Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 26 July 28 >

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 keep. Joe 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confiscation Act of 1861

[edit]

Isolated dictdef with no real chance of possible improvement. Thygard 19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. First one I've ever posted. Thygard 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is, for example, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9025837?tocId=9025837 WilyD 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as condition is fulfilled. Sijo Ripa 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syrett, John, "Confiscation Acts", Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, Heidler, David S., and Heidler, Jeanne T., eds., W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, ISBN 0-393-04758-X.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive A.I.

[edit]

Advertising for a non-notable company. GregorB 18:30, 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. Wickethewok 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Hartland

[edit]

Local, non-notable political figure. To read the article, you'd think he was the most important man born in the last century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Genthree (talk • contribs)

  • Weak keep - the facts of his parents' deafness and his youth on election put him just over the line, I think. For future reference, please put AfD nominations at the bottom of the day's listing, rather than the top. BigHaz 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. He sounds like a great guy and I wish he was my local politico, but he fails WP:BIO for lacking the multiple non-trivial articles written by third parties - his own blogsite won't count here, methinks. Tychocat 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other two sources (CBS and the "Development Bank of Canada") might qualify him, though. BigHaz 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me. The CBC article mentions Hartland only in passing as one of six winners (it isn't about him), and the bank is about a local award. Tychocat 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep the article is still rife with WP:VAIN violations but he passes WP:BIO, I think, as a city councillor for a territorial capital (and possibly deputy mayor, I can't figure this part out), with some additional notability about youngness and whathaveyou. WilyD 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information on the article is verified. Moreover, it passes WP:BIO. Should not be deleted based soley on non-notable grounds. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep, but I'm convinced solely by the claim that he was the youngest person elected to the city council of a Canadian capital. I think this barely--barely--nudges him into notability. And that's only if you buy the notion that there's something special about the city also being a provincial capital. If this was revised to dial down the WP:VAIN and to place that claim up front, I'd be inclined to let it pass. --Pagana 19:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep - He seems a little notable. He just makes it with youngest person to be elected to a Canadian capital. But some of the other stuff could be taken out like the theatre part. (Clamster5 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Written by one user, named "Hartland". Not sure any of his accomplishments are notable enough for WP. - grubber 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Whitehorse is a city of less than 20,000, and Hartland has been a city councilman for only 6 years. That he's the answer to a trivia question doesn't vault him over the edge IMO. But who knows, he has such a bright future that we might be making a page soon about Samson Hartland, MP. SliceNYC 20:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
North of 60, City size vs importance changes drastically. For example, Nuuk is only 15000, and Iqaluit is barely 5000, but these are very important cities. WilyD 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for everyone's feedback. I noticed the article has gone through some hefty editing in the last couple of days. If you don't think an elected politician (which having read notability requirements led me to believe this article was acceptable) to a capital city, and the youngest no less (not verifiable via internet) doesn't pass the sniff test, I'd honestly be surprised. I have numerous scanned magazine articles (Profit Magazine, MacLeans, Realm Magazine), newspaper articles and television interviews - and yes they are about me. I didn't realize I required so much verification, but if you want it...just ask. Or just do a google search. I had the theatre section there so people could cross reference with Canadian Deaf Theatre on WP, but if you don't believe that should belong either...As for the deputy mayor question, when you sit on a City Council, everyone alternates deputy mayor responsibilities (when the mayor is absent) at community functions and council meetings themselves. As Whitehorse's deputy mayor I have chaired Whitehorse City Council meetings and greeted HRH when he visited Whitehorse during his northern tour in 2001. Hope this helps you during your deliberation.Hartland
  • Delete - hard one this. The city politican doesn't do it. The Canada's Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award might have but it was a provincial award and there is no indication of how the business has since progressed. Obviously a coming guy who will, I'm sure, break through the notability threshold in time. BlueValour 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't help feeling that the prime motivator is vanity. Sorry. Mallanox 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My motivation is youth. I work with plenty both through my involvement with the Junior Achievement Program of Canada and Rural Partnership Program of Canada. We lack youth leadership in Canada, and mentors to look up to. That was my prime motivation. If the notability is non-encyclopedic, I can accept that. Thank you for allowing me to address this point.--Hartland 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a college application form. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 3 August 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, though most all of the content was already in the main article anyway. Wickethewok 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film

[edit]

Not quite notable enough for its own article - this content can perfectly fit into this --Harrison V 01:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to agree that you have a lot of good content in this article, but I feel it would be best if it was inserted into San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. I feel that a landmark's references in fiction is not quite notable enough for its own article, and this article is also short enough to easily fit into that article. Thanks for your consideration. --Harrison V 13:27, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalfaro

[edit]

Obvious advert for a company that fails WP:CORP pretty badly. The google search is a bit misleading because of someone called Oscar Luigi Scalfaro (redirect to that page should be the solution) but the search for "scalfaro + luxury" turns up 332 unique ghits. Their watch business is a bit better known but I still feel that this is too marginal for inclusion. Of course, if there is no consensus for deletion, major editing will be needed to restore NPOV status to the article. Pascal.Tesson 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether or not you agree with WP:CORP does not change the fact that it reflect consensus and is the accepted guideline by which we have chosen to include on Wikipedia. Note that one concern which makes the need for a slightly overprotective WP:CORP is that Wikipedia could easily be invaded by advertisement such as this one. In any case, if you disagree with WP:CORP then please discuss it in there but please don't make your point by experimenting on this debate. Pascal.Tesson
Appreciate your wise counsel. It is already under discussion there. Thanks - Williamborg 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pascal, I really don't think that Williamborg is being *disruptive* to make a point. The purpose of AfD is to discuss deletion and the rationales behind our points of view. He's doing just that. Please assume that Williamborg issued his keep in good faith, especially on an AfD that you initiated. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:26, 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 08:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums which do not contain their title track

[edit]

A Nintendude-esque listcruft article, in the vein of "Albums with three words in their name." This list doesn't illustrate any topic; it's just a list of things that coincidentally share an attribute.

This was prodded and prod2'ed, but the prod was removed by the article creator Grutness (talk · contribs) with the uninformative comment "protest." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 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 as vandalistic hoaxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaq me'ov

[edit]

Hoax Star Wars character -- "Jaq me'ov", get it? get it? I suppose he was defeated in battle by Mike Hunt and Hugh G. Rection. NawlinWiki 01:14, 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. DS 14:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubervisor

[edit]

Protologism coined by a blogger. Exactly one relevant google hit: the blog linked to in the article. Note that the IBM S/390 nested virtualization architecture paper linked to doesn't mention the term ubervisor at all. -- Koffieyahoo 01:35, 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 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dastardlies

[edit]

Nonnotable unsigned band that has not yet released an album; author removed my speedy tag twice without asserting notabililty. NawlinWiki 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____

Nonnotable is a relative perspective. The Dastardlies are not the first unsigned band to be housed on Wikipedia (ie Long Shot Hero).

Delete - Googling them, I get a few hits, but probably not any more than for any local band. I couldn't find anyone claiming they were especially notable, other than their own site. --Brianyoumans 01:55, 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 as a recreation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical punk genres (second nomination)

[edit]

Originally tagged for Speedy Deletion per CSD G4 as a recreation of deleted material. This article was previously deleted two days ago (see the previous AfD discussion). Speedy Delete tag was removed by the original editor of the article without explanation. If that is not enough, the article itself expressly states it is contrary to WP:POV with the sentence, "Not everyone in the punk scene will agree or acknowledge all of these as a sub-genre of punk, or even as subgenre in general, such as Clockwork Punk, due to classification being too limitless." If deleted again, the page should be protected. Agent 86 01:38, 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. DS 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vodatec communications

[edit]

Not Notable; seems to be a small Florida communications services firm --Brianyoumans 01:47, 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 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Reid

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable candidate for city councillor in 2006 Toronto municipal elections. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete City council members are inherently non-notable. A mere candidate even less so. Other accomplishments do not rise to the level which would warrant inclusion. --DarkAudit 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, DarkAudit took the words out of my mouth. --Kinu t/c 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An anti-sprawl candidate, like tens of thousands in the US and UK. If he figures out a solution to sprawl that takes away the inherent power differential of money and tax base improvements and manages to get that plan enacted, he might be Man of the Year. Until then, he's a contender, and I'm sure we wish him well. Geogre 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not so much anti-sprawl as he is NIMBY. And NIMBY candidates are a dime a dozen. --Skeezix1000 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. NIMBY could have a listcruft article generated from it that would be deleted for having an infinite set. Geogre 18:46, 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 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuen Mun Road Rock Fall Accident

[edit]

A big rock hit a bus in Hong Kong eleven years ago and killed the driver. Non-notable (expect maybe to the driver). Crabapplecove 02:08, 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 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Blair

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable candidate for city councillor in 2006 Toronto municipal elections. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 02:11, 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 and redirect WP:SNOW. Bill Drummond was a member of The KLF (who have a Featured Article) and he's a very notable figure in the British arts and music worlds. That said, this is just one of his many conceptual projects and doesn't merit a seperate article. No Music Day will be covered in his article once I or another editor get one of the famous "round tuits". kingboyk 11:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC) On second thoughts, there's no need to delete it. The text isn't harmful in any way. I shall speedy redirect. --kingboyk 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Music Day

[edit]

Recently-created, not apparently notable, in any way I can find, "holiday". <200 yahoo hits, many duplicates. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:23, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

[edit]

I change my nomination to reflect the recent rewrite of this article. I believe the article should no longer be considered for deletion. It should however be renamed/moved as to reflect the new contents of the article.--kralahome 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The AfD tag was placed on the talk page instead of on the article itself. I've moved it to the right place. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a wondeful compilation of little insignificant facts that all together embellish American history. Also it's an amazing source for trivia. If it does get deleted I already added it to the AntiWikipedia since the article does need to be saved from extinction.24.90.233.29 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see any good reason to delete this. Carfiend 03:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any good reason to keep this. None of it is properly sourced, and we could all sit around all day thinking up new connections between Lincoln and Kennedy, but so what? Without a direct source for each datum, it's completely original research. Crabapplecove 03:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Detailed, yes, but seems to fall under WP:NOT collection of info (#2 Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics). I'm sure there has been books, Reader's Digest articles and other items about this subject, but to nom's comment, let's not start a List of similarities between Foo and Bar — MrDolomite | Talk 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In light of the massive revisions and improvements to the article, I have changed my vote concensus building notation. Good job to all who worked on it, much less listy, more articley. Let's hope this starts a trend, much rather have an "Articles for Improvement" turnaround out of AfDs. — MrDolomite | Talk 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random information - such pages could be made about any two people. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep after rewrite - this no longer feels like random info, but rather an article about a previously existing list - no longer OR. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Significant piece of American folklore. This list of similarities is older than the internet, and might even outlast Wikipedia. dryguy 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information) and WP:OR (unless someone comes up with more than just a single website citing some of the similarities mentioned in the article). -- Koffieyahoo 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Neutral after rewrite, but the list should be kept clean from any original research. -- Koffieyahoo 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Plus, this is a list of hand-picked similarities. Given enough time, you could make a similar list of similarities between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. -- Grev 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original list was, as Kralahome and others independently concluded, a demonstration of how easy it is to find coincidences between two events; the creator was skeptic Martin Gardner and the original publication was in Scientific American[1]. The list now circulates as an urban legend. That should be the topic of the article, not an ever-expanding WP:OR list of speculation. I'm not sure it warrants a full article, but it certainly warrants a discussion in the Gardner article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In Gardner's book, "The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix", p. 42, he mentions prior publication of the list in the Aug. 10 Newsweek and the Aug. 21 Time magazine in 1964, so I doubt he was the original author of the list. Like most urban folklore, the origin may never be established. The list, as reproduced in his book, contains only 16 items. The entire chapter 4 of the book is devoted to the subject. dryguy 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here's the archived Time article: http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,876021,00.html. I didn't pay to read all of it, but it looks like the article was based on a previous article in the "G.O.P. Congressional Committee Newsletter." dryguy 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's just a list of coincidences. In fact, some are not even conincidences, like "Both Corbett and Ruby were known as unstable men who were prone to violence." This would be expected in lone assassins (as opposed to a military operation or a revolutionary group) of political figures. Another thing that is not irregular enough to be a coincidence is "Both assassins knew of their victims' whereabouts by reading about it in newspapers." The media is by far the most likely source of information for the assassins, so there are two choices, newspapers and television news. Others are just silly, like "Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Ford car; a Lincoln limousine." Still others are common to many if not most U.S. presidents, like military service and the studying of law. Few things that are listed are true coincidences and most of them are still not that unusual. However, coincidences happen all the time and there are so many things that are not coincidences that are not listed. For example, the presidents and assassins had different first and last names and they were not wearing identical clothing during the assassinations. Also, they were not shot on the same date. Finally, the presidents and assassins were different ages at the time of the assassinations (measured to the year). -- Kjkolb 05:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WPINAICOI. Medtopic 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to Keep. I like that rewrite identifies it as a piece of folklore, which should serve as a barrier against the inclusion of random information. Medtopic 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete True, this has been around for a long time, but it's hardly encyclopaedic. If we had an article on Buddy Starcher's top forty hit "History Repeats Itself" from '66 where he just spouts off some of these, perhaps one or two examples could be included there, but on its own it's just an arbitrary collection of info that could be done for any two entities. GassyGuy 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The rewrite is better and the topic may squak by as far as encyclopaedic content. I'd prefer it be a section of something rather than an article unto itself, but as there's nowhere to merge it where it wouldn't just be clutter, this seems the best solution. GassyGuy 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Weak Keep as I think the new version may be notable but I'm open to persuasion. I'm not in favour of the bias towards pop/internet phenomonen on wikipedia but this may be one that has sufficient notability. Could be further refined but that's an editing issue rather than a deletion one. MLA 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of similarities between this and a deleted article: 1) all of them. - CheNuevara 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and MLA. DarthVader 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a perennial hoax. I presume that Snopes has a page on it, but I doubt it has sources outside of the e-mail forwarding set. Ziggurat 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and keep Hey, a source outside Internetania! Keep it, but the name has to go as it's no longer an accurate description of the article (per Paul August) Ziggurat 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm -- GWO
  • Delete: First, it's not necessary to lodge it here, as everyone will get it by forwarded e-mail within the first day of having an address. Second, these are not similarities. They are coincidences. Additionally, there is an implicit argument by analogy. It's one step more refined than "Hitler had a moustache, and so does your father." Snopse does have a page on it. Geogre 11:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to be optimistic. I'm going to show more faith in the world than usual (hey, I'm on Wikipedia, so I've got to believe in people somewhat) and change my view to very hopeful keep. The current version is about the folklore. So long as the future doesn't overwrite the article as yet another "didja know" list, we're in good shape. Congratulations and thanks to those who put in the work. Geogre 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten for context per Dhartung. This list in particular has some recurrance over the past couple decades at least... every so often a newspaper reprints it in their oddball/misc./etc. section (usually to make the obvious point about the ease of finding similarities). The original source seems to be Gardner's 1967 column in the Scientific American (title only here, reprinted here). It's even spawning parody ("Kennedy slept in the Lincoln bedroom, and Lincoln slept in the Lincoln bedroom") :-). Fireplace 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not have lists of similarities between foo and bar but this is a bit of folklore that has been around for 40 years. I seem to remember a verion in Time magazine - there must be sources! Dlyons493 Talk 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that there is a strange coincidence in the circumstances of Lincoln and Kennedy has long been a pop culture fixation. Specific content issues should be worked out in the article, not by deleting it. WilyD 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the list is just a random collection of facts (some possibly dubious). As Dhartung pointed out, the origins of this might be worth a mention in the Gardner article, but this list article itself is pointless. -- Whpq 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten per Dhartung. The article shouldn't add more similarities, but instead should describe the phenomena and the explanation of the supposed "coincidences." Dark Shikari 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Interesting trivia, but I hate to think what would happen if we had a slew of "List of similarities between X and Y". Also I'm not sure how much of this information can be readily verified. Can this be transwiki'd somewhere instead? — RJH (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not aware of another such list of similarities that has anywhere near the notability of this list, so we are not in danger of a flood of similar articles. This list has been circulating for 43 years. As mentioned by others, the article needs cleanup to clarify the status as urban legend, remove the less commonly noted similarities, and note the faults and inaccuracies of many of the items on the list. That doesn't change the status of this list as a notable piece of American folklore. dryguy 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dark Shikari and others. This could be an interesting article. Zagalejo 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per the folklore rationale as mentioned by others. Erechtheus 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other reasons given above. Picking up on what Dhartung and Kjkolb said, I suspect that some smart math person well versed in probability could probably point out the problems in making a big deal about these coincidences. I, however, barely remember how to add. Agent 86 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The coincidences themselves may not stand up under scrutiny, but that still hasn't stopped the list from circulating. It's a familiar and notable list, regardless of whether the items on it are valid. Zagalejo 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen this circulate many times, just rewrite per what everybody's saying. Cut down on the amount of items listed and explain the folklore surrounding it. Specifically, talk about the similarities between the assassinations, as that's rather unique to the two presidents. A lot of the other stuff is, as has been pointed out, pure chance, however the assassination similarities are rather striking. syphonbyte (t|c) 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim it down to only the most cited coincidences/similarities. This is a subject that has certainly been notable enough to be featured in TV documentaries and discussions of the assassinations. 23skidoo 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep per rewrite although it does need a rename. It's on Snopes and most of it is false anyway and it violates WP:NOT. Whispering 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and CheNuevara. ---Charles 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But clean up and include verifiable comparisons. These coincidences have long been the subject of speculation, and has enjoyed discussion accross many publications; including Ripley's Believe it or Not as well as many "non-fiction" books on the paranormal. --Merkurix 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dryguy and Zagalejo, who quite properly elucidate the distinctions betwixt that which is asserted as fact and that which is asserted as notable in view of its currency and betwixt that which is verifiable (here, the fact of the meme's existence) and that which is true. as cleaned up, and, per others, move (assuming arguendo that no signular name exists for the meme, it might be appropriate simply to retitle as Abraham Lincoln-John F. Kennedy similarities meme (Abraham Lincoln-John F. Kennedy similarities Internet meme is improperly precise, I think, inasmuch as print copies have long been prevalent)
  • Delete and rewrite as an article about the list. The list, itself, is potentially verifiable, but not notable, and WP:OR unless each entry has a secondary source. The fact of the list's existence is verifiable (although there are few teriary sources) and potentially notable. (I see one sentence that could be kept, and the opening paragraph could be edited to something usable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but if it is kept, I'll be expecting on article on List of similarities between Peyna and God. Peyna 02:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried to clean it up, but the biggest problem is the selection criteria. They all have been chosen to suggest a connection that doesn't exist. Should we also list all of their dissimilarities so as to not lead the reader down an inappropriate train of thought? This list is encouraging the reader to draw illogical conclusions based on the article. A disclaimer at the top would be pointless, because at that point we're admitting the unencyclopedicness of the article. Peyna 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think that a mention of the list's status as sort of folklore would be more appropriate and clarify things for the reader. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have completely rewritten the article. I hope folks find this rewrite acceptable. If so, perhaps we can keep the article either at its current location, or at a new name such as Lincoln Kennedy Coincidences (urban legend). dryguy 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is the proper approach to take with this article (I was going to propose something similar, but then decided Syphonbyte pretty much covered it). The article should be about the phenomenon of drawing irrational conclusions based on selective comparisons of important individuals. What it be real great would be if we could find some primary sources to cite. With that, I've changed my vote to Keep on the basis of the rewrite, but would support a name change. Peyna 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...per original nom. rootology 06:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Bang* *Bang* I'm assaDeleting this article --Cloveious 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOT, WP:OR.--Dakota 17:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it presents the list in a very POV light and immediately beginning by stating that it is debunked - how can an article on an english encyclopedia use the word debunk and still seem balanced? It is unfortunate though as this could be a good article - however not as a list as a history of the list with some examples and a discussion of the discrepancies. Just because the subject matter is a list doesn't mean this has to be --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not quite. It states that Martin Gardner debunked the list and cites the book where he debunked it. It does not say that Martin Gardner was correct. If it did so, that might be regarded as POV, but it doesn't. dryguy 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment hmm yeah but does he use the word debunk? If not then it is the article authors view not fact. Besides it gets used in a seperate context later on which indicates the debunking as fact not a given point of view - slight differenc I know but it niggles me. The sad thibng is this is a good and interesting subject matter - I woul like to see it rewritten as an article about the list not a descriptive list of the list. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename. The current content documents a notable part of American culture. Should be renamed to something like: Lincoln Kennedy Coincidences (urban legend}. Paul August ☎ 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Coincidences" was the original title, but it was changed for the following reason: The New American Oxford Dictionary defines coincidence n. as "A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent casual connection." Most the information in this article would not qualify as "remarkable." (quoting User:LibraryLion). Peyna 18:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the rewrite. I still say delete. It's still not that important. - CheNuevara 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - after the rewrite it's much better but I remain a bit unconvinced it needs its own article. -- Whpq 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepFun to read in 64, fun now.Edison 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While an article about a specific published list may be fine, the article should not be a list itself, which falls into the original research realm. 172 | Talk 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment actually that is an important point, at the moment it isn't made clear (if at all) that the information is coming from the book - or any other source. You cannot say John Wilkes Booth was shot by a trooper during efforts to capture him - hardly an assasination without a reference even if it is true - because that is original research. Also that sentences could be counted as NPOV as well - hardly an assasination is the writers point of view. --Errant In fact I'm going to remove that bit --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:45, 30 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, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Guide to Bluehorses

