about 100. You cant know every editor and I'm sure not every editor knows about this decision. You might well be a self-organizing system, but if you make a mathematical model of it, you might find that model predicts articles being deleted and then undeleted in an infinite cycle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Promking (talk • contribs) 22:09, July 23, 2006

I forgot to sign the post above, which I wrote yesterday. And there are two important points I forgot to include. First, much has been made of the fact that we have far fewer members than Mensa. But we are SIX HUNDRED TIMES MORE SELECTIVE than Mensa. Therefore, if we were as notable as Mensa, with its 60 thousand or so members, we would be expected to have a hundred members, and we do.

Second, most Wikipedians are totally unaware of this debate, and of the twenty or so others mounted against similar societies by the same people. Most of the debate participants have expressed a prejudice against IQ groups which, were it voiced against an ethnic group, would be considered racism. Avi, the proposer, said " I also note from my associations with various High-IQ societies that there is often a correlation between their members and an inflated sense of self. Not all of us whom G-d has blessed with IQ's significantly above 150 need to broadcast it to the world and preen. Anyway, innate intelligence is more often a gift (although honed and sharpened by use) and not something we should use to foster a sense of superiority" And Byrgenwulf, who was active in several related deletion debates, posted this on another forum in June: "Personally I've never seen the point of these societies...what do they actually do?I was once coerced by a friend to go with him to try to get into Mensa; we both took the test and qualified for acceptance, but I refused to join, because I don't see the value of wearing my IQ like a badge and getting together with a crowd of geeks (well at least this branch of Mensa seemed to be, I obviously cannot say that all Mensa members are) to solve brain teasers." Does the biases of the proponents matter? Well, would you like a deletion debate on a top hip-hop artist to be decided wholly by classical musicians... or by white racists?Brian Promking 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis is an encyclopedic project. This organization does exist. To delete is an attempt to rewrite history and the current human environment. If the society no longer existed it might make sense to review its inclusion. It does, however, exist, and as much as some persons thinking they have knowlege about the group, contending it is filled with geeks or merit badge holders, have not a clue as to what the membership or guests do there. Lack of understanding others activities is not cause to delete reality. --David M. Corneille


  • Promking wrote that I had posted a comment about Mensa in another forum...that is right. However, I should say that I do not appreciate people stalking my activities across the Internet; not that I care overly much, as I often use my real name (like many here -whom I commend), because I am not ashamed of what I do or say online, but stalking someone is nonetheless just plain rude. Promking also asked another question: "Well, would you like a deletion debate on a top hip-hop artist to be decided wholly by classical musicians?"...personally, yes I would! I wouldn't mind a bit if every trace of hip-hop was removed from this planet. But that's my own bigoted opinion. I also couldn't really care too much about IQ societies on the whole (I'm not sure they merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia more than wargames clubs, for example), but have no vendetta against them per se so let me say here that I am neutral. Byrgenwulf 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I did something wrong. I wasnt citing your quote to tell people who you are -- though since I have a legal background the idea of anonymous accusers rankles me -- but to tell people what biases you might have. This is, in my opinion, relevant. Even if you are trying to decide the issue rationally and in good faith, as I think you are, it is very hard to escape one's unconscious biases. The amusing thing is that you are *very much like* (in a good way) people in the ultra-high IQ societies.Promking 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
“jihad” is a very loaded word in today's day and age. You do us all a disservice by making divisive analogies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, per se, and definitely not a place to me making ad hominem attacks. I would politely suggest that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy before denouncing many of its editors as blind, hate-mongering fanatics. As one who has had family members wounded and disfigured, although thank G-d none dead as of yet, at the hands of those truly practicing jihad, I find your similies personally distasteful, if not downright repugnant. You do all of us blessed with significantly above average G-d given mental acuity a disservice this way; and yes, I count myself as one of those, thank G-d, having documented scores that would put me in that group. In general, I prefer not to discuss that, but I feel it is important that it is known that it is not a matter of jealousy or spite that is my motive here. Unfortunately, the vitriol and vituperance that you bring, with other defenders, leads me to believe that your responses are less measured and logical. Alas, the world is not a fair place, and the free and open exchange of ideas is more utopian than practical. At one point, I would have thought that there would be a direct correlation between innate mental talent and the ability to discuss and debate in a cordial manner. C'est la vie. -- Avi 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the instigator of the term Jihad, let me apologise for using it. And I'm sorry for the offence caused. But I also have to point out that raising an AfD against an active society without investigating beforehand is bound to raise hackles and cause friction. Perhaps we've both been equally stupid. --Michael C. Price talk 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ Keep. Excellent points about not using problematic group characterizations (i.e., jihad); thanks. Prometheus, like TNS and ISPE, has a history that likely reaches back some time. Our own Wiki entries on human intelligence show that it's a real, quanitifable, largely heritable entity that's consistently measurable with overwhelming reliability. The admissions standards for Prometheus have been continually upgraded and improved, and particularly in the last seven years they have represented the highest level of what serious psychometric research has endorsed (no take-home test, no Internet based tests, etc.), and these standards are currently being revisited to an eye to both rigor and maximum possible inclusiveness. Prometheus has a journal (available to anyone through subscription, my route of having come to appreciate it, through http://www.prometheussociety.org) that puts the journals of other groups, including Mensa with its glossy but disappointing content, to shame: Gift of Fire contains genuinely interesting and engaging excursions into high-level physics, chess, history, and poetry and fiction published in an attractive 64-page format on a regular basis (usually more than 6 issues per year. M StewartMstewarthm 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that, unless you don't take Wikipedia or its mission very seriously, which is clearly not the case, you are trying to erase our life's work from history? That's bound to ruffle a few feathers. What puzzles me is the inconsistency of Wiki delete actions. For example, any article about any public school in the U.S. is automatically kept, even if it is not at all notable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spencerport_High_School Promking 19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just as an aside, I think Mensans as a rule are just as stuck up, arrogant, and at times downright foolish as any other group, and I know what you mean with your comparison to Gift of Fire. Personally, I do not understand how they are not embarrased by some of the claptrap that passes for intellectual discourse in that glossy to which you are referring. Of course, that is solely my opinion. -- Avi 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–±→--May-Tzu 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)--May-Tzu 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)The President of the Prometheus Society, Fred Britton, was recently interviewed by a reporter from the *Village Voice* for an upcoming article on high intelligence and organizations that provide services for the intellectually gifted. When Richard May was President of the Prometheus Society he was interviewed by Ellen Graham of the *Wall Street Journal* and the Prometheus Society was included in the *Journal* article on high-IQ organizations of 19 April 1992. Recently the founder of the Prometheus Society, Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin, was extensively interviewed by CNN's Dr. Mittleman for an upcoming cable TV special on high intelligence and its role in the world today. May-Tzu[reply]

Similarly as an aside, I concur in part with Avi's comment above, from personal experience. Among the certifiably very bright people I've known, I find that the brighter they are, the more modest they are (in other words, there's a certain level of smarts that corresponds to a peak of intellectual arrogance: below and above that, it drops off, either from modesty associated with self-knowledge of one's own limitations or from modesty associated with comparing one's perhaps notable intelligence against the obvious possibilities and the accomplishments of true historical geniuses). It may be that occasionally some Mensans are smart enough to get excited about being sometimes the smartest person in a room but not smart enough to realize that there's a vast range of potential human intellectual accomplishment that they're never going to be dipping their big toes into. Mstewarthm128.165.134.32 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to clear all of this bickering up, if possible. I know I've made this suggestion before, as well, so sorry if I'm being repetitive. Many people have raised some very good and interesting points on this page, about the nature of IQ societies and people with high IQs and their behaviour. To a large extent, I concur with Avi that not every little society merits an encyclopaedia article. Like him, as well, I know from previous testing that I would get into many of these ultra-high groups if I were so inclined, but for various reasons I see no need to do so. However, seeing the responses these AfDs have generated, I realise that the topic of ultra-high IQ groups is of immense personal import to many people, who feel that these AfDs are an attack on things they hold dear (which I am certain was not the inspiration behind nominating them, but anyway). The current "high IQ society" article is worthless: it's pretty much a list of "this society admits that percentile or x number of standard deviations". Which may be very interesting to some, but is hardly edifying and informative. Why not create an article on high IQ subculture in general? Many points made here, by all of us, shed much light on the phenomenon, and the various angles from which it may be approached. The marked difference in quality between Gift of Fire and Mensa's rag; the politicking; the self-opinion and egoism (or lack of it) of members...there is lots to go on, and would be both interesting to "High IQers" as well as curious people with more "normal" IQs - whom it might help to understand the phenomenon of ultra high IQ better. Material could be taken from, for example, the Hoeflin interview mentioned above, various publications of the IQ societies, and so forth. Just some thoughts. Byrgenwulf 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wonderful suggestion, but first we have to get rid of these ridiculous multiple AfDs flying around. --Michael C. Price talk 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an excellent idea. Further, such an article would be able to have, as sub-headings, a brief entry on those societies that are currently not up to Wikipedia standards. Of course, if eventually those sub-entires are properly sourced, fleshed out, and held up against wiki standards, they could then be spun off in their own articles. Articles such as Mensa, Mensa International, Triple Nine (IMO) etc. are already notable enough, but should be mentioned in such a parent article. -- Avi 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Byrgenwulf and Avi, even though I do not agree that it makes sense to collapse all the societies into the High IQ Society article, I agree that that article is filled with vanity clubs with entrance tests that could never pass peer review. So why haven't I edited it? Since I'm an officer of the Mega Society, I felt I should abstain from doing so because it would have "bad optics." When the Mega Society AfD was first launched by Jefffire (who I think incorrectly throught he was striking a blow against Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe), I asked him why he had started with the Mega Society. He responded that he would get around to the others, so I dropped the issue. But nothing has been done. Canon 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but unless the current article is radically improved I see no real reason to keep this article. I see no reason why the verifiable parts of the article can't simply go into the High IQ Societies with a redirect. Otherwise Delete. NB can all the pile in voters respect my opinion and not try to argue with me? Spartaz 08:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be a lot of "pile in" votes in this and other IQ society AFDs. Please can the closing Admin take this into account.
  • Keep Let's look at the arguments for deletion: (1) The Society is too small. Order of the Garter has 26 members but correctly has an article. (2) The Society is not important outside of its membership. This could be claimed of many organizations that correctly have articles (e.g., Society of Fellows and National Puzzlers' League), because these organizations clearly have importance through the interaction of their members. (3) The Society is not notable. It has become clear in the course of this discussion that the existence of these high IQ societies is surprising to many people. This alone makes them notable. (4) The article should be merged into the High IQ Society article. The individual societies are quite different, each has its own character, its own journal, and its own history. Merging them together into one article would produce an unintelligible mess, not a clear article. Canon 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some sort of war game Cadwgan Gedrych 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’m Don Stoner, the author of a very controversial book on creationism and a grandson of Peter Stoner. Although I do not meet the rather strict requirements to qualify for membership in the Prometheus society I am not sufficiently vindictive to believe that those who do should not be allowed even as much as a single entry here. I am convinced that the society, is, indeed, every bit as real as it purports to be. Further, its extreme entrance requirements alone are enough to make membership a very notable prize - in fact, enough of a prize to induce a “sour grapes” response from those who can’t meet the requirements. -Don Stoner http://geocities.com/stonerdon/index.html
  • Mr Stoner, this is not a "sour grapes" response at all. If you had read the discussion, you would have noticed that two users here, both of whom have nominated a couple of IQ society articles for deletion and voted "delete" on others, could probably join some of these societies if they wanted; these societies tend to have a tiny fraction of the membership they statistically could have, because not all qualifying people belong to them. Please do not leap to hasty judgments on other peoples' character and motivations. No-one is disputing the "reality" of these societies, and the motivation here is not vindictiveness, as has been repeatedly explained. Byrgenwulf 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's quite true that No-one is disputing the "reality" of these societies since the Mega Society had a "Hoax" tag raised against it by someone who knew perfectly well that it is was real: an action that is pretty hard to interpret as anything but small-minded "vindictiveness". I'm not disputing your or Avi's honesty and integrity (although I confess I did at the beginning before I spoke more to you both) but we both know there are other people involved (three in particular!) in this who are both far from fair and honest.
I have a suggestion for the Prometheus Society members or other people familiar with its history: add to the article (which doesn't even have a talk page!), flesh it out and make it more "real". Someone mentioned the length of time Gift of Fire has been going -- add it to the article. How many members does it have? What is its relationship to the earlier 4-sigma society? etc etc. --Michael C. Price talk 09:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I replaced the "Hoax" tag with a link to one, because having it here actually categorised this as a hoax; while I find that rather ironic, it could lead to no end of confusion! Byrgenwulf 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah!  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor point, but you appear to have missed "and how could we verify these things" from your list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly seemed worth pointing out, but Gift of Fire documents many of these facts, along with conventional media exposure. --Michael C. Price talk 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about spam then ? Regurgitating what the Prometheus Society writes about the Prometheus Society seems rather like free advertising. Angus McLellan (Talk)
So should we ban people of Scots descent from updating articles on Scottish history? --Michael C. Price talk 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About verifiability. Our primary -- and most spectacular -- claim is that we select people at the one in thirty thousand level of intelligence, six hundred times more selective than Mensa. We have produced a long, scholarly article examining all reputable intelligence tests, determining which tests are capable of selecting at this high 4-sigma level, and determining what these scores are. http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/MCReport/mcreport.html Surely this is the best verification that we do what we claim to do. After all, when a PhD candidate claims to be worthy of that degree, he is not asked to provide newspaper articles that state he iw worthy. He is instead required to produce a thesis he has written. About expanding the Prometheus article... look at the history. Things are added, and then a few months later someone deletes them. I added the "six hundred times more selective than Mensa" and someone changed it to "six hundred times more gay than Mensa" What's the point of writine for posterity if it's gone in sixty days?Promking 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting vandalism is not subject to the Three-revert rule; if anonymous vandals become a problem request semiprotection from an admin; non-anons can be blocked for vandalism. --Michael C. Price talk 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a couple of days for this AfD to run. Being the nominator, if I see a good faith effort to turn the article from the current stub/spam/almost copyvio advertising link to something that describes the society including non-"advertisment" descriptions of criteria for membership, interactions with other societies, an example of any peer-reviewed work, mention by mainstream publications, notable members (inclusive-)or notable work products, I will withdraw the nom. With members comprised of four standard deviations from the mean, I am sure that you have someone there capable of putting together something better than what is there now (before y'all undergo collective apoplexy, the last sentence was an example of humor :) ). -- Avi 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding vandalism, if the article is kept, there will be many editors with it on their watchlist. You do not need to be an admin to revert vandalism, just call up the previous edit and re-save it (it pays to put “rvv” in the summary for revert vandalism). -- Avi 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infact vandalism can be a good thing if it spurs you on to add more useful stuff whilst reverting. --Michael C. Price talk 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Withdrawn by nominator. – Avi 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) After further review, I think this article meets my standards for notability, and as the proposer, I am withdrawing the nomination for deletion -- Avi 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Nine Society