[edit]

This is a "guide" to The Bluehorses, a band that seems to me to be notable. But it doesn't really matter, this is all WP:OR and WP:POV and really WP:NOT the kind of thing Wikipedia is for. Contested prod. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 02:30, 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 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Dalli

[edit]

Anon tried to list this for afd, but ended up just linking to the previous discussion. I'm just cleaning up here and finishing the nom -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:31, 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, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Delete - Nice idea, but Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Perhaps a few pics can be merged into Fame (film), as that article is pretty empty at the moment. This could be a good opportunity to expand it. Fabricationary 02:36, 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 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ross Murphy

[edit]

Extremely non-notable artist, gets almost no Google hits Crabapplecove 02:47, 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 09:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INIFINITT

[edit]

Looks like marketing straight out of a marketing document Matgraham 03:01, 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 09:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Auto Mart

[edit]

Marginal notability, gets 4000 google hits --Interiot 03:12, 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 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Houts

[edit]

Absolutely non notable. The guy worked on some tv shows and croakes, so? Soundoflolllermania 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep he wrote for Rockos Modern Life! Carfiend 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-notable? He contributed to three major television cartoons. dryguy 03:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep IMDB profile shows a decent body of acting work, much of it as a voice actor. Also writing for Rocko. I'd say he's just over the notability bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, he's famous enough to be encyclopedic--Musaabdulrashid 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. The fact I may or may not like "Rocko" is not a factor for notability. Being "famous" might factor into notability, but objectively judging that is where I see the article failing WP:BIO for article coverage. he's listed in a lot of places, yes, but is anyone actually talking about him? I'm sorry he's dead, too, but this isn't a place for his obituary. Tychocat 11:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guy gets almost NO Google hits unless it's wikipedia or Imdb. Soundoflolllermania 00:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When he died in 1997, the web was still a novelty to quite a lot of people. What do you expect, dozens of fan sites? For an actor who's been dead for nearly a decade, I'm impressed that his Google presence is as large as it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Andrew Lenahan. As an aside, plenty of important things don't show up in Google, but one would expect, I suppose, a few more, given that he's contemporary. Jacqui★ 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Edit: additional comment: he played minor characters, but apparently many of them, and he might have gotten bigger if his life hadn't got cut short by leukemia. Though I'm sure someone would point out that "might have" or "would have" aren't as much a factor in this decision compared to what actually happened, and someone would be right.[reply]
  • Weak keep Pet the above and history. He's notable enough for a stub for anyone looking him up. rootology 06:21, 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 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Domination

[edit]

Nonsense entry Stev0 03:29, 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 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racing with Jesus

[edit]

non-notable sponsorship program. Sponsoring mostly obscure and lesser race car drivers doesn't create notability. Racingcruft, Jesuscruft. Crabapplecove 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep and rewrite, the quality of the drivers is moot, the team (it's not really a sponsorship program) has competed in Nextel Cup, Busch, and Craftsman Truck Series events, and is verifiable by Google. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it sounds impressive, but it's really not that big a deal. Plenty of non-notable entities can and do connect themselves to drivers in the same way as this religious group, it's not just big-name corporations. Morgan Shepherd is the only famous driver they've managed to attach themselves to, and that's not saying much. Crabapplecove 04:04, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mitrione

[edit]

It makes many specific claims and insuations about an historical figure without providing footnotes or source quotes. It is also poorly written, with the section Personal Life offering scant information about Mitrione's actual life. It violates NPOV in that the only associated information is in external links that are from ideological critics of U.S. government policies that Mitrione was allegedly implementing. Bias is shown by the inclusion of a See Also link to a "List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945," which has no information about Mitrione. I elaborated on this in the article Discussion. Nicmart 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - definitely needs more sourcing on some of these claims, and even then may not warrant a separate article to one on American operations during the Cold War (or something of that sort. BigHaz 03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided definitely fails WP:NPOV, lead sentence "...alleged torture expert..." is uncited. Needs {{cleanup}}, {{ExpertVerify}}, {{Disputed}}, {{ActiveDiscuss}}, {{POV-check}}. As WP:n00b, unclear if the combination of the above qualifies for deletion as a kickoff for a fresh start. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After all, Dan Mitrione is well known [3], and is the "hero" of the Costa-Gavras film "State of Siege". I see this AfD as an attempt to rewrite/delete a piece of "dirty" US history.--Tilman 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I acctually do not beleive that this is POV, but this individual in the cold war context is not notable. He doesn't appear to have been extremelt high ranking and thousands of people serving the US government have tortured or assisted in torturing others. We cant have an article on all of them.--Musaabdulrashid 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to Cleanup: There is enough evidence out there that a thoughtful and less motivated person could construct an article. POV is not a reason for deletion, by itself, although "inherently POV" is. The article needs TLC, but not deletion (and no one's trying to cover up America's dark history...that kind of claim is just plain silly). Geogre 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obscure but notable historical trivia that deserves retention. Keep. rootology 06:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rootology. -- DS1953 talk 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to see if Wikipedia had any credibility. No credible publication could possibly keep an article as laughably unsupported by evidence as this one. Wikipedia is as bad as its reputation, so if someone wants to remove the deletion notice, it is of no consequence to me. It was just an experiment. I can always refer people to the Mitrione article as evidence of the sham that Wikipedia is. Nicmart 03:01, 30 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duesenberg & Leik Motorsports

[edit]

Sometimes it seems that race car drivers and organizations get their own article just for existing. These guys have done nothing notable yet, IMHO, and their few Google hits seem to reflect this. Crabapplecove 03:54, 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 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Verma

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable candidate for city councillor in 2006 Toronto municipal elections. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 03:55, 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. Wickethewok 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in Michigan

[edit]

This article contains only the opinions and thoughts of its author and does not include links to any sources Mertens21 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hell, strip away the origianl research, and it's still an article on a non-single and otherwise non-notable song. -- Kicking222 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Umm, so why is this song important? All I get is that, if we were at the Chile Poppers fansite, we might be intrigued. It's more nearly a forum post or blog entry than article, although it's a good forum post or blog entry. I don't want to insult the author, but the article doesn't give much justification for itself. Geogre 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -000
    • Comment - Could you give a reason why you think it should be kept? I mean just saying keep makes it look like either you were the author of the article or you want to keep it just because you like the song, which really isn't a good reason because I like the song, too, but the article has no sources and it looks like the information was just made up. So if you could give a reason why it should be kept that would be great. Thanks, Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMany people including myself would search the internet looking for articles and finally come to a stop at wikipedia, it always has the right results.. this is one of those times.. This song is a to-be released single so even if it's deleted it will be put back up in a matter of weeks... KEEP IT
    • Comment - Where did you get the information that this is a to-be released single because it doesn't say it on the wikipedia page and there's no link to somewhere that says it. If it is going to be a single than it should be kept, but the original research should still be deleted. If it's not going to be a single than there is no reason to keep it.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mallanox 19:25, 1 August 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 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Wolf

[edit]

Barely notable, violates WP:VAIN. The only author, WolfB, appears to be writing about himself. rootology 04:08, 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 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRE Loaded

[edit]

Unnecessary article for a fork of the open source OsCommerce software being used to advertise commercial hosting/customisation services. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: CRE Loaded is not commercial, but FREE open source project with its rapid growing community. You can visit www.creloaded.com, forum.creloaded.com to make sure. If osCommerce and Zen cart articles are present in Wiki why CRE Loaded should not, as it is the similar projects. osCommerce, Zen Cart and CRE Loaded are the leading free PHP shopping carts in the Net. It is reasonable to cross reference them to make the full undrstanding of free shopping cart software market for Wiki reader. -- Osc4you 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not arguing against covering CRE Loaded on Wikipedia, I am questioning the need for a separate article which true purpose seems to be linking to osCommerce4you and Chain Reaction Web websites which (unlike the software itself) is commercial. The fact that your username is "Osc4you" implies that you are trying to use Wikipedia to advertise your services/products. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I have the advertising purpose, I'll take another nickname LOL. Chain Reaction Web and CRE Loaded project is not separated terms. CRE Loaded is Chain Reaction Edition of osCommerce (CRE = Chain Reaction Edition) Osc4you 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad for website. -Royalguard11Talk 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not free adspace and this is an advert. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 30 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 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins

[edit]

This discussion has been blanked as a courtesy.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reposted material that was already deleted before. --Merovingian - Talk 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axe wound

[edit]

previously deleted term for female genitalia presumed hoax Here.it.comes.again 04:13, 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, obviously. No reason to spent more time on this. Friday (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smeg Wars

[edit]

Unfinished fan-made parody with no claim of notability. Proposed for deletion by User:Goldom, PROD tag removed by article author. --Stormie 04:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: In addition to Stormie's points, by the own admission of the article, only the intro of some of the movies even exist. On youtube, no less. Should we have pages for every youtube video, or worse, for everyone who plans to upload a video on youtube? -- Ritchy 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely non-notable fan film. With extreme prejudice for its use of the word "smeg" in a non-Red Dwarf context, too ;-) Seb Patrick 10:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any of these on IMDB, under my minimum standard for movies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Personally, I treat hoaxes like this as "simple vandalism" and do a speedy delete. After all, how can "vandalism" be a speedy delete category, unless it's talking about created articles? Anyway, this one is obvious. Geogre 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. And, why has the article's creator not received warnings on his talk page for removal of the prod and AfD tags? ---Charles 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has regarding speedy tags, now. Delete, by the way, per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:39, 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 and rename. Wickethewok 04:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super DJ Clark Kent

[edit]

Fails: WP:MUSIC notability test. Google hits for ("Super DJ Clark Kent" -wikipedia) = 38. ("Rodolfo Franklin" -wikipedia) = 115. No listing on Allmusic. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the page certainly shouldn't be kept under the current name, so you've undermined your own argument! If notability is established, I'd say move to Clark Kent (DJ) or Clark Kent (producer). Seb Patrick 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've undermined my argument, a move is technically a keep. hateless 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. If he's such a playa, people ought to be talking about him, and the lack of articles raises the question of notability, not whether he sucks. Yes, he gets a lot of Ghits, but most of those are catalog listings. Tychocat 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You speak as if the criteria list on WP:BIO has one item or that WP:BIO is the only place notability criteria is located. First, Google is not going to be as a reliable test for CK because his heyday, 1989-1994, was before the web boom; see Wikipedia:Notability#Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests. Still, I could find some stuff. Here are articles specifically on Clark Kent: [4] [5] [6]. Here's an unverifiable claim to him being the best DJ of all time: [7] Here is where Clark Kent is mentioned as an influence upon other notable DJs: Cipha Sounds (Cipha Sounds is a radio personality/DJ in NYC, and responsible for Soundbombing 3), DJ Scratch (Jay-Z's DJ, and more), DJ Enuff (another NYC radio personality). The previously noted (and dismissed) discography meets "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies (as notable)" in WP:MUSIC. All of which would meet at least two criteria within WP:MUSIC. hateless 18:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - The missing part of your WP:MUSIC quote is "...that qualifies above", and there's been no charted hits among his discography. In looking over the material proffered, I note two uncredited biographies, and the first one mentions Kent as a shout-out. If you're saying he's a former DJ, that would also explain the lack of articles, in that he's apparently failed the suggested "100-year test" for WP:BIO after only 12 years. Tychocat 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first claim is false. Loverboy (Mariah Carey song) is a Clark Kent production, it reached #2 in the US. You are also misinterpreting WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. First off, on WP:BIO, the suggested "100-year test" is an alternate test without being a consensus-backed guideline. It's in there as an afterthought for a reason, and using it to prove non-notability is not established practice here and highly disputable, because it is extremely subjective--you need some expert opinion to make any valid claims because divination has no place on WP. And no, Google will not turn you into an instant expert on everything. Secondly, notability criteria on WP in general, and explicitly in WP:MUSIC is a one and done deal: you hit any one criteria and the subject is notable. The easiest criteria to prove right now is "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." If you will, please entertain this proof:
      1.) by "a musician or ensemble that qualifies above", the criteria means a musician/performer who meets any one of the criteria listed in the section above it. It does not, as you claim, mean the performer charted a hit, there are several other criteria it could meet to be notable.
      2.) Jay-Z, Notorious BIG, Rakim, Slick Rick, Queen Latifah, and Junior MAFIA are all hip-hop acts that qualify as notable performers in WP:MUSIC
      3.) Producers in hip-hop are always the beatmaker, or composer for the song. They have songwriting credit and get royalties from BMI and ASCAP per their status.
      4.) Clark Kent has produced for all of them., QED.
      And as my final words on this matter, WP:OSTRICH. hateless 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that. Despite the apparent new-found notability, I note the article is, at the moment, the same one I nominated for a delete. I cannot assume you would rather win, than be right? Tychocat 11:06, 30 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.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Goat

[edit]

A recurring skit on an Australian radio station's morning show. Non-notable. Crabapplecove 04:24, 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 - one of the keeps is dubious, as noted below. Kappa is a well-known extreme inclusionists and had not in my opinion provided a compelling reason to keep in lieu of consensus.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish billiards players

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this solitary, country-specific list of individuals which might or might not be notable serves no purpose that could not be addressed better by a category. Deprodded by Kappa. Sandstein 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the user account of Orangehead was created yesterday, and its contributions consist almost entirely of "keep" votes on AfD. Sandstein 19:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bok, gargoyle

[edit]

semi-incoherent article about an obscure and non-notable Doctor Who character (whose name apparently may not even be Bok.) Crabapplecove 04:40, 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. - brenneman {L} 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missional

[edit]

Promotional essays on the Christian Missionary movement. Fails: Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and WP:NOT#Original Thought. Most sections are written in a first-person manner and ask rhetorical questions and the accompanied author attributions for four sections make them highly likely copy-and-pasted essays (i.e copyright violations). --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or speedy, if there is no quick refutation: The article is signed and attributed, which makes it almost a certain copyvio (depending upon which church it came from and what they did with their licensing), and it is a direct attempt to communicate to the reader, and it is a copy and paste from a pastoral letter. Since it's not a papal or royal pastoral letter, it's not appropriate for WikiSource. Geogre 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been a joint effort of 7 people to establish some foundational content on wikipedia about the term "missional"...it has been noted that we should go back through and look more closely to the "point of view" of the articles but it has been the intent to be as fair and broad as possible without deluting the term missional. As far as the authors attributions, it is will full consent from the authors that their material is on the page. It was written for wikipedia. I was designated as the original "poster" of everyone's input, then each person would come in and edit and bring a more full balance to the content. Each person has been told to attribute and use footnotes when citing sources. If anyone sees content that does not seem to meet this criteria, please point it out and we will either fix it or remove that citation. All other feedback is appreciated so that we can fully comply with the guidelines of wikipedia. Thank you. --Missions fan 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: A major problem with what you've said so far is that you are implying those who have contributed to the article so far "own" it. Wikipedia, being a collaborative project doesn't work like that. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a host for personal essays. By attributing each section, it's implying that no one else but the original author(s) can modify the article and also implies that the specific section is that author's "original thought", which poses not only copyright problems, but also neutral point of view issues as well. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Collaborative efforts are encouraged on Wikipedia. So the fact that we are working together to begin the article does not imply that we think we own it. See the Wikipedia Collaborations section [8] where it says that "In order to improve the quality of articles which are short or lacking in detail, Wikipedia's community take part in collaborations to expand articles. On each collaboration, an article is chosen by people interested in the topic, and for a period of time (a week, fortnight, or month) the chosen article is worked on, under Wikipedia's principle of collaborative editing." --Missions fan 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Criticism taken and understood. Our weaknesses in the articles have more to do with each of us learning about posting to Wikipedia. The origianal goal was to have one person post for everyone at first so that we could coordinate a strong start to the page. Per yours and others suggestions, the remainder of our group will post their own material. We will also be editing and critiquing one another, and we are WIDE OPEN for others to post/reply etc. (We understand THAT IS WIKIPEDIA) A topic that is so hotly discussed right now needs this space and an open forum. Many people have no idea where to begin to understand this and study it for themselves. We wanted to provide an outline, resource list, and links to begin. And start the flow of input. We have simply been surprised there was not a wikipedia page yet, so we wanted to start it--not own it. Everyone has been contacted to make necessary changes, add needed references, and work on the "point of view." Thank you for your feedback. Until the others have posted, I hope this answers your original concerns. All criticism, edits, and comments are welcome. --Missions fan 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll also need to address the biggest problem of this article -- that it's putting forward the viewpoint of your church's members. i.e. soapboxing and a lot of other editors will vote for deletion on those grounds. Encyclopedia articles have to be written from a third person AND neutral point of view. What exactly is this article trying to do that Missionary isn't? Remeber, this page needs to resemble an encyclopedia article, not a discussion phamplet. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As I have stated, all criticisms have been sent out and will be worked on. The basic difference between missionary and missional is Missionary is a noun, Missional is an adjective. As I have been studying the basic submission guidelines and processes for improvement, I saw that before an article is to be suggested for deletion that the two parties in disagreement should discuss it first. Why did you suggest this for deletion before making a comment on the page (talk or discussion section)? Since you are proponent of the "guidelines of wikipedia" it seems that you would want to follow all rules of protocol?
  • Comment: Missions Fan, will the others be adding content or editing? That is your best bet for keeping it. The point of view is your biggest problem. If it is a group, then stay true to wiki and have everyone post-otherwise, it doesn't follow the wikipedia guidelines. make sure you read those--Cocodysri 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply: Yes, our goal is to edit the contributions of each of the other people in the group so that it is as solid of a beginning as possible. As far as people outside of the ones we know, we hope so. I am certain that more editing will come. The term is gaining broad use with varying "definitions" or "understanding." We are hoping there will be a LOT of contributions, discussion, editing, etc.
  • Comment: This topic is being talked about a lot in evangelical circles. Can you add more references/broader pictures of how others are defining it or not defining it? I think this would be a better submission if more of your "team" were actually adding the content and you had a broader range of references. It reads a little like the "Ed Stetzer and David Putman show"--excellent resources, I know of Dr. Stetzer and his work with North American Missions and church planting. It is understandable if you are all most familiar with their work. But for the integrity of a wikipedia page, you need to look at the broad picture of what is taught and written. You should also include material from www.missionalchurch.org, www.gracepeace.com, Tim Keller, Gruder's The Missional Church, www.sentchurch.com, the Gospel and Our Culture Network: Empirical Indicators of a 'Missional Church' A Working Document of the "Developing Congregational Models" Team The Transforming Congregations Toward Mission Project (http://www.gocn.org/indicators.htm). And I would suggest clearer contrast and comparison with the emerging church movement. You have some mention, it is sophomorish at best. You are on the right track, just fix these things and you should be fine. Make a note on this page if you would like help. --Goandtellallyoucan 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have sent everyone a link to this discussion, so I am sure that your sources will be a big help to those who need to adapt their content. And of course, you are free to add / edit content and these links yourself. What I said to Netsnipe above bears repeating, not a person among us thinks of ourself as an owner of this page. We simply wanted to get the content up there and the submissions and input started. --Missions fan 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Missions Fan, your co-writers are recreating the wheel on a few topics. You have a whole section that ties in with the history of christian missions which is already a part of wikipedia. this will be a better article if you simply link to those pages as a reference rather than rewrite everything. If there is content on those pages that is insufficient, then edit those pages with updated, accurate nonbiased information and improve the whole community. You all seem smart but you seem to be doing a lot of extra work. Before anyone started writing they should have become more familiar with wikipedia - it would have saved everyone some time. --Goandtellallyoucan 04:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As one who just recently attempted to add to the entry under discussion, I can honestly say that, at least on my part (and I believe, for my collegues as well), any failures in regard to Wikipedia standards as the innocent result of our bubmbling efforts to create an article. I, for one, am admittedly a complete novice to the Wikipedia reality. With all that said, I believe that Wikipedia may be enhanced by the inclusion of an article on the subject that we selected. Reverendal 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reverendal[reply]
  • Comment: This page seems to be very helpful and useful to many of us who are new in this subject. The discussion shows that the problems seem have to do with the guidelines and technical issues. May be a little bit of patience and tolerance can help them to get it up. Since it is in a public community environment, many of us will be benefited in long run. Just reading many of your insightful feedbacks, I have already learned few things in this subject. It is worth a try.--Clui 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Clui (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Reply: This user above, Clui, is the cited author of one of the articles included. I have emailed him and asked him to make edits on Point of View issues in his piece. Will it help if he can email from an authentic .edu email address with his full name to authenticate the uniqueness (non-sock puppet) nature of his account.--Missions fan 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Clui for being a bit hasty with that SPA tag, but we AFD reviewers can get overly paranoid about users with no edits to their names. Sockpuppetry can get very rampant around here. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyway, to be honest I do feel that the article is somewhat hopeless because like Goandtellallyoucan has pointed out, it seems to be reinventing the wheel in that the Mission (Christian) article already covers the topic well in an impartial manner that is to be expected in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, this article appears to be preaching on how best to be a missionary -- not exactly a topic that can be written about objectively since it all depends on how each writer individually interprets the Bible. I simply can't see anyway how any of your writers can convey the information you wish to add to this encyclopedia while maintaining a neutral point of view. Anyway, due to the lack of opinions submitted by other reviewers, I would think there will be at least week before a consensus is reached by the Articles for Deletion team. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much like other articles and I am concerned that with the POV elements removed it would be exactly like other articles. Mallanox 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay, WP:OR, so many things wrong about this being here. Doesn't belong here. -Royalguard11Talk 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:'Why should we be so hasty to delete the things on this page. It is obvious that there is a desire for this to be defined and those who have contributed really were unschooled in the ways of the Wikipedia... It seems to me that we should keep working on what we have in order to improve it rather than just throwing the whole thing out. I have just posted an addition to the article that I hope will be helpful. I am also new to this so please feel free to point out anything that I may need to improve. --Jamieryck 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I feel that there is vaulable content contained in the contributions. I agree that the contributors may need to edit their input to ensure that Wikipedia standards are met, but the material is worth keeping.--Rcinguyton 23:31, 2 August 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 Christian Naturism, which was already done by User:Elton Robb (a bit hastily but no harm done in the end). - Bobet 08:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Naturism

[edit]

This article is 100% unverifiable. Also, has some problems shared by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --Hetar 05:23, 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 09:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo II on Battle.net

[edit]

Page is pretty much original research sociology about players, elements of a game guide, and info about cheaters. Only one citation at all I saw on the whole page, and has been tagged for cleanup for four months. I read it all the way through, and really don't see much encyclopedic content that couldn't be (or isn't already) better placed at either Diablo II or Battle.net, but most of it really doesn't fit here at all, mostly due to NOR. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:41, 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. JIP | Talk 09:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Datamonitor

[edit]

non-notable corporation, does not meet WP:CORP Brian 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball The editor (Jenny) that created the Datamonitor article is in marketing for Datamonitor and has stated that she "wanted to use your service to provide people with information about our company". I have searched extensively on Google and followed the links provided by User:Datamonitor and have found only one article that might meet the first criterion of WP:CORP --- which calls for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". I find nothing that supports either of the other two criteria of wp:corp nor has Jenny responded with any material supporting the wp:corp criteria. Based on my research and the extensive dialog with User:Datamonitor (Jenny) I am convinced this is simply advertising and should be deleted. I did first try the PROD approach, but User:Datamonitor deleted the PROD.[reply]

  • Delete My nomination (am I supposed to do this in addition to creating the entry? If not, my apologies - I am still somewhat of a newbie here)
    • There is no need to do so and some editors find it irritating, especially since AfD is not supposed to be a vote. If you bring an article to AfD, it is assumed that you want the article deleted. If you are just finishing an incomplete nomination or are in favor of redirecting, or something besides deleting, just say so in the nomination. However, some editors do give their recommendation below their nomination. -- Kjkolb 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VAIN. Datamonitor are a well known/notable UK company, but its not their own job to write this article. -- GWO
  • Delete per well-researched and reasoned nom. P.S. I was told to make my own recommendation on an afd I submitted, so go figure. Tychocat 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Gareth Owen suggested above, Datamonitor is a notable UK company, so Wikipedia should have an article about them. The worst of the vanity/advertising material has been removed again, leaving the bare facts. This can now be used as a basis for neutral editors to expand the article into something worthwhile. Gwernol 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also added external links to the article that show Datamonitor's analyst reports are widely used by reputable press outlets. This article now, I believe, meets WP:CORP. By the way I have no connection to the company - I'd not heard of them before about a week ago. Gwernol 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (changing my opinion based on the recent changes and removal of the blatant advertising. The verifiability is still a bit weak, but that can be improved. I no longer think this article needs to be deleted. We can work with what's there and improve it. Brian 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Comment - None of the external links are about Datamonitor, they all mention the firm in connection with a press announcement about someone else's earnings, e.g., the company still fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about itself. Verifiability is not the issue, notability is. The question of verifiability does however lend itself to the question of original research, which the article largely still consists of. Tychocat 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear to me whether these meet the WP:CORP criteria #1 or not. The footnote to the criteria states "The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service". The product of Datamonitor is its reports, and these are articles by independent sources writing about the company's products. There is ambiguity here, but at the least its reasonable to argue that these sources count, which is why I added them. This would be a good example to discuss on the WP:CORP talk page as I think a clarification of the policy is needed. Given that there is general agreement about the notability of Datamonitor if not about the article as it stands, I believe its right to keep the article for now. Gwernol 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well there's the Superbrands article and site that was on a previous version of the article - it should probably go back. I found two other articles, Hoover's and CBRonline, but they are both paid services so I can't link them here. I find myself in the odd position of having been the one to AfD it in the first place (the first time I searched I only found articles by Datamonitor, not independent sources) but now believe that it's notable enough. I'll keep looking for sources that we can actually cite in the article to support notability, for the moment I'm ok with the article staying in its current form (excised of the previous advertising) - but that's just one editor's opinion. I'll be doing a bit of travelling for the next four days, so it will be a while before I get back to this. Personally, I'm ok with either delete or keep at this point. It's a pretty weak article and started out its life as a blatant advert. Datamonitor probably is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but more work is needed to demonstrate the "multiple non-trivial independent articles" about it... Brian 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - Datamonitor might be of some note, but that is not at issue. I looked into the article as it is now. It is bad. Datamonitor is only needed because we are going to quote them. Or they are going to be quoted. In essence, they are a footnote. Status is as such; they provide footnote material. Any relevant information they provide will be sold to high bidders as reports. Their public information is similar to Dow-Jones or other business listing agencies. In addition, they provide no historical information. I say delete. meatclerk 02:01, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Innaloo

[edit]