[edit]

I am not sure on which side of notability this falls. It is more notable than Mega, Giga, Prometheus, but not as notable as Mensa. Avi 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this is a notable organization. While it is true that Top-X percentage societies can get tiresome, the ratio of google hits to an (obviously) small organization is pretty good. Irongargoyle 21:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this group could pass the WP:ORG guidelines. The article tells us that this is a club with 650 members. There are no gnews hits, one plausible scholar hit (a letter to the editor in American Statistician, but I don't have JSTOR access so I can't say exactly what it is). There's nothing resembling a newspaper or magazine of any sort in the first 3 pages of ghits. Given the nature of the membership I'm not convinced that 310 unique/654 total non-encyclopedia ghits is a great many. The article itself is a (non-copyvio) paraphrase of the society's home page, and in that limited sense is verifiable - it's what they say about themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article might be expanded, but why the heck delete it? Besides, WP:ORG is merely a proposal. Polymath69 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Utterly irrelevant. Notability is actually NOT a criteria for deletion, as per Wiki deletion policy. Bringing it up as reason for deletion demonstrates only bad will on the part of whoever suggests such a deletion. Everyone can easily see: Wikipedia deletion policy that notability plays no part whatsover in determining the status of the article. No talk beyond that is necessary.StevanMD 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As WP:CSD explains, articles are not merely deleted, but are speedily deleted, for failure to claim or imply notability (CSD A7). The whole purpose of guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:ORG is to determine whether the subject persons or groups are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, for which notability is merely a shorthand. As WP:NN says, it is a "test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Ah, so. If notability is "only a shorthand", what does it stand for? Is it for suitability as you say? If so, who and on what grounds establishes suitability? You say neutral point of view and verifiable information are imperative. Yes? Who verifies the informations for each and every article and who and in what way provides the certainty of the neutral point? If you truly adhere to concerns about notability I expect you to swiftly put on the road to deletion Northside Grizzlies, Hamblen Elementary School (Spokane, Washington), Cosby Elementary School and a myriad of similar articles, which by the standards you apply on Triple Nine Society are neither notable, nor verifiable. Will you? Will you ever? Failure to properly answer and undertake such action will render you a biased, bad willed censor, rather than objective, concerned encyclopaedists. You and your actions will tell us which of the two it is. There is no such thing as selective objectivity.StevanMD 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why there are many administrators, and a number of processes. Wikipedia is nowhere near perfect, but as a whole, it does a pretty good job of policing itself. Further, it is not a vote, but a discussion with which an administrator can make a reasonable decision. If you feel it is a ghastly oversight, there is always WP:DRV -- Avi 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP! Why in the world would anyone want to delete this article? TNS has been around almost 30 years! The only reason some people are motivated to want to delete this article is animus against High-IQ societies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.99.224 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP Everything in the article is, i.e., all of the factual data presented, of course, possible to verify. There are no falsehoods or untruths in the article. There is no bias in the article as all facts which are proffered are true and verifiable. There has been media coverage of the Triple Nine Society. (See, for example, The Denver Post, June 21, 2005, <http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2813798>) There are NO good reasons to delete this article about an organization of intellectually gifted people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizenberg (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment since you've found an independent report, it would be a good idea to add the link to the Denver Post to the External links section of the article (adding the other link as well, to the TNS website where it's available, would be sensible as readers may not wish to pay the Denver Post to read the article if they have the choice). The actual purpose of the group covered, whatever it may be, is not relevant to the AFD process (or it shouldn't be anyway). A second report would be ideal, and then the AFD could be withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all-out onslaught agenda painfully obvious & no harm in keeping anyway - it's not like the article attacks folks, for Chrissake! someone (this means you, admin over this) needs to stand up to these shameless concurrent attacks SOUTH 15:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Withdrawn with eye for cleanup. – Avi 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Philosophical Enquiry