Per precedents, malls are not inherently notable. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werribee_Plaza and countless others. Pascal.Tesson 06:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

although once again the question is expand how?. Nothing seems to indicate that this mall has any sort of particular notability. Is there really any chance that an article about that topic can reach any sort of encyclopedic value? And are you not at least a bit intrigued by the fact that precedents establish that malls which are not otherwise notable should not have their own article? Pascal.Tesson 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The features and development of Westfield innaloo has been expended a bit. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:22, 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gas We Pass

[edit]

This is nothing but immature spam, grow up. Newspaper98 06:04, 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 09:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knicks4life

[edit]

Vanity article for a non-notable web forum. Google hits (Knicks4life):748. Alexa traffic rank: 4,564,884 --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hello, I am a staff member of this website and it is the second largest New York Knicks website on the internet. It has gotten many responses in the newspapers and radio stations. I believes it should be kept on because it is a legitimate website with much more traffic than just "Google hits" and has a lot of dedicated and loyal fans. Wikipedia readers should have the right to know about a great website like this. Thank you, Knea2006 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knea2006 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Let the site have it's own Wikipedia. The site supports stuff like the origins of O RLY?! and IBTL, which are both rarely used on online message boards. But a site as big as Knicks4Life can't get recognition? I fail to see it.Knea2006 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - From the two posts Knea2006 has left on this deletion discussion I think it's pretty clear that this Wikipedia entry is just a promotion for a non-notable site. Also, in response to Knea2006's first post, maybe if your site were the largest and not the second largest New York Knicks website on the internet it would be notbale enough for an article, but it's not so it doesn't deserve an article.--Mertens21 07:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knea2006 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)What you people still fail to see is that you make absolutely no sense at all. I just mentioned that you have other much more less notable things on here and you an't even put up a faily-big website. Standards? It's one of the biggest Knick FAN sites on the internet. That's a big enough standard for me.Knea2006 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first person who's made that argument -- it doesn't work. The AFD review team is really busy and we nominate/review articles as we see them. Feel free to nominate yourself at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Anyway, O RLY passes the Wikipedia:Notability (web) test. i.e. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." So if your site has been mentioned elsewhere in print, then by all means post the link and we'll consider it. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will search for a link or mention or whatever need be. Thank you.Knea2006 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright nerds, listen up: I cannot find the NY Post article in which we are mentioned because it was a very long time ago but we have interviewed writers of the NY Times and NY Post before as a website and even interviewed people from ESPN 1050, a sports radio station here in New York. We've also gotten a few mentions on that radio station as well. A link? http://www.knicks4life.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10575 That's the best I can give you. People who love their website. Too bad you people are too stuck up to care. Thank you for your time, goodbye.Knea2006 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Wikipedia is for people all over the world so just because your site was mentioned in a few New York newspapers, although they are well known newspapers in the United States, not even everyone in the U.S. reads them so their not country-wide much less world-wide. Therefore your site being mentioned once in two popular U.S. newspapers doesn't make it notable to all the other English-speaking countries who use the english version of Wikipedia. Also, there's no reason to call people nerds just because they're intellectually superior to you and you aren't even intelligent enough to come up with a good reason to keep your article posted.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Intellectually superior? What makes you think that? Because you sit behind a computer all day decidng the fate of Wikipedia? If someone wants to search for Knicks sites on Wiki he'll find this on there. It's one of the best sites on the internet. What harm will it cause for it to remain up there? I don't see any insults or pornographic images. I just see a successful website wanting to expand it's image. Let up a little bit, would you?Knea2006 03:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Once again your intelligence is just astonishing. First of all “You sit behind your computer all day” is not a very accurate statement seeing as any intelligent person (which explains why you wouldn't notice) can see by the timestamp that I'm on around the same time every day and not “all day.” Also, you have no room to say anything about people being on the computer all day. I went to your forum site that you posted here and it's pretty much just 50 posts from you talking about this article and crying about how it's going to get deleted. And one more thing, considering you just said I sit at the computer all day and post on Wikipedia you sure replied fast to my last post. It's almost as if you sit at home all day watching this just to see who else has come here to let you know that your web site is completely unimportant to anyone.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • More To Add To My Previous Comment - I just thought I'd add that your web site is most definitely not “one of the best sites on the internet.” It is in fact, quite possibly, one of the worst sites on the internet, which is one more reason it doesn't deserve an article. Also, I'd appreciate if you didn't come here and babble incoherently about “insults and pornographic images.” I don't know what that has to do with anything so if you could just keep your porn addiction to yourself that would be great. Thanks, Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Who do you think you are, tool? You think you are someone special because you can decide the fate of Wiki articles? Who gives a rats ass what you can do? Listen up buddy, you don't intimidate me and your attempt to "own" me failed. Also showing your ignorance was the fact that you insulted a website that has done nothing to you. Calling it one of the "worst sites on the internet" is not what you should be doing. Nowhere did I say it was the best on the 'net. I said it was the best KNICKS sites on the web. Now, aside from reading Harry Potter books and pleasuring yourself to Star Trek episodes, do you have any idea who or what the Knicks are? Because from what I can see, you have none. So please, spare me the preaching and the attempt to act like a smart aleck. I've been there and done that and dealt with people like you, who think you are someone special because you work on wikipedia. Whoopdeedamndoo brother, what in the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm supposed to respect you? I don't even know you! So get whatever is out of your ass and act like a human being, rather than a robotic mouthpiece for wikipedia.Knea2006 04:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - And yet again you're intelligence astonishes me. However if you could stop with the childish insults for a second and learn how to read you would see that you did in fact say that it was the best site on the internet so just in case you do learn how to read I will quote you from your earlier post and highlight the incredibly unintelligent statement contained within it.
      • Quote: “Haha. Intellectually superior? What makes you think that? Because you sit behind a computer all day decidng the fate of Wikipedia? If someone wants to search for Knicks sites on Wiki he'll find this on there. ‘It's one of the best sites on the internet.’ What harm will it cause for it to remain up there? I don't see any insults or pornographic images. I just see a successful website wanting to expand it's image. Let up a little bit, would you?Knea2006 03:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)”[reply]
    • Now that you've been embarrassed repeatedly and tried to redeem yourself repeatedly with foolish and childish insults, which, as stated in a previous post, make absolutely no sense, I would suggest that you just give up trying to sound intelligent, get off your computer, leave your mom's basement, and go out and get a job so perhaps someday you can pay for an education. Thank you for your time, I've enjoyed making you look like an incompetent ass, although you didn't need my help, have a nice day. Also, I realize your going to respond with yet another childish insult and call me a “doo doo head” or whatever, but I'm not going to continue trying to convince you that your web site is not one of the best on the internet and not even one of the best Knicks sites on the internet because you are obviously to incompetent to realize that. Once again thank you for using Wikipedia, try putting your article on one of the many gay porn sites you visit.--Mertens21 a.k.a. FrodoTBagins, DonkeyPunch21, Squirrel 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, what a classless tool. So, I made a mistake. The point was it is one of the best KNICK sites on the internet. Why don't you get your head out of your sarcastic, stuck up ass and realize you are a nobody? Mother's basement? You wish buddy. The only ass you've seen is yours in the mirror of your bathroom. You have your opinion about the site, I have mine, but to fall to the levels of calling the sites "one of the worst sites on the internet" is a disgrace for a wikipedia "employee." How did you get your position anyway? Seems like you have no sense of humor though, especially not with that lame gay porn joke. Get a life dude. No, seriously. Get one. Knea2006 05:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind both of you the following two rules here:

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, but ofcourse. Now the arrogant Mertens21 acts like the holier-than-thou person that he's supposed to be.Knea2006 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add, it is not MY site as Meretens keeps repeating. I am just a writer for the website and the fact is, the article would've been deleted either way because of the fact it doesn't meet the "criteria" to be listed on Wikipedia.Knea2006 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this AFD doesn't put you off from contributing to Wikipedia forever especially on NBA-related articles. An AFD nomination on your very first article can be a very demoralising experience I know and some people do take it personally, but these rules exist to stop people promoting themselves, bands, companies, websites etc, because if we let everyone do it, then Wikipedia will start to lose its reputation for being an independent source of information. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not promoting. It's a legit website that should be on Wikipedia in my respectful opinion.Knea2006 23:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr sketchy's anti-art school

[edit]

Vanity or advertisement for non-notable burlesque club. Medtopic 06:18, 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 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Knight

[edit]

Unreferenced, unverifiable claims. Medtopic 07:02, 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 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Miriam

[edit]

Somehow, this managed to survive an afd in May (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Miriam). It's a summer camp. The main reasons it survived last time seem to be that (a) it was Jewish (presumably if it had been a non-Jewish summer camp, deletion would have been fine... an argument I cannot quite fathom); (b) it is in Canada, not the US (somehow, Canadian summer camps are notable but US ones aren't... an argument I cannot quite fathom); and (c) the nomination was "sloppy" as it said the camp was in the US (how this relartes the the encyclopedic worth of the article I cannot quite fathom). I see no reason why this article should survive. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia has quite a few articles on non-Jewish US-based summer camps, see: [9]. Why is a Jewish/Canadian summer camp any less worthy of inclusion? Drett 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its obvious that Grutness meant that a Jewish/Canadian summer camp should not be any MORE worthy of inclusion. Please dont twist words around.--Musaabdulrashid 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't twisted anything. I interpreted Grutness' comments as meaning he was unaware that there were numerous articles on summer camps of all denominations and from various countries. This seems as worthy of inclusion as any of the others. Drett 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate the others for deletion. --Daduzi talk 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop twisting my words Drett. Your interpretation takes quite a bit of skill to work out from what I wrote. The article is about a summer camp and - irrespective of location or denomination - virtually no summer camps deserve separate articles on Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, there are over 100 separate articles on summer camps on Wikipedia, which suggests that other people disagree with you regarding the worthiness of their inclusion. You said you could not fathom the argument that Canadian/Jewish summer camps would not be deleted while presumably other summer camps would. As other summer camp articles have not been deleted, I could only assume that you did not know there were myriad other articles on similar institutions that you were not aware of - that was how I interpreted your nomination, but if I have misrepresented you, I apologise. Drett 14:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly the Beagle

[edit]

An article about the original editor's pet dog. Prod removed, so here we are at AfD. Fails policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Creating articles about your pets is so foolish that it is in Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create. Mr Stephen 08:07, 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 both. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable_development_organization_inpakistan

[edit]

If this org is real, it does not appear to be notable. A google for the name of the founder brings up a couple of hits for someone currently imprisoned in Guantamano Drett 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Sustainable_Development_Organization_in_Pakistan for the same reason. Drett 08:41, 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 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside VW

[edit]

non-notable webgroup/club Travelbird 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the term "non-notable". Eastside VW is a recognised club by major UK insurance companies, being a member entitles those taking out a car insurance policy to a discount. Eastside VW also has displays at major UK events and shows and has been featured in national UK magazines. In the highly popular UK VW scene, Eastside VW is widely known and respected.

  • Delete - fails WP:WEB, and provides no sources, -- Whpq 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Local club, regional website, fails WP:WEB and is not striking out sufficiently to require explanation to the world. As for making the world aware of its existence -- that's not what we do. Geogre 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I get 64 distinct Google hits, mostly club directories. There are no multiple non-trivial articles by third parties to shore up notability. While I have long stated that Google should not be the final arbiter of notability, at this level it's symptomatic. Our anonymous contributor may want to study WP guidelines before trying another article. Tychocat 08:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Blooker Prize

[edit]

Non-notable, made-up "literary award" for non-notable blogs. Vanity, blatant self-promotion and pagerank-inflating linkspam. "Notability" "enstablished" only by two rather ironic and probably paid-for online articles and the fact that it is name is "a pun on the long-established Man Boner Prize". Absoluteny no content besides advertising. Please Delete. Femmina 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain civil. Yomangani 10:47, 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 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Tamika

[edit]

Prod tag removed by possible sockpuppet: Jes Liloleme (talk • contribs). Article on an "adult" actress. Playboy Coed of the Week is not considered notable under Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) guidelines. Google hits for ("Natasha Tamika" -Wikipedia) = 369. No listing on Internet Adult Film Database. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:55, 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 nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of Rockford Pipe Band

[edit]

Not notible, Vanity. The author admitted on talk page that he is closely related to this 25 member organization. This pipe band is by far the least notible of any American bands to currently have an article in this encyclopedia. I am in favor of userfying or deleting Musaabdulrashid 09:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, I have noticed that articles like this are a once in a lifetime phenomenon and that it is extremely unlikely that any other articles about grade 4 bands would be this good. Deleting it would not work to set any type of presecent for similar pipe band articles, because there probably won't ever be any similar pipe band articles.--Musaabdulrashid 06:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User pages aren't supposed to be free home pages, and thus I don't think this would be appropriate material for a user page. I don't really see a problem with vanity here, despite the author's admitted relationship with a band member, as long as the material is objective and verifiable. Having said that, I think the notability of even a strong Grade 4 band is in doubt. so my vote is Weak delete. Changing vote to Weak keep based on some competition success and some evidence of notability within their local community. Dsreyn 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Userfy or Weak Delete, (nominator, my real vote). This material isn't really a home page, and as said before it could very easily be on wikipedia if it was more notable. An article like this does not seem to violate Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, and it is not any more a home page than most other userpages. Vanity, I beleive, is a key issue here though as more 2/3rds and possible 3/4 of the author's edits have been to this page and immediately related articles. This is generally bad for wikipedia and harms the encyclopedic nature of pipe band articles.--Musaabdulrashid 23:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First I would like to state I have no problem with the discussion in regard to the issue that the City of Rockford Pipe Band article may or may not meet the "notability" standard. I, however, am beginning to take umbrage over its deletion based on "vanity." While I made a great number of edits in the article my intent was to provide proper structure and objective content. If the sole critera for "vanity" in any new article is the percentage of edits made by one individual then we may have a problem with some, if not most, of the pipe band articles - all of which are relatively new. Example: Midlothian Scottish Pipe Band (no allusions to "relationship" intended). Further, I believe time would be better spent in defining or at least developing a consensus as to the "notabilty" standard for pipe band inclusion and carry on from there.--Srebob 11:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)srebob[reply]
I really hope this doesn't offend you in any way, but I meant that over 2/3rds of your total contributions were to this article, and that you've contributed to little else (there's nothing wrong with that in general). This definetely doesn't alone qualify the article as vanity, but considering the subject's non notable nature, it isn't good. If a user were to only contribute to one article, it should be to somthing more notable and a subject which that user is not directly connected to.--Musaabdulrashid 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. An article like this is a little difficult to characterize, but with a state and regional championship in its class, the pipe band seems to have at least some minimal notability. I would give the article time to grow. -- DS1953 talk 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that as of now the encyclopedia has 3 articles about grade 1 pipe bands in the US, 3 articles about grade 2 pipe bands in the US, and just this one article about a Grade 4 band. To be fair, we would need to write articles about the rest of the grade 2 bands and the best grade 3 bands before we would include this one. Honestly, I don't think anyone would want to write articles about grade 3 or grade 4 pipe bands unless they play in them themselves, or are very close to someone who plays in one. There simply is no way that a Grade 4 band is notable.--Musaabdulrashid 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The premise that the grade 2 and grade 3 articles need to be written first is faulty. Wikipedia articles generally don't get written "in order" - they are written whenever someone has the time, interest and knowledge. I think the issue is simply the notability of a grade 4 band. Dsreyn 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was only demonstrating that there is practically no interest in G4 pipe bands. There is enough time and knowledge here to write an article on almost any pipe band.--Musaabdulrashid 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2. I agree, somewhat, with Dsreyn. As a continuing aside: just what the heck (change "heck" as it suits you) is "notable (I know I'm being redundant)." In the midwest the City of Rockford Pipe Band is a minor phenomena, in the world it's a "piss-ant" pipe band. Do we disallow the over all effort to write Pipe Band articles based on some yet limited definition of "worthiness" or do we simply delete them from the "Notable Pipe Band List" (my vote) and let well written and object articles stand on their own merit? Beats me...--Srebob 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)srebob[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 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Wrestling Domain