[edit]

This one seems more like Prometheus/Mega/Giga to my eye. Avi 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, notability not asserted. Just zis Guy you know? 09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roserry Yu

[edit]

Prod contested. Twelve-year-old "child actress and model". Long detailed article that doesn't seem to have any actual assertion of notability. One google hit, apparently to a free website. Fails WP:BIO, maybe WP:VAIN. -- Fan-1967 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helliq Society

[edit]

Per Mega, Giga, etc. Avi 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Again, I read th article and there is no assertion that it is encylopedic. The discussion on the talk page seems to say that all high IQ socities deserve articles. Maybe they all should be combined into a List of high IQ societies? Vegaswikian 04:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Delete. seems like vanity. very commercial sounding. Possibly just notible enough to be encyclopedic, but not enough to have anyone write a NPOV article about it. Should be deleted until somone objective who cares about these things writes a real article. --Musaabdulrashid 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be your own AIDS victim

[edit]

De-Prod by article creator without explanation. Since the only assertion of notability (a magazine mentioned it as a band to watch for--keeping in mind of course that wikipedia is not a crystal ball) was removed by the article creator, this might even be speedyable. 59 google hits, fails WP:Music. Irongargoyle 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyology

[edit]

De-prod by anonymous user. Strange justification for the de-prod, although I think it was a borderline candidate for prod anyways. approximately 9,000 hits, instead of 800 as deletion proposer claimed. That being said, it is very crufty, and does also seem like link-spam No Vote for now. Irongargoyle 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padgism, Parajami, Meyakai, Padgist Harakai, Padgist deities

[edit]

hoax. No Google hits or sources Travelbird 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sameh Farid

[edit]

Farid is a non-notable professor (see deletion precedents: Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest). The article does not state or explain Farid's notability. 7Ghits. Srose (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SF-Sherlock (software)

[edit]

Non-notable (and possibly non-existent) software. Top Google hit is the Wikipedia page. Other pages are unrelated to this software. Article refers to the Dr. Stephen Fedtke website for further details but the website requires registration to gain access to information about the software, so no way to verify its existence. Article was written by Steve4712 (talk · contribs) whose only contributions are this article, so possibly a vanity piece. --TheParanoidOne 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European youth forum

[edit]

No assertion of notability and completely inadequate sourcing (which is to say, none). Article as it stands is an orphaned advertisement. Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I'll admit I haven't done all the legwork on this, but a glance at Google[61] makes me think this would meet the proposed WP:ORG ("organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source"). Granted, only 500-odd unique Ghits, and eight months haven't helped this article fill out more, but unless absolutely no sources meeting the usual standards can be found, I'll err on the side of keeping this. -- H·G (words/works) 00:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyoob

[edit]

Nonnotable company "currently in stealth mode" (in other words, nobody knows about it); author removed speedy tag. NawlinWiki 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talossan language

[edit]

del. Since the first nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talossan language and my "Original reserch" tag no one bothered to address notability and verifiability issues. The article extlinks only taloccan websites. No independent third-party corroboration provided. Kingdom of Talossa was voted for deletion for nonnotability as well. `'mikka (t) 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

noted--Musaabdulrashid 07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable as conlangs go. DenisMoskowitz 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite claims above that many people speak this this source says only two here. BlueValour 03:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a conlang. Two speakers are quite a lot for a conlang. When I wrote that Talossan is a fairly known conlang, I didn't refer to the number of speakers, but to the fact that it's quite a famous conlang, mostly because it's related to a famous micronation. By the way, I'd be all for merging this article with Kingdom of Talossa, but alas this article is deleted now (again, I fear for poor knowledge of admins/editors about the subject) --Cyclopia 11:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As with my protected and deleted Kingdom of Talossa (which I wrote) , this article should be kept while yes, it was me who put it there, there are 2 fluent speakers, there is plenty of others, and I would be sad to see no referances to the Kingdom outside the main micronation page and my User:Kitia/Kingdom of Talossa (thanks Mangojuice!) It is not a fake language and the Kingdom is not a fake country! The language has more than 20,000 words, and you call that not notable? About every word that IJzeren Jan said. What's up with deleting almost every micronation! Kitia 15:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 into Feng-hsiung Hsu (had to pick one for the merge, and the author seemed like the better choice). I have carried this merge out. Proto::type 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behind Deep Blue

[edit]

Delete. Lack of notability, lack of potential for expansion, edit history suggests lack of interest even among wikipedians. Zargulon 20:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Merge as per Phr below. Zargulon 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 22:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingolf Wunder

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable pianist; 205 unique Ghits[62]. The content recently added is unencyclopedic as well and may be copyvio. -- H·G (words/works) 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 22:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Soler

[edit]

This article was originally prod'd and the prod take was removed by the article's creator stating, "Soler has drawn a following among noir, underground readers and deserves mention in Wikipedia. He is not a complete unknown, as his works have stirred original discussion in and around California"[63]. However, after looking at this, WP:BIO, and anything else I could dig up, nothing came up to prove Soler's notability. There is nothing in Soler article that makes Soler actually appear notable or unique. He appears to be just normal and attempting to get into a larger scope of writing. So, this is a crystal ballism. Alos, Google for "Andrew Soler" + "San Fransico"[64] doesn't verify anything notable. "Andrew Soler"[65] also doesn't bring anything up. I also have a strange inclination to believe that this may infact by a vanity piece by the author looking at his other contribution and one of the google hits that I recieved on the front page. Delete as a not yet notable bio and crystal ballism. Yanksox 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>Evening, people. It's necessary to equate notability with cyber representation. I get that. Soler's absence on search engines, however, should not be taken as a sign of obscurity, or worse - normalcy. On the streets, in coffee shops, his works DO generate discussion. I would know, having attended the same workshop as said author. His writings can be found in the San Fran bay area, in Long Beach, in the southern Californian desert - across the state and back again. The problem is the de-commercialization of his art. You won't find his writings at Barnes and Noble or Amazon. They won't rot in some university bookstore. They are circulated hand to hand, person to person. Free of charge.