[edit]

non-notable. Seems to only be a collection of various wrestling title histories TruthCrusader 09:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC) It is a collection of title histories, pay per view histories and biographies, providing a vast amount of wrestling's past.[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 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist New Jersey

[edit]

No google hits apart from this Wikipedia article. Probable hoax or not notable. DarthVader 09:48, 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 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Severe Weather Page

[edit]

This isn't notable at all - it's just a website with weather info updated occasionally. The article itself seems rather like spam, and it was written by the webmaster of the site (who incidentally created pages about himself and his dog which were speedied yesterday). Ruaraidh-dobson 09:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted as pages with an open AfD shouldn't be blanked. --Craig Stuntz 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am the creater of Ohio Severe Weather Page. I agree it should be deleted. I am sorry for the non-notable website. I am still learning about weather and have not totally developed the skill, but in the near future I hope to create a more advance website. I monitor the website on my own because its free web hosting, so it is pretty hard to keep up with everything and keep up to date everything. I really enjoy weather, but I understand it should not be posted in Wikipedia because it is created by free web hosting. I appologize. If anyone understands where I come from, please keep posting because I agree it should be deleted. I didn't know that you were not alowd to delete your own article you created yourself. I rather not have my IP signed on this page if you don't mind. User:Jordanrschroeder - 28 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGNPH

[edit]

AGNPH stands for Alt.Games.Nintendo.Pokemon.Hentai. Vanity article for a definitely non-notable newsgroup if I've ever heard of one. Google hits for "Alt.Games.Nintendo.Pokemon.Hentai" = 349. Fails: WP:WEB. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:08, 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 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daireem - The Universe

[edit]

Not notable. Less than 100 google hits. DarthVader 10:18, 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 — blanked by author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lee

[edit]

Does not meet the music notability guidelines HellFire 10:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was not correctly listed - I've repaired it. Yomangani 10:35, 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 (also satisfies speedy deletion criterion, since author consents to deletion on the discussion page) Richardcavell 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interfak big band

[edit]

Please see discussion at Talk:Interfak_big_band --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the creator admits to it but is very reasonable, see the discussion.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 attack page. Tyrenius 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron hoare

[edit]

Originally tagged CSD-G1 patent nonsense. But it isn't patent. It is nonsensical in places, unsourced and unreferenced and completely unwikified, but there's no speedy criterion for that :o) so it comes here. No opinion from me - I'm just clearing CAT:CSD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:41, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Battaglia

[edit]

NN biography, fails WP:Bio, no Google hits for "Stephen Battaglia"+"John Howard" [16] Optimale Gu 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Link above returns this from google news, google doesn't update every site in the world every second. - Catchpole 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "NN biography, fails WP:BIO" is not a reason for deleting, and never has been. Why don't you base a nomination on policies? Is it not verifiable, not possible to be neutral, original research, libelous, etc. Ansell 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seriously, in 100 years is someone looking at Wikipedia really going to find this at all interesting and usefull? It's not like he had a rocket launcher and hugged the guy or tried to shoot him or anything. I don't care how many google hits it gets over the next few days, it's still one small news story.. DrunkenSmurf 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. A decent kiss would have earned notability though - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this not enough renown to pass your guideline? Why is a screwdriver a fail for renown, the media certainly doesn't agree with you on that point. Ansell
  • Keep with a bit more about the incident and the subsequent reaction. ASIO, Australian Federal Police and people from other security agencies have weighed in on this now. Although Stephen meant the PM no harm, the story in it's essence is that somebody has clotheslined the leader of Australia with a weapon while his security staff have looked on. The kid has definitely been one of the most talked about people in Australia for the last few days. Drett 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the whole thing is rather a bit too fresh to determine its importance. This may be his short-lived moment of fleeting fame, or it may lead to significant reviews and become a story mentioned anytime the Aussie PM is threatened. But only the future will tell us. In the meantime, let's look at other similar instances. Jean Chretien who is a former prime minister of Canada had André Dallaire break into the official residence. This incident had a large amount of press coverage (in Canada), but André Dallaire does not have his own article, nor is there an article on the incident. Instead, it's a brief mention in the article for Jean Chretien. I propose that unless the incident muchrooms, it will fade in importance and so should just be a mention in the article for John Howard. -- Whpq 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe there should be an article on him. The renown for being involved in a newsworthy event certainly fits the guideline that the nominator supplied, why wouldn't it fit there too? Ansell 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events so he passes WP:BIO Since the hug he has been mentioned in the SMH, The Age, On Melbourne Radio & every commercial television station in Australia. He has even been mentioned in South African News. The only problem with the article is that it needs a cleanup. Have a look how many newspapers have reported it Stephen_Battaglia#External_Links it was not just a little blurb in the backpage it was a full mention. Feedyourfeet 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has gotten some coverage in the media through hugging John Howard on his 67th birthday while carrying a screwdriver. It might be worth a brief mention in the John Howard article although even that might be pushing it. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A tricky one but this is a news story that will be all but forgotten in a few days time. A para in the PM's article or ASIO or Australian Federal Police at most will suffice. -- I@n 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is concerned with a famous security incident concerning a nations PM. It is notable to me, and others, if only because there was absolutely no intention. It doesn't actually fail any of the official policies. It only failed the so called "notability" guidelines, which do not prescribe anything, they only guide, for what that is worth. Ansell 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that this incident really deserves a mention, so there's certainly no need to have an article on the guy with the screwdriver. I engaged John Howard in a glaring competition in 1998 (and lost) so should I start an article about this incident as well? --Nick Dowling 10:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 11 Articles from the media, certainly that counts for something. Feedyourfeet 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get over it; it is a non-event of which you are continually pushing. I was once involved in a 'noteworthy event' that was published in all forms of the media; does that mean I should have my own article informing people about my claim to fame? No, I shouldn't ; and neither should this clown. Orbitalwow 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per I@n pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non-notable persona. This is a joke, right? Let me tell you, if you allow rubbish like this into Wikipedia then its reputation is going to be damaged. Are we seriously saying that anyone who slips through the ranks on a slow news day gets a mention in Wikipedia?I elliot 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that any editor disagrees that the security scare should be mentioned in Wikipedia. I think that the question here is what the best way to do that is. Should Wikipedia provide a name check to Mr Battaglia, and discuss the incident in a biographical article on a person, where readers won't even know to find it in a couple of years' time? Or should Wikipedia expand the discussion of the Prime Minister of Australia's protective detail in Australian Federal Police, currently a 1 sentence mention, to include documented security scares such as this one? The latter seems to be the better approach that will benefit readers in the long run, especially given that this article practically has a separate header for every sentence, strongly indicating that it has had to be padded in order to make it an article of any great length. So condense and merge to a section on the PM's protective detail in Australian Federal Police. Uncle G 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly agree with Uncle G on this one. I elliot 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G. It would be good to keep this information, but imo Stephen Battaglia doesn't deserve an article on his own. --Zoz (t) 17:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G or delete. Do not keep this article. -- DS1953 talk 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DS1953's wording. Harro5 11:13, 30 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 transwiki to wiktionary. the " versions were deleted since the others had better names and the content was duplicated. - Bobet 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"weapons free", "weapons hold", "weapons tight", Weapons free, Weapons hold, Weapons tight

[edit]

Nominated for speedy delete as dicdef, but that's not a recognised speedy criterion. So they come here instead. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:50, 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. SynergeticMaggot 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C-Tec

[edit]

non-notable according to WP:BAND, it was previously deleted in accordance to WP:PROD Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Front 242. Front 242 is notable per WP:BAND. --Craig Stuntz 13:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sovex. --Craig Stuntz 19:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to make an argument for notability w/re: touring North America. Redirect would be inappropriate, as this is a distinct project, and not all members are from Front 242. --71.36.251.182 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept. I have reviewed the Notability Guidelines, and I believe that it falls well within the boundaries given. For example:

  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources. C-Tec has toured Europe, and the US.
  • 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). Their album Darker was released on Wax Trax! records, which is a very important and notable independent label. Also, Darker, and the subsequent album Cut were released on SPV, which is a large European label.
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). If widely circulated genre magazines, IE Industrial Nation, are considered "non-trivial", then this would apply. They may well have been covered in European music magazines, but I do not have verification for this.
  • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. This is probably the most applicable point. The primary members were Marc Heal of Cubanate, and Jean-Luc De Meyer of Front 242. These are two very notable bands, and are known internationally. Also, since they are the only members from their respective original bands, there should not be a call for a merge, as C-tec is a distinct enough entity to warrant its own article.

Another argument I have is that if you do a search for C-Tec on this site, you will find two pages worth of results that link to this article. If it is not notable, then why would it be so frequently mentioned?

By these arguments, I think this article certainly deserves to stay on Wikipedia. I do not understand where the issue arises that they are not notable enough to have their own article.

Addendum: I would also like to refer to their All Music Guide entry. If this is considered a "non-trivial" publication, then it verifies all of my arguments above. Sovex 16:45, 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 all. SynergeticMaggot 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece Games

[edit]

Non-notable game company (684 Ghits), active only in Japan and occasionally in Europe according to article, yet has a massive template (populated entirely by similarly deletable articles). I propose that every article in the template be deleted, including the template itself, with all meaningful content moved to One Piece. A single series doesn't need 50+ empty pages. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template I'm referring to is Template:One Piece general.
I'll be adding a list of specific pages to delete as soon as I can compile one (10-20 minutes, I guess). Since nominating, I can see a couple that may need to remain. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specific pages to delete:
.. and so on. There are so many, this will take a while, but these are the biggest problems I can see. In general, many of the articles in this template are totally unnecessary (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following was moved from the in-line AfD tag at One Piece minor characters. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [reason] We need a reference guide to smaller characters. As a on going show, we get many rumours and speculations posted on One Piece related pages. For that reason pages such as this are needed purly to resolve such debates. Also, most of these characters have play extremely important roles or are generally important things to the series. If this page is deleted a lot of important information would be lost. These characters also don't warrent their own pages because they don't have enough imformation for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Emfrbl (talk • contribs) 12:33 2006-07-27
  • Keep Notable developer of popular games, popular enough to have spawned several sequels and be translated into other languages. They have had activity in America (see One Piece Grand Battle!) but being Asia-and-Europe-based would not be a reason to delete even if it was true. As for the other articles, Keep unless relisted seperately, they're different enough that we should consider each on its own merits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google hits is probably not a valid method of checking notability for a Japanese company, as the vast majority of references to that company will be (surprise) in Japanese. Dark Shikari 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One Piece bounties page- There is too much bits of imformation on this page for the One Piece main page. To place all this on that one page would clog it up or create confusion. It is here to act as a reference, it also helps conpare rumours and speculations since this is related to an on going show. This page collects together the information for debates, comparisons and quick referecing. Its uselfulness was proven today when I correct correct several One Piece pages because a someone came in and altered them, this included Mihawks, Luffy's, Zoro, Shanks, Portgas D. Ace. In short, its there to hault rumours and speculations and save a whole lot of trouble. Angel Emfrbl 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both the Manga adaptions and the Anime adaptions pages were orginally one with the One Piece Main page. What we found is that it cause confusion and inconsitancey with other parts of the article. When we seperated the information it allowed us to clean up the One Piece main page and gave each section a chance to grow on its on without repeated information or inconsistacies. Also, this page is fairly new and as such has not been completed yet. At least it needs a couple more weeks to bring it up to scratch with wikipedias standards. Angel Emfrbl 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One Piece Template. Size wise, we are actually trying to strink that, it is work in progress and discussion has been on going. Half the trouble is tha the series itself, One Piece, is the most populaur anime in Japan and therefore has a lot of information in general, much of it important to the storyline and worth noting on the One Piece pages. We haven't finished with the template, we need a few weeks to sort it out. Angel Emfrbl 14:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The One Piece crews being listed, that has only just been created as such and while has a list of crew and information doesn't provide much information on roles and importantce of the crews themselves. The individual Pirate Crew pages list the roles they've played, as well as information that cannot be summed up in a few short sentances. Another reason for them being the way they are is that there are so many (One Piece is afterall a show on PIRATES) that there is a lot of different crews. To put it plainly, you can't sum up EVERYTHING on the pirate crews in one list like on that page without loosing a lot of information important to the series. Angel Emfrbl 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is a world encyclopedia, not a US one. Just because they're bigger in Japan and EU than here is no reason to delete. --PresN 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everything you listed for deletion is a valid compendium of information for this series. Regardless of what you think about the amount of pages and detailed information, the fact of the matter is that the One Piece franchise has alot of details in its plot, characters, and general information overall. All of these pages are usefull for compiling information on the anime series, manga, video games, etc. --Lordshmeckie 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I like to know exactly which part of the 11 categories of "indiscriminate knowledge" in WP:NOT does these pages fall under and how are these pages not covered by WP:FICT? There has been a awful lot of fiction related articles being put up for AfD recently using the claim "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" as the sole reason even though the article doesn't fall under any of the 11 categories of "indiscriminate knowledge" and are permitted by the WP:FICT notability guidelines. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would you rather have over 100 separate articles detailing filler characters? Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most as a textbook example of a series where WP:FICT has actually been followed. The standard process when faced with minor-characters type articles that are clogged up with fancruft should be to edit them to cut out needless cruft while retaining the character listings, synopses, etc. that are generally accepted as suitably encyclopedic. Article deletion is rarely required for cases such as these. — Haeleth Talk 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a keeper WP:FICTION followed, articles are all nicely kept together in one page. There may be some room for merging here and there, but I won't push it. If you find cruft in the articles, you can always edit them. I view these long pages as overflow from the main articles. This is an extraordinarily popular, highly rated, and legnthy series in Japan. Who can't help but love Mayumi Tanaka? Now, there were some copy-and-pasted episode summaries for this series that could be removed. (Unless someone cleaned them up..) I could find them for you and you can AfD those if you'd like. --Kunzite 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I may be wrong, but judging from your initial comments, you, good sir, seem to be under the assumption that One Piece is primarily a game series, while it is in fact an anime/manga series. Since Naruto et al gets to keep its attack lists and such (like this, for instance), One Piece should keep its own. Concerning the minor and filler characters--would you prefer if we made individual articles for each one? To quote the WP:FICTION article:

"Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." Sigmasonic X 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nominated article is good enough and this is an overbroad nom... if necessary relist the other cruft separately. Games seem notable enough even if they're only for Japanese market. One Piece manga etc. itself is definitely notable (as in "someone thought it'd wise to get this thing marketed in this cold and distant country of mine, and now all the kids love it"), and the template seems justified. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One Piece Games is not a game company, it's just the title of an article that lists games made about the One Piece franchise. The nominated articles are different enough to require separate AfDs, but I think I would say keep for each one since they are non-redundant lists that fall under WP:FICT. - Wickning1 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that if you have a problem with the number of significant minor characters in One Piece, the person to talk to would be Eiichiro Oda. A large number of those articles do need cleaned up though. --tjstrf 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.56.149.121 (talk • contribs) .
  • I've already voted, but I'd just like to note that with a new suggestion I made, if agreed upon, both the "One Piece minor characters" section will shrink greatly and the Pirate Crew articles will become much more helpful, addressing two of your concerns. It can be seen in the discussion sections for the One Piece main article and the discussion section for One Piece minor characters. Sigmasonic X 16:30, 30 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 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miyabi

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article will never amount to more than a stub. Bueller 007 11:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should all be merged into one nice large article on Japanese aesthetics --Kunzite 03:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it somewhere appropriate is a good idea. I would agree with merge. Maybe all of these, or maybe some. Fg2 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all that a J-J dictionary has to say about this word: "courtly", "elegant". [17] There's no Japanese Wikipedia entry for it. Agree 100% with this merge. Throw them all in there. Bueller 007 04:40, 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 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Barone's

[edit]

NN.the article itself says that the subject is "a small catering buissiness" Musaabdulrashid 11:20, 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 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep value investing

[edit]

Article is not a widely used term and is redundant to information on value investing page. Goodemi 14:39, 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 delete. Oh, and it's keep, not aganist. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinleiner

[edit]