Unlike most article creators, I refuse to claim unadulterated neutrality. I do know the author, through his works and a few brief encounters. I am a fan, and not the only one. There are others who've cozied up to his movement. Since we haven't created a webpage in his honor, and since his works never enter the commercial ether, I guess hes too unimportant for this place. Until he attends book signings and sells his art, I suppose he'll continue to be "just normal." Do you need me to email you legitimately published copies of his works, along with critical analyses from outside parties? That can be done in a second. In half a second.

I defend the article in haste, and fully aware that it will do absolutely nothing to impede the article's deletion. Since yanksox already has a "strange inclination" to suspect I am the author on a self-aggrandizing mission, I fear the article is dead already. Pity. -- Englandsfinest 05:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 with Big Brother (USA season 1). WikiProject Big Brother says that only tables that would break the flow of the article should get their own page, and this particular table seems not to be too large. --james(talk) 12:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (USA season 1) nominations table

[edit]

comment there is currently something messed up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 16. This AfD is not showing up properly and the comments are being almagamated into the Dads Strength listing. Not sure why, a check of the edits shows everything looks fine. Could have something to do with the name of this article.--Crossmr 21:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I think. --JD[don't talk|email] 21:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup looks good.--Crossmr 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Mangojuicetalk 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny Shoe Music

[edit]

NOTE: The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator...indicating that, presently at least, there are 2 withdrawn "delete" votes, 1 "keep" vote, and one misplaced "weak delete" vote on the article's talk page. The two withdrawn "delete" votes (including the withdrawal of the AfD nominator) should both be regarded as "keep but rename" votes. Tomertalk 05:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This term is a neologism according to the article itself, which writes:

The term Shiny Shoe Music was first used by MoChassid, a Jewish music blog. Other names for it commonly refer to "Boro Park Rock," "DosPop," "Hemishe Freilachs," and "Muzica Chasidi" (Hebrew phrase for "Hasidic Music.")

Following that link shows that the term was invented in 2004 by a blogger; there is no reason to think that it has wide-spread use. Google has "about 674" results, the first of which is WP. The fact that other editors have edited the page means merely that they know about this kind of music (as I do), not that they refer to it by this name. (But I hope to inform all such editors of this nomination.)—msh210℠ 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have so informed.—msh210℠ 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, unless a better name can be found...in which case, rename Hasidic music. Tomertalk 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Fact check. Following the link, I learned that the blogger was happy to use the term in 2004 because he felt it was inspired, not that he made it up himself. In fact he specifically disclaims making it up, saying that it was made up by another Yerushalmi musician. The Google hits seem diverse enough to support the idea that it is in use by a lot of people, even if it's a "neologism" (not sure if that term even applies to music, whose styles are constantly evolving) Reswobslc 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact re-check: He says his musician friend invented "shiny black shoe music", not "shiny shoe music", which seems to be his own invention. Most of the Google hits are blog entries (at a glance: I haven't checked carefully), which would seem to imply that the term is quite new.—msh210℠ 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I actually have no problem moving per Tomertalk 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC), I guess, but have no idea what to move to. As the article states, the genre is called "Hasidic music" (in Hebrew) in Israel, and I've heard the term "Hasidic music" (in English) too, and I suspect that that's a better title than the current one, but don't know if that's good enough either.—msh210℠ 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, my recommendation then becomes to move the article to Hasidic music and if someone comes along later and says that article should include other types of Hasidic music, we can figure out at that point whether to further disambiguate...or if, perhaps, by that time, "Shiny Shoe Music" or some other term is more applicable to this particular genre. Tomertalk 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, "Hasidic music" would be too ambiguous: in fact it sounds like it's referring to music of Chasidim rather than to the stuff now discussed at Shiny Shoe Music. So maybe moving thither is not such a good idea.—msh210℠ 06:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was exactly my point...That said, however, just because you or I think it sounds ambiguous is insufficient grounds to not put it there...essentially, refusing to do so, esp. since you even say right out, above, that you've heard it referred to by that name, becomes a backwards violation of WP:NOR. All that would be required to avoid confusion is to state plainly what's being discussed in the article lead--that is, after all, the lead's purpose. As I said above, if Çasidi music eventually begins to refer to other things as well, or if you're really opposed to putting it at Chasidic music, write an article about chasidic music [it need only be a stub, to begin with], and mention the subject of the current Shiny Shoe Music, complete with a link to "this" article, and move it from Shiny Shoe Music to Hasidic music (style) or whatever. Tomertalk 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really think that was entirely necessary--I'm pretty sure consensus against outright deletion has already been reached. What remains is to actually figure out what to rename it. Tomertalk 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Per TShilo12's suggestion, I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion in favor of moving the article. (Note also that this should not be viewed as a request by author for deletion of this AFD page, as a record of this discussion is needed.)—msh210℠ 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

larriage

[edit]

Dicdef. Hardee67 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Holy mackerels. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical equipment used by Billy Corgan

[edit]

Does Wikipedia really need articles about equipment used by musicians? Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Tasteful