Nominating for deletion as neologism verging on protologism. '+heinleiner -wikipedia' gives just 81 Google hits[18] and just 36 on Google Groups[19]. John Varley's fictional usage is already explained in his article and The Golden Globe; real-world usage appears extremely limited, and not enough reliable source material exists to support an article. --Calair 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • against: This word produces a few hundred hits on Google (web), and a usenet search turns up more, going all the way back to 1992...note that the above-mentioned Golden Globe was published in 1998. Sadly, there are no irc search engines to log the common use of "heinleiner" on the various Heinlein-related channels from at least 1995 to the present.
If you specifically exclude Varley and my own name...a very broad brush because I tend to go associate with anyone who identifies with the word, and plenty of Heinlein readers will mention Varley in other context, for many reasons...you get a result which includes a few dozen people mostly saying "I am a heinleiner", or "he is a heinleiner".
It's a rule, in several industries who wish to weigh public attention, that for every written mention of something, there are (as with roaches) a great many people aligned the same way, who are (like normal people) not bothering to state it on the record. In the TV industry, one "fan" or complaint letter is thought to represent somewhere between one and ten thousand people who didn't bother to write, for example. There are different ratios used by the publishing, music, advertising, and political industries.
We can also suppose that those who go on record as "a heinleiner", despite not being associated with various groups or cliques of that name, have their own friends, clique, or subculture from whom they derive or with whom they use that word. It is common enough that The Heinlein Society, founded by Virginia Heinlein to represent RAH, registered the domain name.--Kaz 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • against: Word is observably being used with some frequency by fans of the author, polyamorous people, libertarian individualists, etc. Though relatively small, the usage is not anomalous and, as this context exists outside of Varley's novel, it would not be sufficient to simply refer to that reference. As this article could be expanded to go into detail on a Heinleiner lifestyle, aggregates that consider themselves Heinleiners, and so forth, Wiktionary would not be sufficient either. --DiBaggioMA 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • What constitutes "good secondary sources" to you? If you're expecting a sociological text on the subject, you won't find one, but that's not a reasonable standard to hold for such an entry, either. The word and what it describes can be readily seen on blogs, discussion forums, political discussions, litcrit forums and essays, among science fiction, polyamorous, futurists, and libertarian groups. --DiBaggioMA 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RS discusses this issue: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources... self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." For more detail on what constitutes a good source, see that page, but in general self-published work that hasn't been critically vetted by anybody but the author is not it. Things like blog posts do demonstrate that there are people out there calling themselves 'Heinleiners', but they can only illustrate one person's understanding of what that word means at a time; claiming a general usage on the basis of such individual uses is synthesis, which violates Wikipedia:No original research. In general, if there are no solid secondary sources on a topic, it's not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. --Calair 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll add - I've been active on poly forums for years, and I've been a politics & sci-fi geek since long before that. I've certainly run into plenty of people who treat Heinlein as a leading light in any and all of those three spheres... but I had never encountered the term 'Heinleiner' until a few days ago, when it came up on Heinlein's article here. --Calair 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • against While, as stated above, there are no irc search engines to log the use of "heinleiner" on channels or groups, a cursory glimpse of these will show a large number of posts and a decent number of members overall. Moreover, posts in said channels and groups will suggest that the members posting identify with the same characteristics as are listed in the article in question.
The suggestion that the article needs to be deleted because the number of people who self identify as Heinleiners is lower than some arbitrary amount should not be heeded any more than the suggestion that an article about a specific tribe of indians should be deleted because the number of people who identify as of that tribe is low. Heinleiners exist, they self identify as such, they have a community, common characteristics, history and even a culture of their own. They exist and the article is valid in referencing them.--Daniel Macintyre 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)(This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • against: One reason for the relative scarcity of people who identify as heinleiners is that RAH was careful to not endorse the many people who took his works as road maps leading towards a better future. Some of the people who embraced his work were visionaries, and some were rather strange indeed, but RAH maintained the principle that he wrote what he wrote for the money, and that if anyone chose to take it as more than entertainment, then that was on their head, not his.
This lead to a situation similar to the old saw of "those that know don't tell, while those that tell don't know." After RAH's death, Virginia was kind enough to grant a small degree of recognition to some of "Heinlein's bastards," in our case that came in the form of permission to reprint portions of his works in our newsletter in order to help folks better understand what we were doing and why. A remnant of this is our expection that anyone who wants to become involved in our organization read, at the very least, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.
As one of RAH's bastard sons, I can assure you that heinleiners exist, and that we're still working to make his vision manifest since there's nothing more radical than a working model of a better way. Walt Patrick, Windward Foundation Wahkiacus 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)(This is user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:OR with the firey passion of a thousand suns. WilyD 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. Just because its "used on IRC groups and thus can't be searched through google" doesn't mean its notable. Until it is documented by some sort of secondary source, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dark Shikari 13:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, despite the several "against" voters arguments. Wickethewok 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not against per nom. No reliable sources available for documentation. GassyGuy 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ignore all against "votes". Danny Lilithborne 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that if it is true that "those that know don't tell, while those that tell don't know," then, unfortunately, as with all secret societies, Heinleiners cannot be the subject of a Wikipedia article, because all the information in Wikipedia articles must be traceable to a published source, per the verifiability policy, linked under the edit box in every article creation screen. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. The use of the word "against," uncapitalized, is a little unusual and idiosyncratic. To see three different accounts, none of which has created a user page, all using the same idiosyncratic style, leads me to wonder whether these users are independent of one another. Multiple and assumed identities were a fairly common theme in some of Heinlein's work... :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My impression is that they are real, separate people (one of them has a handful of edits going back a couple of years), but were invited here by one person, and being unfamiliar with Wikipedia took their lead from the first comment. Note that at the time they commented, this AFD wasn't generally visible because I missed a step in the creation (bot fixed it later), but I had notified one person of said creation, which presumably is how they got here. --Calair 00:07, 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 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Chiles

[edit]

The Subject of this page does not want to be included in wikipedia. Apparently he is recieving hate mail from wikipedians who consider him self promoting. I am the original author of the page. Rockydallas 21:41, 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 DELETE and REDIRECT to VH1 Classic. JIP | Talk 09:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vault (VH1 Classic)

[edit]

Not enough information to warrant its own article. The content can be easily be put into VH1 Classic. MrMurph101 19:46, 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 speedily deleted by 1ne per author request. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo-Pop

[edit]

Very questionable music genre. AMG, NME, Rolling Stone, even google shows no reliable source for the existance of this genre. Seems made up by creator, hence, should be deleted. HarryCane 11:41, 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 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and Adam's Card World

[edit]

A contested prod. Original reason for delete was: "Blatant advertisement". Prod tag was removed giving no rationale (Liberatore, 2006). 11:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a contested prod, acutally, but appeared so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitcentral for details (Liberatore, 2006). 09:59, 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, no indication that the site itself is notable. The books are already mentioned at the author's article, a message board doesn't become important by itself just because it's started by a guy who's written books. The rest of the arguments fail to say how the site is any more notable than any other fansite; "Many established star trek sites link to this site" is more of an indication of non-notability. "There are other fansites listed on wikipedia" isn't a reason to keep this one. Insisting that this is not a fansite with no other argument to back that conclusion isn't very convincing. - Bobet 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitcentral

[edit]

A contested prod (see below). Original rationale for deletion was "Apparent vanity for a fansite". No rationale was given when the prod tag was removed (Liberatore, 2006). 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a contested prod, acutally, but appeared so. (Liberatore, 2006). 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (same problem as Dave and Adam's Card World). Yomangani 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN fansite. Alexa ranking of 1,511,415. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable - there are two published books (not self-published) associated with the site. Drett 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many articles on message boards and other similar websites on WP. And there are five Nitpicker's Guides, not two. It has many users and traffic every day. I see no evidence of "vanity" in its creation, any more than in that of any other WP article. If the site is not considered "notable", then may I ask what the criteria are for notability? I know what the critieria are for general knowledge subjects, but those don't really apply to websites and messages boards, because those things don't generally produce those same criteria, like mention in books or magazines. None of the material in the article violates OR, verifiability, or any other guideline or policy that leads to deletion. It shows up in in Google Searches as being mentioned on other sites like here, it's mentioned on Star Trek and sci-fi-related websites [20], it's spawned other message board sites like this one, etc. Nightscream 01:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT comment Due to the database problems we lost like ~3 hours worth of changes to all articles. Many prods were accidentally removed because those prod additions no longer existed. Because of that it looks like I removed the prod tag (it also happened on a few other articles). I have no interest in this article. --mboverload@ 03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking into consideration the related books, Star Trek fan-base popularity, and the website, it is notable enough to keep. Doesn't appear to be an advertisement like Dave and Adam's Card World. Dreadlocke 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN fansite named after best-selling books (instead of the other way around). I was the prodder, and the prod was lost in a database burp about a week ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rationale above. Combination 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean? Nightscream 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable. Details on notability are in Wikipedia:Notability. Dreadlocke 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why does the issue of whether the site was named after the books or vice versa pertain to its notability? Nightscream 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site has a long standing in the Star Trek fan site web universe. Many established star trek sites link to this site. It provides all to continue to submit nitpicking comments to Star Trek episodes and movies. It's a lot more than a sequel to five published books. Most particularly, the message board has inspired the trend to place nits (and occasional editorial commentary) on many various different shows and programs, though the Star Trek shows are the heart as they demonstrate the challenges of maintaining consistency in such a universe that has lasted in t.v. shows, movies, animated series and books for over forty years. The site also has had impacts on the whole idea of nitpicking media shows as well, similar to a fad as say the "Jump the Shark" website. waldnorm 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nitcentral should be kept as a Wikipedia entry simply because frankly there's no harm in having it be included here. Anyone with objections to it simply don't have to read the article, let alone ever visit Nitcentral at all. Just because a few people don't want it on Wikipedia shouldn't supersede the wishes of a lot more people who would rather it be kept here. This is certainly a case of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Please keep the Nitcentral article on Wikipedia. Thank you. User:MarkWilliam 20:51, 28 July 2006
    Comment Since I'm not involved in the Trekie community at all, I can't really comment on the actual notability of the site in question. However, "Anyone with objections to it simply don't have to read the article" is not a valid reason to keep it: similar justifications could be made for the most absurd/NN of articles. Icewolf34 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original rationale for deletion is invalid on both counts. Nitcentral is not a "fansite" (it is a vibrant online community with an eight-year history covering a wide diversity of topics), nor is the entry a "vanity" article (for one thing, the original creator of the site had nothing to do with composing the article). The cursory wording of the original prod shows that the individual who made the recommendation for deletion based it solely on their superficial perception of the topic, without doing any further investigation or providing more congruent reasons why the topic is non-notable. Such activity should be discouraged. --Toddpence 13:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a fansite and a dying stagnant discussion board where arguments are more common than discussion, people dont care about each other or anyone who has a problem with their special people. It is like a high school clique. The person who authored this article is also a moderator there and has been trying to rally the members of nitcentral to come and vote to help it avoid deletion. This is a Non Notable event, place and site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwetruck (talk • contribs) 1:17, 30 July 2006 UTC

The site has had some bickering, but no more than what I have seen in other discussion boards or blogs. Discussion is still going on, and while there's tangents, the main reason people are there is to nit the over forty year old Star Trek universe, television shows, movies, commerials, etc. This site was the most influential in terms of the art of nitpicking, and has had much more impact than the original five books have done. The original author, Phil Ferrand, has long abandonned writing books on this subject, and the web site is now a center of nitpicking that universe. As for the claim that it is "dying," each day a number of posts appear on this board--compared to most blogs and discussion boards, this site still gets a lot of activity. waldnorm

Why should any decent, non-offensive entry like that for Nitcentral be deleted just because some people who never even visit the site in the first place want it so? Don't they have anything else better to do than to find Wiki entries they want to complain about and then try to have be deleted? Do something better with your time and leave the Nitcentral entry alone! But if you want to persist in this immature and idiotic endeavor then just remember that the same can also be done for any entries you naysayers may have added yourselves just by checking your names in the "contribs" link next to your names so you might want to think twice about wanting to have someone else's entries deleted. After all, it's a two-sided blade that cuts both ways. Or to put it another way, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. User:MarkWilliam 19:19, 29 July 2006

You can't actually be threatening to delete articles contributed by people who disagreed with your viewpoints? (Not to mention Wikipedia:Point.) Icewolf34 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the arguments provided by the anonymous voter above who didn't sign his post are not only untrue (that it's a fansite, that it's dying or stagnant, that arguments are more common than discussion there, that it's cliquish), but are not even criteria for deletion. But if the person in question can point to WP policy that states that a message board moderator cannot be a Wikipedian, or alert other Wikipedians to such movements for deletion, that fansites are not noteworthy, and so forth, then please do so. Nightscream 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitcentral isn't a fansite. Nightscream 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are called Single purpose accounts, it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to solicit such activity. Dreadlocke 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment While I disagree with Nightscream's solicitation of votes, I would like to comment that Rwetruck is also a single purpose account. He is a poster who had a very poor experience at the site in question. (Note his previous comment is almost verbatim from a post I made at the site in question, where I am a moderator.) I have made some minor edits in the distance past to Wikipedia if that matters but I have decided to stand mute in this vote due to the conflict of interest. MisterMorgan
  • CommentYes I WAS a valued and appreciated Nitcentral member. Yes Nightscream abused his moderatorial powers there against me and no-one did anything about it. Yes I am upset and yes this is the only thing I have edited on wikipedia, yet. However that does not excuse nightscream from his actions or make Nitcentral any more notable. The basic fact is nightscream has lied about, or otherwise inflated how special or notable Nitcentral is due to his bias there as a moderator. The site is nothing special, abandoned by its owner and run by moderators like Nightscream.--Rwetruck 12:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, neither Toddpence nor myself are single-purpose Wikipedians. And although I did alert other Nitcentralians to this deletion discussion, I don't know for certain which of those who decided to participate here are. I apologize for instigating some to do this, as I was unaware of the SPA rule until Dreadlocke pointed it out. As for the accusation that I have lied about Nitcentral's notability, I would point out that I have not made any false statements about its notability, either on this page, or in the article itself. Nightscream 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I would like to point out that rwetruck is incorrect, NitCentral has not been abandoned by its owner. Phil may rule with a light hand, but it is still his site, and everyone there is aware of it. Further, rwetruck, do you really need to take your feud with Nightscream here as well? I am not going to post a vote either due to my own perceived conflict of interest (though I am not a moderator). Red floyd 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The site is the spin off of a book series and has enough traffic to be notable. It is the product of a recreational organization started by the book series (the Nitpicker's Guild) and considering some of the articles at Wikipedia, I believe it should be kept. Mistrx75
  • Comment Mere amount of traffic does not make a site notable. Having other sites listed on wikipedia that are not notable does bnot mean that a non-notable site should remain. Nitcentral is the advertising site for the books as well as an extension of the books.