[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Appears to be a group of three independent filmmakers. The group members have contributed to other projects that may be of certain note, however Very Tasteful Productions does not seem to warrant an article. Here are their ghits: [66]. Alexa rating for their site 1,101,477. Company's IMDB page: [67]. Only one of the three productions listed has any votes/comments at all, and that one only has 5 votes. — NMChico24 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A 7-minute short doesn't make it for notability. Fan-1967 22:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Just because they don't hold significance for you doesn't mean they don't deserve a page. They've been featured in magazines that I read and on sites I frequent. -- JohnWilliams713 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you could provide links to notable magazine articles, that would be helpful. — NMChico24 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • MacAddict and MacWorld magazines are two of the most notable publications for Apple and Macintosh related stuff. I don't have links off hand because I read them in an actual printed magazine. They've also been considered for the pilot episode of the eBaumsWorld television program that's going to debut on the USA network. — JohnWilliams713 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was unable to find anything relating to Very Tasteful Productions on either the website for MacWorld or MacAddict. As for the eBaumsWorld television program, I did find this release from the eBaumsWorld website, however it doesn't mention anything about Very Tasteful Productions. — NMChico24 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very Tasteful has 3 films listed on iMDB, not 1. Also, their short films have been broadcast nationally on CBC many times, including ZeD television, CBC's On Demand, and more recently on Sketch with Kevin McDonald. They also wrote the theme song for Hope is Emo, and extremely popular podcast.— GaryFrill
    • Is this a sockpuppet? User:Gary Frill shows newly created, and this comment (made 10 minutes after account creation) is his only contribution. If you create accounts solely to make duplicate votes in an AFD discussion, they're likely to be ignored. — NMChico24 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a "sockpuppet". I am a fan of Very Tasteful, and was pleased to see an article on Wiki about them. I feel this article is credible, well written, and(more importantly) valid.— GaryFrill
        • I find your claim of being a distinct user from JohnWilliams713 dubious, since you have the exact same writing style, and jumped straight to this discussion 10 minutes after your account was created. Most new users don't start out in AFD. — NMChico24 05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to your comment about Hope is Emo, I have pointed out that individual members of this group have participated in notable projects, however there is still no mention of this particular company. Therefore, it doesn't warrant an article. — NMChico24 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC
      • Please refer to the official website of Hope is Emo. Very Tasteful is linked on the mainpage as well as at the end of every video so far in the series. Please by all means exercise more thorough means to determine the credibility re: MacAddict (I don't know about MacWorld.. I am only familiar with MacAddict). If you are able to research this submission thoroughly, you will be able to confirm these details with the respective editors of those magazines.— GaryFrill
        • Of course there's info in the Hope is Emo page about this company. The author of Very Tasteful put it there. — NMChico24 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You misunderstood, please refer to the official Hope is Emo site: [68]. As I wrote before, Very Tasteful is linked on the mainpage as well as at the end of every video so far in the series. — GaryFrill
            • I am not, nor do I know Gary Frill. I registered a new account because I have never actively participated in a discussion on wikipedia. In a conversation with Billy Reid earlier this evening, he mentioned that he had a wiki now. I checked it out, being a fan of his work and noticed that it was up for deletion. That led me here. I'm from Atlanta, Ga and I'm a very active member of the Macintosh community. Feel free to google me. You won't find any link to this Gary Frill person. With regards to the MacAddict article, you'll have to find yourself a copy of the April 06 issue. They don't post much of their content online. JohnWilliams713
  • Don't Delete I, too, am a fan of Very Tasteful and think that the work that this group has done is more than enough to warrant a wikipedia page. I personally have seen their mentions in macworld and macaddict. Tobobo
  • Don't Delete I find this introduction to editing on Wiki very confusing and disappointing. I was told of this debate, and have come here to offer my opinion. Is it not valid because I am new? That doesn't make me feel very welcome. When someone has been advised of this situation, are they not entitled to establish an account and advocate on behalf of Very Tasteful? In any event, I support the evidence offered in favour of Very Tasteful Productions. I have collaborated with them in Vancouver, Canada, and can attest to the legitimacy of the above projects. jonbot2000
    • Just because I'm not a regular over at wikipedia doesn't mean I am not credible. You are discrediting an organization many people know and love; of course we are going to come out and fight for the cause. Tobobo
    • User's only edits are here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and what appears to be sock/meat puppetry. Ryūlóng 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. Sock/meatpuppets need to be dealt with. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete If the thrust of the deletion request is solely that Very Tasteful is too obscure, then I disagree. They're certainly not well known but I think they have sufficient presence to warrant inclusion on wikipedia, I've heard about them right down here in the antipodes, again through the online Apple community. What's the harm in allowing it? --Benightedbastard 08:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reeks of vanity. We'd rather you make some nice edits to other articles than creating a complete article with a somewhat interestingly detailed bit about your group. The fact each of the members histories are clearly known and its all cleanly documented. I'm doubtful any of this could be verified by reputable sources, because the sources are likely the members themselves, writing about themselves. I mean, "They all grew up in Victoria, BC and met in high school. Billy Reid finished film school in 2003, and is the most versatile member of the group.," that's an unlikley sourcable statement. Its all self-vanity sadly, by virtute of impossible knoledge through anyone but the group themselves as they don't appear to be that fameous in any place I can tell. If you guys are filmmakers, perhaps you do better off to write about stuff you know. One of you likely graduated from Vancouver Film School, go expand the article a little. (Don't list yourself as notable alumni though, you likely aren't yet if this AFD goes for a delete.) If the Billy Reid guy is a composer, he can check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Stop getting your buddies to come here to comment on this, and go improve the wiki elsewhere. Have a nice time on wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 09:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I had no idea adding a simple article would cause so much debate. True, I spent some time making it perfect, but should not all new articles be as well thought out? I found all of my information on the members from their website, their podcast, from the MacAddict CD's, imdb, articles online: [69], word of mouth, and their short films. This is not, although I now see how it can be assumed as such, a vanity piece. I simply was excited to start my Wikipedia experience with a well written article. It would be a be a shame to delete it, as I feel it holds merit. Please reconsider.Trish Rules
  • I don't really know what sock/meat puppetry means although I have an idea, but I do find it unfair that my vote doesn't carry the same merit as anyone else here. Yes, I made an account with the intention of defending this article. Why is that frowned upon? I frequent this site, however I didn't think I had to participate in discussions all day long for my voice to count. That seems pretty elitist. and certainly uninviting and I don't appreciate it. Is it because we're fans of the work?? Shouldn't that go towards establishing their notability, not against it? I've never personally met Billy Reid. I'm a fan of his work and we speak online occasionally. I subscribe to their podcast. I own one of their DVDs and I don't believe this article is a vanity piece and I do believe that they deserve an article. Who knew the politics of Wikipedia were so cut throat. JohnWilliams713
    • And not that it probably matters, but this will certainly be the last discussion I participate in on this site. I don't appreciate being called names and bring treated like crap. I had no idea this community would be so unwelcoming. JohnWilliams713
      • The primary reason why new users are allowed to participate is that they may have relevant information to offer. The primary reason why their opinions tend to be discounted is when they ignore Wikipedia standards. Overwhelmingly, what we've seen from new users amounts to "I think it should be kept because I'm a fan of it," which has basically no value in the discussion. Fan-1967 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I have reviewed this case since my last posting and would like to highlight some issues if I may. There has been a great deal of condescension dished out to new users such as myself which I think is unfair. I acknowledge that our knowledge of the process is cursory, but I'm not sure that it has undermined this process. It is hypocritical to accuse "us" (new users) of acting in poor taste when the advocates of non-inclusion are guilty of the following: not responding to the assertion re: mac magazines (you were encouraged to pursue this by contacting the editors of the magazines, and have not offered to do so); the claim that one person was unethical by creating a false account based on the subjective belief that "they" have similiar writing styles (how is that credible? It feels underhanded. How can that be "sourced"?); Re: Hope is Emo. Have you consulted the official website for that organization? Why have you not contacted this group about this issue? Again, doing so would legitimize the claim. Once again, you have not indicated you have or will do so. If efficacy is the goal of this site, why are you not playing the devil's advocate? Re: notability criteria. It is demonstrated multiple times that this group has a national/international presence. With their films participating in the New York Musical Theater Festival and the Milan Fim Festival as official selections, this is demonstrated. They have also had their work broadcasted nationally in Canada several times. Hope is Emo, a hugely popular podcast on internet, has been viewed over 1 million times on youtube alone. If you take the time to view this popular podcast, you will see at the end of each episode, an acknowledgement of Very Tasteful Productions. I recognize this is a lenghty entry, but these issues need to be raised and addressed for Very Tasteful advocates to accept your assertions that this group is not credible. Please research the above issues, and explain how they do not match the stated criteria. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbot2000 (talk • contribs)
    • You can only make one "vote". Ryūlóng 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OKay. Can you help me delete the first one? Do I simply delete it from the edit page? If so, how do I restore my recent entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbot2000 (talk • contribs)
        • You can also not unvote. Your first discussion has been taken into account, as had your second. If the closing admin feels that you made a good argument in either, he/she will take them into account in his/her final decision. And always remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And obviously, if you were "told of this debate" then the author or parties involved in the article have posted a link to this discussion on the fan forums or whatever there is. As such, that will further degrade from any chances of this article remaining included in Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm getting tired of all these accusations thrown at anyone who comes here to defend the article. How is it "obvious" that there has been a posting on a forum? There are no Very Tasteful forums. Apparently using Google is the only method for research on Wikipedia, and if so, Google this fictional "fan forum". I failed to find any such forum. Also, I'm sure that the other new users were unaware of this four tilde requirement at the end of our edits.Gary Frill 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would also like to reiterate that I wasn't told that this article was up for deletion in my conversation with Billy Reid. I was simply told that he had an article. It was my decision to take part in this discussion. I wasn't recruited to do so. JohnWilliams71366.239.217.42 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 08:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical special pleading