As for the other --Rwetruck 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)This is not just about my trying to get justice done against Nightscream which did not occur on Nitcentral due to Farrand not caring what happens on the site as he has washed his hands of it as per his email. And yes Floyd I do because no one on Nitcentral did the right thing or attempted to reign in Nightscream and yelled and me to shut up bend over and take it when i was attacked by him and he said his malicious comments and abused his authority to silence someone he was involved in an argument with as a moderator. If you had taken the right and proper actions against nightscream and supported me then this would not be needed.[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 both. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Seeking

[edit]

Nonnotable and tautological "philosophy" ("Simply put Inner Seeking is seeking inward.") Also nominating Alvaro J. Gonzalez. NawlinWiki 12:06, 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 Deleted by Uncle G- Peripitus (Talk) 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and chat

[edit]

Aside from the fact that it's wrong ("stop and chat" has been in use long before CYE was on air) this is a dicdef. At best it should be transwikied to wiktionary. Ruaraidh-dobson 12:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beixo

[edit]

Advertisement for duch bicyle company. Google hits are scarce (ok, actually, there are lots of hits, but few referring to bicycles). Notability of company is not established, fails WP:CORP, no reliable sources are given in the article, and I doubt many could be found. Prodded, prod removed by author. Delete --Huon 12:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The additional content added after the prod is duplicated in the shaft driven and folding bicycle pages. If it is noteworthy as a folding shaft driven bicycle it could be mentioned in one or both of those articles, but there is not enough here to support its own article. Yomangani 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm quite surprised by this. The Strida entry was an example. Tell me what's the difference in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.135.105 (talk • contribs)
Nothing as far as I can see, I'll put the Strida article up for deletion too. Yomangani 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added more text and content today so the entry is not only about the folding bike. andre_rijn

Comment - this is now a disambiguation page for 3 topics which don't have their own articles. Yomangani 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt any of the three topics' notability. The "Ancient word for kiss in Portuguese" violates WP:WINAD. The observatory, although my personal favourite, does not seem notable either, unless there were made some significant discoveries I'm not aware of. As to the comparison with Strida, that article also has a problem with sources. But since the number of Google hits is vastly greater, probably some could be found. If not, I'll follow Yomangani's lead and endorse Strida's deletion, too. In general, the existence of other bad articles should never be construed to allow the existence of one more bad article. --Huon 09:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So "beixo" can mean a kiss, a bike, an observatory, a village, or the moon, depending on what language one is speaking. I have no problem with that, but why must we document it on wikipedia? And why, for heavens sake, would we document it on the English Wikipedia when the word doesn't mean anything at all in English? Put it on the Portugese wikipedia, or the Tayo Beixo wikipedia once those original inhabitants of Venezuela get around to setting one up (if there are any original inhabitants left). In the meantime, delete it from here. --technopilgrim 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite hard for a starting organisation to get an entry here when you keep saying: "Google hits are scarce". Right, but deleting will not help on this one. If a same article, but with more hits on Google can remain, I think that's strange. andre_rijn

Comment The preceding comment was actually made by User:82.93.135.105 (who may or may not be User:andre_rijn, but if he is, it's his second "keep")). Regarding its content: Yes, a "starting organisation" does not deserve a Wikipedia entry until it has managed to become notable. The "same article" is already proposed for deletion, and unless someone turns its greater number of Google hits into some reliable sources, I doubt it's going to survive long. --Huon 09:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean military slang

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Very little content. Previous research is probably nill, so not much expansion is possible. --Kjoonlee 12:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. Travislangley 21:29, 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 commercial copyvio. Tyrenius 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merdeka Plaza

[edit]

This article is a weirdly outdated speculative pice that is essentially advertising. Page creator has repeatedly removed both speedy and prod tags from it yesterday, as for Crowne Plaza Riverside. AlexTiefling 12:30, 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 commercial copyvio. Tyrenius 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Riverside

[edit]

This article is simply advertising for the hotel in question, talking about 'our staff' and so forth. Page creator has repeatedly removed both speedy and prod tags from it yesterday, as for Merdeka Plaza. AlexTiefling 12:30, 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 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TICK A BOX World Tour

[edit]

Article about a bunch of friends going on vacation. Totally nonnotable and also OR and unverifiable. NawlinWiki 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open your eyes. This is not about a few friends going on vacation. This is about a movement, an idea, a concept. It may start with a few people. But like every movement, it has to start somewhere. Word is spreading, and it is already growing. People have started to show an interest in getting out there and doing some worthwhile things in their lifetimes.

This is designed to motivate normal everyday people. People who are stuck in a rut. People who are bored in their mundane lives. For instance several million overweight americans who don't even have passports, have never even seen the next door state, and couldn't tell you where Iraq, Vietnam, Germany or Japan are on a map, despite their contribution to the last hundred years of world history.

Because at the end of the day, if people in the world slowly but surely do something more with their lives, and experience other cultures, and see what the rest of the world is all about, then maybe, just maybe, they might be more tolerant of the rest of the world. They might open their minds, and have less aggression towards the unknown. Is that such a bad thing?

I understand you might not be able to see the bigger picture now, but why don't you just give it a chance to grow? --- The above several paragraphs were left unsigned and are from Mikeprocter13 (talk · contribs · logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Roar Official Supporters Club

[edit]

non-notable supporters club of a A-League (Australian) soccer team --Arnzy (whats up?) 12:35, 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. JIP | Talk 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious Jews

[edit]

listcruft, and even the lead section shows that it's speculative Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a coresponding list for Christianity, I wonder? If so, then this is just as valid. If not, why isn't there? Niki Whimbrel 12:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is then it should be put up for deletion, not used as justification for the existence of this one. Yomangani 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and would vote to Keep any any all lists of this nature. But that's just my opinion. Niki Whimbrel 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To nullify my argument there doesn't seem to be an corresponding list for any other religions anyway, as far as I can see.Yomangani 13:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are other lists like this. List of fictional Catholics, List of fictional actors, List of fictional films, etc. Sergeant Snopake 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, actually. Sergeant Snopake 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, on the whole. Niki Whimbrel 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One basic flaw of a category is that only articles are listed, so if there is no article then there is no entry of that character/superhero/thing. Yomangani 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-categories could always be used... — RJH (talk)
What would you do with say Jessica, daughter of Shylock, in a category?--Newport 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note List of Hispanic superheroes Also Filipino and Native American lists exist. Would these then become catagories, too?Niki Whimbrel 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep although it should be a category probably, this is the kind of thing that people would actually want to look up on some occasions. in my mind the "cruft" excuse NEVER outweighs the need for wikipedia to be a reference. All the "cruft" types were created as guidelines for things that are random collections of facts (per WP:NOT). this list can help a researcher narrow down potential subjects. if for no other reason keep under WP:IGNORE.
  • Oy vey. It's hard to know where to draw the notability line on ethnicity lists. Some are obviously notable. But this one... I guess I'll give it a weak keep. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove any speculative content. The war on cruft has its place, but the rule should not be that any article that starts with "List" is removed as cruft. A list of this sort can be an extremely useful reference for a broad group of people concerned with comparing various depictions of Jews in fiction. Erechtheus 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has existed for very nearly a year and has been edited by many people; it is clearly of interest to more people than most articles.--Newport 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, we don't need to delete every list on Wikipedia, and this one certainly has encyclopedic value. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant to the topic of media portrayals of Jews. hateless 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not all lists are cruft. 23skidoo 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. We have no article on Fictitious Jews... because fictitious Jewishness is not an encyclopedic concept. If you don't agree, then try writing an article on Fictitious Jews. In general, there shouldn't be a "list of X" unless there is an article on X, and the article should be written first, the list begin as a part of the article, and only be broken out when it becomes too big. As is, alas, usual for so many lists, none of the entries are sourced and the article therefore completely fails to meet the verifiability policy. Is this a vacuous criticism? No. Picking one at random, the entry for Leopold Bloom has no citation. It's linked to a Wikipedia article, but, of course, Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. And if we look at the article for Leopold Bloom, not only does it not cite a source for Bloom's being Jewish, it does not even say that he is Jewish. What it does say is that he is "the only son of Rudolf Virag (a Hungarian Jew from Szombathely who had converted to Protestantism and later committed suicide) and Ellen, an Irish Catholic." That might make him Jewish according to the definition used by... oops, never mind, I don't want to trigger Godwin's law... but not by most definitions. So, the list is unreliable, and due to failure to cite sources there's no quick or easy way to sort out the valid entries from the invalid ones. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We have an article on Jews. This list is a sublist of Lists of Jews. It would appear your argument fails on the absence of related article theory. It seems to me the rest of the argument made here is that the article needs a lot of attention. I imagine that may be true. That's what the cleanup or cleanup-verify template is for. Erechtheus 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These lists are too subjective, usually wrong, and potentially offensive when they make inappropriate inferences about characters' backgrounds. Travislangley 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this a very useful list. It is an extraordinarily sweeping, and I believe incorrect, statement to say that these lists are usually wrong (sofixit).--Brownlee 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the list has substance, usefullness and potential - deleting the list will not solve the problems it currently has.OkamiItto 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deleting would be purposeless...If you do that, then why not delete every other fictional ethnicity page... Michael 07:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sigh... another list for me to source Mad Jack 07:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists of people based on their real or alleged ethnicity or religion are bad enough, as they serve no other purpose than to boost the confidence of people identifying with that ethnicity or religion, but to maintain a list of fictitious persons, where the "proof" in most cases is only their last name (which, in the case of Jews, is often a very dubious proof), is totally meaningless. The fact that there are already equally stupid lists for fictional Catholics and Hispanic superheroes doesn't justify this list. Thomas Blomberg 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence is there that such lists "serve no other purpose than to boost the confidence of people identifying with that ethnicity or religion"?--Brownlee 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a regular non-registered wikipedia user, I can't tell you how much I hate it every time I find a catagory I'm looking up is up for deletion.(NS)
  • Keep. I love these lists. They really help organize people. And I am sure that there are people who should be on this list that are missing. If it is deleted, it is never going to be complete. And I am more than willing to help contribute to lists such as these that need expanding.Chile14 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since when does Wikipedia delete articles and lists that are fun and useful to people, especially pertaining to a certain ethnic group, just because others don't like the list or the ethnic group? If you don't like the list, don't read it. If you don't think it's useful, don't use it. If you think such lists pertaining to different nationalities and ethnic groups are "silly" -- then don't read them. A lot of people enjoy them and find them useful. I was sorry to lose my separate list of Jewish SuperHeroes, which was merged with this list. But this list is just fine.Myst3 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Mend it, don't end it."----SEF23a 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-established and useful list. Metamagician3000 14:53, 3 August 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 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mc-creation

[edit]

article is likely an advert and does not assert its significance Grzond 13:16, 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 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The House Next Door (Big Brother)

[edit]

Not worthy of its own article - it's an article about a single room that was used in two weeks of a reality television series. If not delete, it should be merged. JD[don't talk|email] 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was originally a section in Big Brother (UK series 7). It was split off because the article is getting too long. See here for discussion about the housemates article, which was split off for the same reason. Disclosure: I have edited that article, and other related Big Brother articles Tra (Talk) 13:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was about a different section of the article; and there wasn't even consensus to split that section. Why would there be consensus to split this section when nobody's been consulted? —JD[don't talk|email] 13:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, hopefully a consensus either way will be generated by this AfD. There is still the problem of the Big Brother (UK series 7) article being too long. If this section isn't split off, maybe some other section needs to be split instead. The only other sections that look suitable for splitting off are Chronology, Title sequence and Criticism. Title sequence looks a bit small to stand on its own and Wikipedia generally doesn't have Criticism of... articles. Maybe Chronology would be another option for splitting? Tra (Talk) 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ARGH!!! Do you know how many times I've suggested that? There's mixed opinions on it though. The Chronology was split twice early on, and although there was a consensus to keep the page that went up for deletion, it still got deleted. Looking at it now, the page as it was did have a bit too much detail; but people still won't agree to just split the chronology. If you want to bring it up again on the BB7 UK talk page and see what sort of response you get, feel free (as if I'd want to try to stop anybody from doing anything). --JD[don't talk|email] 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it might be a good idea to have another discussion about the Chronology...perhaps at the end of the series? With the House Next Door, however, it isn't really notable on its own, but in the context of Big Brother, it is quite notable. You get the same kind of dilemma with the other split-off articles — with the nominations table, for example, a group of people nominating each other over a period of several weeks isn't notable, but if they're in the Big Brother house, it is notable. Tra (Talk) 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we merge this back then, or do you still want to see how this AfD goes? --JD[don't talk|email] 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should continue the AfD and get some more opinions because, as you said, there isn't really much of a consensus yet. Tra (Talk) 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then. --JD[don't talk|email] 15:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have one for the Secret Garden, and that wasn't used that long, so why should this be deleted? It helps cut down on article length in the main article and this article can be expanded in more detail now that it's seperate. I think we should kep it. Geoking66 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The secret garden has its own article? Where? --JD[don't talk|email] 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here Tra (Talk) 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I put merge tags on it, as I don't see the point in it having its own article. —JD[don't talk|email] 18:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the main article is not too long if we keep trivial events and such out. See the example at the Chronology section. —Celestianpower háblame 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge. What's in the article currently is perfectly adequate. It's just cruft - one room in a reality TV show? Please... —Celestianpower háblame 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, the article is pretty much a duplicate of the Chronology section, but reworded and focussing on the house next door. We don't need the same information twice. Tra (Talk) 13:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, this information should be merged in the Chronology section of the main Big Brother UK series 7 article. Adw2000 14:21, 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 Speedy delete. Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien dupuy

[edit]

Personal page, nonsense, does not assert significance of subjectGrzond 13:23, 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 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Career abuse

[edit]

Neologism coined by a website trying to make money off of this phenomenon, no notability. Mangojuicetalk 13:29, 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 housekeeping as malformed title, with a redirect at the correct title. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Light(movie)

[edit]

The title of the article has an error; it cannot be moved to the correct entry, since it already exists and is merely a redirection to the movie Cars (film). In that article, this short is referred as 'Mater and the Ghostlight'. Cantalamessa 13:30, 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. Wickethewok 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modelresource.ca

[edit]

Appears to be an ad. ~600 hits on google, many of which are the site itself. Dark Shikari 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose the deletion if it does in fact contravene the policies of self-promotion. Recently - because of the success of Canada's Next Top Model - I've been requested to speak at a lot of events. As the event organizers take proposals to potential third-party sponsors a lot are asking what Modelresource.ca is.

I tried to be fair in what I wrote (not listing numbers of visitors, for example), but as I re-read it I can see how it might come across as vanity or blatant advertising. If you can suggest revisions I'm open to that, otherwise, as I said, I won't oppose deletion if you feel there is no place for it on Wikipedia. Dangle14 13:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that you have no sources other than the website itself. A Wikipedia article on the topic needs secondary sources like newspaper articles. Dark Shikari 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I won't argue that. Dangle14 14:07, 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 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to download software on CPE

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Dark Shikari 13:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vila Sodipe

[edit]

Not really notable. I tried to speedy this, but the author deleted my speedy template. Dark Shikari 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the Portuguese licence info (which is a nice touch!) is claiming it is licensed use. Yomangani 14:02, 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 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trade-er

[edit]

Prod removed by author. Typical vainspamtisment Wildthing61476 13:50, 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 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Ox

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Listed works are actually mixtapes. Not listed at Billboard.com, not listed at allmusic.com. About 600 hits searching for his name on the web. Claims to have "co-founded" website, but the site isn't responsive at the moment. Mikeblas 13:52, 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 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoclaustrophobia

[edit]

PRODded with the reason "nonnotable neologism", speedy deleted with the reason "wikipedia is not for things made up on urbandictionary, i.e. neologism, i.e. snowball clause". The PROD was contested and the article does not meet any speedy criteria - however, all the reasons for doing so still apply. The sole source for the term is urbandictionary, which is, er, not quite a respected psychological source, and consequently the article fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not neologism guide. Travislangley 21:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckskin (cat)

[edit]

I've done some research on various cat breeding sites, and cannot find a reference to this breed. Prod was removed by the article's author without comment, so let's discuss. delete -Harmil 14:02, 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 with a hint of merge. Note that I have merged the usable parts (which wasn't that much) into the main article. Wickethewok 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newswatch 16

[edit]

Originally AFD'd in May, no consensus. Adcopy for WNEP-TV, some info could be merged into the station article but otherwise nn. Kirjtc2 14:10, 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 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Downtown Magazine

[edit]

Reads like an advert, no assertion of significance. Do we usually have articles on free local quarterly magazines? Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad. Travislangley 21:20, 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 Centrx. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tom Termini

[edit]

talk page w/o article Grzond 14:14, 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; no significance or encyclopedic relevance established. As for the merge argument, that just doesn't make sense — there's no content here that would actually add anything to the Pub Church article, aside from the details of a non-notable church.--SB | T 07:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church on the corner

[edit]

Non-notable church (10 years old?). Article reads as vanity as well. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 14:37, 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 KEEP. Withdrawn. Actually, I'm here chasing socks of which a few are exhibited for your delectation below. -Splash - tk 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Portland Street

[edit]