[edit]

As per my entry on the article's talk page: "[none of the] examples given illustrate any distinct logical fallacy, and are instead just examples of correlation implies causation." Also, as another editor notes, the title phrase fails the Google test. S0uj1r0 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism (although "special pleading" may have become accepted in general). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ccjohns.com

[edit]

It is a blatant advertisement for a company for which I can't find any claim to notability. - Tapir Terrific 23:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Ifnord 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao (website)

[edit]

This article does note meet the criteria for inclusion. meatclerk 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely Strong Keep This company is highly notable as is demonstrated by the articles that have been published about it in the link below
  • [[70]]

The Parent company 'Greenfield' is also listed on NASDAQ. Supposed 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely Strong Keep Ciao is a significant price engine, and that's a big service that needs coverage on Wikipedia. Blowski 20:46 (GMT), 24 July 2006.
  • Strong Keep, in spite of the incorrect "keep" reasoning above. (Many of the "press sources" listed on the company site are less notable than Ciao, itself.) However, there are multiple press references, both as a price engine and as a consumer review web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto::type 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dooyoo

[edit]

This article does note meet the Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations criteria for inclusion. meatclerk 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NO Vote Conflict of Interest. I nominate. This article has had over 1 year with a cleanup tag. No major or substantial improvements have been made. There is no encycolpedic form. Most likely written from the Corp. office. Regardless of the nature of the website, this article deserves to be deleted. --meatclerk 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires that we Assume Good faith as per WP:AGF so we should avoid the assumption that it's most likely this is written from the "Corp Office"
Secondly the person who nominated the article for deletion cannot vote on it Supposed 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person who nominates the article is presumed to vote delete unless it's a procedural nomination, and cannot "vote" again. S/he may add additional comments as appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A notable website and company as per WP:N who's article I have little doubt will meet WP:CORP criteria

when links are added. Supposed 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Guitars (band)

[edit]

Does not assert notability, and seems to fail it [71] anyway. Valrith 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - four albums on Sundance - The Scandinavian Music Company. Not being in the region, I cannot attest to whether or not the company is notable. But if so, keep. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Here's the list of Sundance's bands [72], which is an impressive list, but I've never heard of any of them. The band's website mentions a European and Canadian tour. Allmusic panned one of their albums [73]. I can't read Danish, so I can't really find anymore, but they seem to meet WP:MUSIC overall. --Joelmills 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I guess they are at least a band with a contract... GuBu 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see a clear indication, either in the article or on their official website, of them meeting any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If somebody can indicate which criteria they fulfill, and how, I would be happy to review again. Cheers TigerShark 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put this in context with earlier comments by other users. Being signed to Sundance only counts if Sundance is a major label (or an important Indie label). Judging by the list of unknown bands accredited to Sundance, it seems like neither. The tours only count if they were concert tours and were reported in notable sources - I can't see an indication of that (apart from them using the term concert on their own website). The reviews only count if there are several of them published in reputable media - again I can't see an indication of that. Cheers TigerShark 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the review at AllMusic is only two sentences TigerShark 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 relist at CfD. -- Kjkolb 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adulterers

[edit]

I propose that this category should be deleted. "Adulterer" is a derogatory label, and if the category is upheld, it could be used to label vast numbers of biographies in a rather unpleasant manner. There is already bad feeling directed towards Wikipedia about some of its biographies, and, in my opinion, this category has the potential to make the situation much worse. Details of extra marital affairs are documented in the biographies where appropriate. Wikipedia seems to have a policy of avoiding derogatory biographical categories. This policy should be continued. Viewfinder 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the originator of the cat, I feel this is an historically and culturally important and interesting category. Anyone wondering why it doesn't have any members in it at the moment, the nominator reverted all my +cat edits, but they included people from all walks of life, past, present and fictional, in an unbiased and fully sourced way. I am not aware of the bad feeling issues the nom refers to, and I think adulterer is fine (after all we have Category:Serial Killers), but if people feel strongly that adulterer is an inappropriate label someone who has participated in marital infidelity, don't hesitate to suggest alternatives, e.g. people who have confessed adultery or people who have been prosecuted for adultery. Just resist censorship, and keep this important category with ramifications throughout societies and literature worldwide. Zargulon 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, this is a Category not an Article. The nom and I cannot figure out how to correctly nominate it for deletion as a category. Some help would be appreciated.
The correct method is to nominate this at WP:CFD. I will set it up for you shortly. Road Wizard 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, it seems that I should have used cfd, not afd. I hope this can be sorted. If the powers that be uphold this category, perhaps they might consider at least changing it to "Extra marital affairs". Viewfinder 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been renominated at CfD. Road Wizard 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherished Television

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa 2,539,352. ghits: [74] — NMChico24 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik_Mona

[edit]

Though Mr. Mona is the editor of two magazines, he is not-notable outside of a small group of people, mostly RPGers. Some one like Gygax is notable because they have been mentioned in pop culture. But Mr. Mona isn't notable by WP:Bio. Not all Editors of Dungeon or Dragon magazines need to be listed in Wikipedia, if any need to be, only the important ones should be. Azathar 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. If I rate a page, then Mr. Mona likely does, too. Branden 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense Branden, but you probably don't really rate a page either, under WP:VAIN, vanity information. Your page seems a bit vain and self-serving, espcially when it was started, and has been edited under a lot of IP addresses. I'm a gammer and I don't think Mona warrants an article.--Azathar 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, except at the suggestion that I wrote the page about me. I didn't. Branden 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO says "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Haven't the magazine and other publications received quite a few multiple independent reviews? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being editor of two magazines, Erik Mona has written several works for RPGs [75]. Also see the number of works credited to him on Amazon [76]. As for not being notable outside of RPGers, I guess one would have to define what constitutes a "small group of people." Judging from Mona's body of work, I would certainly say that he mets that standards for notability.--Robbstrd 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of a world population of 6+ Billion, how many of them do you think have heard of Erik Mona? I would say the number is around a couple of million, most, if not all of them gamers, like myself, who keep abreast of what goes on in the rpg industry. The rest probably wouldn't care who he is. I don't think that meets the standards of notability.--Azathar 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mona edits the single largest and most prestigious publication in the RPG industry: Dragon (magazine). A simple Google search of the works he has authored turns up multiple independent reviews, which according to WP:Bio is criteria for notability. "Faiths and Pantheons" + "review", for example, turns up 3,520 hits. A Google search of "Erik Mona" turns up 34,900 hits. If this article is deleted we would in effect be saying that no RPG authors except perhaps Gygax merit an article. As to RPGers being a "small" group of people, there are millions of RPG players worldwide. Because of his role at Paizo Publishing as Chief Publisher, Mona has one of the most influential roles in the entire RPG industry serving these customers. Delete nomination here is well-intended, but off the mark. Fairsing 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So did Roger Moore and Kim Mohan and others, but does that mean they deserve articles here? Big wigs like Gygax, Arneson, Greenwood, Weis and Hickman, Adkinson, THEY deserve articles. IMHO, Mr. Mona doesn't. Dragon has plenty of independent reviews, but has it won any awards since he began editing them? So, if we keep this article, then we should be creating articles for all RPG authors? I'm an inclusionist and I don't think they all should be.--Azathar 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems we disagree, and I respect your right to a different opinion. As I see it, Moore has authored numerous publications and probably deserves an article; not sure about Mohan. I agree with you about Gygax, Arneson and Adkinson; I don't know enough about Greenwood, Weis and Hickman to have an informed opinion. But fortunately we don't have to have to reach consensus on the relative importance of any given RPG author, which is an inherently subjective exercise. WP:Bio sets out the suggested criteria, and it would seem that Mona meets those criteria (multiple independent reviews of his work). Fairsing 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I respect your right as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree and let the AfD run its course, though I suspect that the article will end up staying.--Azathar 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And not just because I think Erik is a swell guy.  ;) Actually, it really doesn't matter whether or not Erik has a wikipedia article, nor I suppose does it matter whether Gary Holian, James Jacobs, Sean K. Reynolds, etc have articles on wikipedia. I do think that the reasons for deletion presented thus far are flimsy, especially compared to the reasons presented against them, and I don't want to see a precedent made of deletion for the sake of deletion. Perhaps if there were more people clamoring for deletion, it wouldn't seem like a lone crusader's goal. Erik's had a not insignificant body of work, though admittedly it's not enormous by comparison to a lot of other folks: [77]
Also, Dungeon did win an Ennie award at Gen Con last year, so there's at least one award. BOZ
  • Though an award is an award, an "Ennie" is an industry specific award. And I don't think a deletion will be happening, as it already has more keeps then deletes, unless a bunch of ppl come on and vote for it to be deleted. As for Erik being a swell guy, I have no way to verify that, and it also has no bearing on the AfD ;-).--Azathar 06:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Ifnord 00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Albe

[edit]

A non-notable gymnast. Albe didn't win or come close to any competitions that have articles. Almost making the olympics does not make an athlete notable Lorty 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note- Really only 152 Ghits. The use of "quotes around names" makes a big difference. --Wine Guy Talk 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - brenneman {L} 07:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wandering Man

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Omegatron appears to have corrected this cut and paste article creation. Metros232 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operational tranconductance amplifier

[edit]

The article name is misspelled; it should read "Operational transconductance amplifier." I've created a new article with this properly spelled name and transferred the contents of the article to be deleted to it. Anoneditor 03:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23&oldid=1116775185"