Delete street with no assertion of significance. Deprodded says it's got its own tube station. Big whoops... so do Ave. H, Ave. N, Ave. P, Ave. U, and Ave. X in Brooklyn, New York. And those are a lot longer than Great Portland Street. (OT: I had actually lived on that street for a semester in college!)- CrazyRussian talk/email 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Delete.Although I don't see any reason to keep it, it seems from the Category:Streets in London that some streets are inherently notable by being in London. Unless you argue for the deletion of most of these and the category I can't see that you can single this one out. Yomangani 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh no, there is no inherent notability from being in London. Your argument from status quo is unpersuasive and if I were closing this AfD, I would discount it. To answer your question, I went through about half the list and sniped approx. eight street articles. This deletion was challenged - others remain on {{prod}}. I've done previous raid on NYC and Moscow streets. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Will we have every street in the world on here, along with every local televison reporter, college professor, advertising newspaper, etc.? I hope not. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be quite a few notable aspects. Home of the Central Synagogue (the foundation stone of which was laid by Baron Lionel de Rothschild); Boswell lived here when he wrote his "Life of Johnson"; the first mobile phone signals were transmitted from one room to another in a house on the street; BAFTA were here for a while; H.G. Wells mentions it in the "The Invisible Man" etc Dlyons493 Talk 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information on streets is available elsewhere such as Google Maps James68 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a notable street in London. See the article, obviously, for those aspects. CoolGuy 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am about to try a test. I don't know yet how it will turn out. This is simply a statement of how I am going to decide how to cast my vote. I am going to search Google Books to see whether there are any mentions at all of Great Portland Street in London. If there are any, I'll vote keep, otherwise delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scads of hits. Mostly just in the context of addresses, but the very first is a reference to it in H. G. Wells's The Invisible Man [21]. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, I see Dlyons mentioned that already. P. S. Other references... like these in full view books (which tend to be pre-1923 public domain works...)[22]... certainly give me the impression that Great Portland Street is familiar to Londoners and conveys something-or-other. Here's one where somebody mentions it on their tombstone. Is it a sort of marker for a neighborhood as well as just being a street name? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's in Vickers, Graham (2001). London's 50 Outstanding Classical Music Landmarks. Omnibus Press. ISBN 0711986762.p. 68; see that page image for the reasons Vickers includes it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of London's more notable streets. As for comparison with Ave. H, Ave. N, etc, since it is a major link between two of London's main streets a better comparison might be with 23rd Street (Manhattan), 42nd Street (Manhattan), or Central Park South - all of which seem to have articles, as do many of NY's other main cross-streets.Vickers presumably mentions it as the site of the Philharmonic Hall - it's also the site of London's (and the UK's) main synagogue. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Vickers book mentions it for (rather feeble IMHO) connections with Mendelssohn and Carl Maria von Weber. The former stayed there a few times, the latter died there. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 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 delete. The JPStalk to me 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICP Systems

[edit]

Delete as spam and possible hoax. Article was created by Icpse (talk · contribs), which bears a close correlation to ICP Systems. I propose that the article may be something of a hoax due to the fact that the picture of the headquarters appears to be some other building with "ICP Systems" PhotoShopped in. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This image in this article is NOT the headquarters of ICP Systems and has no link to the company in any way. The article itself is accurate apart from the picture (which should be deleted). ICP Systems is based in the UK and associated buildings are not listed, and there are also no available pictures published, to maintain the confidential integrity of the organisation. I am glad that the above user has identified this problem. The image should be removed from the article and Wikipedia's server so that the image cannot be accessed. Many thanks to "bugwit" for identifying this article which is indeed is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aminislam (talk • contribs) .
  • This image was placed for test purposes to see how an image would appear in the page. I am new to wikipedia and was experimenting, this image has no association with the ICP Systems organisation and was only placed for testing purposes. Rest of the article is completely factual, visit www.icpse.com and click "about icp" tab for proof, or e-mail the website administrator (support@icpse.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icpse (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment I appreciate your attention in removing the misleading image, but the article still appears to be for promotional purposes only, especially given the fact that one of the arguments in favor of keeping the article was created by Aminislam (talk · contribs), who is named in the article as the CEO and President, and the other was created by Icpse (talk · contribs), who is the article creator, and apparently has some connection with the company. Please refer to WP:SPAM and What Wikipedia is Not. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really fussed, go ahead and delete the article. What you are saying is an opinion, i belive that all i have written is a BACKGROUND to an organisation, you shold delete the articles about Microsoft and all the other organisations too, im sure there are millions,i hope you have enough time on your'e hands, im sure you do. There is no indication of promotion in the article, only facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icpse (talk • contribs) July 27, 2006.

Stop saying "delete delete" and just delete the article! like i said im not botherd. Sorry for not keeping a cool head earlier i was just frustrated, you guys are quite relaxed youreselves and speak in a respectable mannar. Im sure youre doing a good job and im not going to argure with youre opinions as wikipedia is very clean and useful from my experience thanks to you guys. But pleease do delete the article because i think it is causing unnessecery fuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icpse (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 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajjat Ojha

[edit]
Comment did someone just blank this article's talk page? I thought there was a nom for deletion here? Scorpiondollprincess 15:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even after contributing 11 years in the industry and being in the top positions in notable companies, if I can't find a place in programmers list then I can't help it. If I can't post about myself then it's alright but if everything else is fine then any of my friend can post, isn't it? If working with IBM, for Toshiba, Verisign, Microsoft and many more giants don't cater any value then I definitely wasted those 11 yrs. As far as PMI's PMP certification is concerned, that's amongst the top most certification and they audit the credential even before putting us for the tests. Nothing much to say now so please go ahead and delete this.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 repost per Starblind. Kimchi.sg 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Life Of Teddy Bears: Unstuffed Edition

[edit]

Non-notable film. 2nd place in a film festival in Erie, PA? Well wow, Cannes can't complete with that. Wildthing61476 14:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Cannes can't compete with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomdeguerre (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 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Valley Day Camp

[edit]

non-notable summer camp. wikipediatrix 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there's a whole category of Summer Camps. Some have better articles than others (and some have more verifiable sources than this!) ... regardless, is there a consistent policy on summer camps? What makes a summer camp not-notable? Should the entire category be treated consistently (and perhaps deleted)? Scorpiondollprincess 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is for notability. The question is, why is this summer camp notable? And yes, I would like to see most of the camps listed in the category deleted, because I can't see how they're any more notable than the pizza joint down the street, or my Uncle Ned's house. wikipediatrix 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The issue isn't notability, it's whether or not the article is encyclopedic. Notability offers a helpful guideline in considering encyclopedic value, but it is not the core issue. It's always helpful to refer back to WP:NOT. In the context of this particular article, how is the information not indiscriminate? How is this article not simply a directory listing? If the subject matter of the article has some notability, that might help explain how this article contributes to our greater understanding of the larger topic. Agent 86 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's hard to decide on this one. I would say keep if maybe some important person went to summer camp there and it changed their life and made him/her discover the cure to cancer. But really, who cares? If someone wants to immortalize their (no longer existent) summer camp, they should start a web page. --nathanbeach 02:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not really asserted, not much here, seems to be a run-of-the-mill summer camp. GassyGuy 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after considerable reflection. I also had to think hard on this one. Thanks for the replies to my comment above. I have to say, without verifiable sources provided by the author(s) to establish notability, this (and any other summer camp articles that likewise don't establish notability) should be deleted. There might conceivably be cases where a summer camp article could be encyclopedic. But I fail to see that this one qualifies. Scorpiondollprincess 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I pondered my own comment, above, re-read the article, thought some more, and decided that the fact that this was once the "largest private day camp in Canada" is probably not enough to make this article encyclopedic. The fact this camp is now defunct mitigates the one "notable" fact. No prejudice to anyone who can improve this article or show the historic value of this camp before the AfD runs its course. Agent 86 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 13:46, 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, obviously. I'd have speedied it, personally. I guess I sorta did. Friday (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ol' Mexico

[edit]

A restaurant in Minnesota. Pure advertising, doesn't claim notability (but not a bio, so no speedy), prod removed by an anon. I ask for early closure once consensus is evident. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:26, 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 deleted per A7. - Taxman Talk 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Website of Shree Vallabhacharyaji Third Seat of Pushtimarg - Kankroli

[edit]

Looks like a Hinduism essay or religious biography of some sort. Kimchi.sg 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted per nn-web. A google search finds no sites linking to the site and no sites mentioning it. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 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 deleted by Uncle G as a copyvio. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to get your pages out of Google's supplemental index

[edit]

wikipedia is WP:NOT an instruction manual

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Manhattan

[edit]

List cruft that may violate WP:NOT. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 15:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article would work better as a non-list (people who know much about manhattan streets know that they're mostly numbered, and people who don't would much rather have a summary of the street naming conventions and exceptions along with other information about the street system. As a list this should be Deleteted i kan reed 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Ikranreed that there should be a place for a "Manhattan street naming conventions" article, but this isn't that creature. This is the sort of list that is crufty and shouldn't be here. Erechtheus 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this obvious example of what Wikipedia is NOT. Travislangley 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable and a useful merge target. Of course, if we ever have an article on every street in Manhattan, this can be deleted. JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not Wikitavel. The category serves as a place to group the notable streets since most of them already have articles. BTW, how long would that list be if completed? 10,000 entries? Vegaswikian 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. StreetAtlasIndexCruft. This List doesn't do anything the category doesn't do better. Those streets notable enough to have their own article already have a place in the category. The red ink can be poured down the sink. BlueValour 03:10, 1 August 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 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigga what!?

[edit]

Delete Slang dictionary definition and neologism with no sources so unverifiable. Prod removed without explanation. Gwernol 15:41, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Cooper

[edit]

This article, on a So You Think You Can Dance? contestant, was originally speedy deleted twice. A DRV consensus found that there was an assertion of notability, and that a hearing at AfD was proper. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and Question. Why should this one person of little noteworthiness be eliminated, while many other similiar non-important people retain their own articles? I've marked several for merging into one page ... but in reality, I'm leaning towards deletion. But for all of them, not just this one. Is the rule going to be applied across the board (except to those contestants who actually are notable for reasons besides 15 minutes of TV fame)? --ThatBajoranGuy 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is he going to be remembered in 100 years? Not for what's in the current article anyway. If there are similar people then they should also be deleted rather than this one retained. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single article Don't delete; details of the American Idol contestants got merged into American Idol Season 5; merge the pages into one. I like ThatBajoranGuy's merge idea, but am not leaning towards deletion. Thistheman 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just finished doing some research on this individual, and he has several other accomplishments, which I have added to the article. He was a high school track star, the subject of newspaper profiles, has a verifiable fanbase, and has had multiple television appearances, including being a dancer for Beyonce Knowles, and appearing on Sex and the City. In my opinion, he passes WP:BIO. --Elonka 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep preferably, otherwise merge. I didn't know who Musa Cooper was until I saw this article. I've gained knowledge from visiting it. What would be the cost of keeping it? Nothing. The cost of deletion is the diminishment of knowledge. Bottom line, the article has a use that's got to outweigh WP:BIO.Mallanox 03:52, 30 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 and redirect. Wickethewok 15:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Counter-Strike_maps

[edit]

Redirect to Counter-Strike maps - it's a duplicate of the information in a table rather than a list. Any extra info is unnecessary game guide info. To redirect the article by simple edition has been tried by Proto but got reverted without comment, so best alternative is to make a public afd disuccsion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Counter-Strike maps --Jestix 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- unsigned by 203.23.119.1

  • As wikipedia or any general enyklopedia would be the right place for that very exact informtion? I doubt it. Take the exact detail information to the Counterstrike Wiki. BTW please sign all your posts with ~~~~ --Jestix 06:13, 1 August 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 CANCELLED. The nominator and the only other deleter share the same mortal coil. -Splash - tk 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Hennis

[edit]

Not Notable college professor. A Google search reveals that he has written a few essays, and most of the hits seem to be syllabuses metioning his essays. The German version of the article [23] is basically the same thing as the English one, but in German. I don't think he stands up to WP:BIO. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 15:53, 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 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floopy

[edit]

Delete neologism: Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary of fictional made-up words. No sources so we can't verify that this is "widely used" by Friends fans, as claimed. Even if it was widely used, that doesn't make it notable. Prod removed, so bringing it to AfD Gwernol 15:54, 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 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Building the Dam

[edit]

Delete Non-notable web forum that fails WP:WEB. Prod removed after prod and prod2. Gwernol 15:57, 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 Delete - the keep recommendations did not substantiate why or how the band meets WP:MUSIC and I note that Orangehead had only AfD "votes" at the time he participated in this debate.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit (band)

[edit]

Does not seem to satisfy the band notability criteria at WP:MUSIC. Does not show up at allmusic. Tempshill 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --nathanbeach 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously, the article lacks sources, but I'm sure they're there. I managed to find this on Amazon. Because their name is such a common word, it's hard to wade through the Google hits, even if you add Florida or punk to the search. Maybe if editors spent more time trying to expand articles rather than delete them, we could make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence of notability for the band at this time. I found one article from 1996 talking about them re-releasing an album but that is it. Like above it's hard to wade through so many results to find something relevant, but without any other sources to establish some type of notability I am resigned to say delete. Perhaps there are some editors who know more about the Punk scene in Miami than I can add some additional info on this. DrunkenSmurf 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per nom. This might be notable, but it's the responsibility of author(s) to establish verifiable sources to support notability. The Burden of Proof to cite sources lays with those who wrote the article -- not the rest of us. If someone can cite some verifiable sources to establish notability, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. Scorpiondollprincess 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Little found on a google search of "quit" + "addison burns" [25]. Only saw mentions of local touring and local press. No label according to their myspace site. --Joelmills 00:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lets keep it for a little while and encourage the writers to provide more sources and make it more substantial. This may have been someones first article. I have peripherally heard of this band and any band that claimed pop punk before 1992/91 is pretty notable because those kinds of bands are pretty rare... also check out the history page, there are a bunch of different users editing so this group has a little traction. Lets encourage and not delete... we can put this in the category of articles that need work. Xsxex 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to contact the band by sending a message to their myspace account. hopefully they will be able to prove hard references. lets wait for a week ir so to give this some time. by the way their myspace is pretty good. they have 4 songs for download and the music is good. http://www.myspace.com/earlierthoughts. peace, xsxex in chicago Xsxex 15:27, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venom's Gate

[edit]

This article is essentially an advertisement for the author's non-notable website. This article is the first google result for the phrase, and the next result is an ezboards site. The article includes no link but claims the subject of the article is 'popular'. The talk page is littered with arguments between the site's admin (the author of the page) and a member. Diagonalfish 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Checked the history and the content of the article also seems to be subject to little edit wars between members writing descriptions of "notable" and banned users of this non-notable site. Pointless insider drama about some other site and not Wikicivil anyway. They should go argue on that website. Dina 16:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Non-notable and no verifiable sources are cited to claim otherwise. Scorpiondollprincess 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you've bother to even look into the article today (July 27, 06) they seemed to have rid their entry of such things as minor notable characters (ealier catagorized as 'Other's' in the Notable Characters. They've also decided, apparently, to reject the fact they are popular. In the introductory section they say they are simply an ORPG site with minor popularity which was earned through-out advertisemant and 'spamming.' Also, if the site was non-notable...why are you debating it's fate?
And by 'they', you mean you, as you made the latest edits. Nontheless, as you yourself pointed out, if the site is unpopular and non-notable, why argue? Diagonalfish 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, dear, you see, I'm am them. I'm one of them, rather. You see, I would really rather enjoy having the Wiki up and running. Who knows, if you allow it to stay up, it may become more popular...And the reason I did point out the fact it wasn't completely known through-out the web was...So you would shut-up...Thanks!
Wikipedia is not a place for advertising and promotion of websites. Sorry. Diagonalfish 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Diagonal, and, you all can, should you want to, delete, doesn't matter anyways, seeing as how the site is begining to cave in on itself. Probably from the influx of inactive users, the leaving of the original admin, and the petty fights.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.57.175.135 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goth slang

[edit]

Third time on AfD, after one no consensus keep and one bare consensus delete. Article recreated, but not substantially the same as the last version (so CSD-G4 does not apply folks). Nominated for speedy deletion, but I couldn't find a criterion to fit so it comes here. No opinion from me - I just want this out of CAT:CSD, where it has sat all day. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this article cites at least three independent authors and a website as verifiable sources. It's not a very well-written "article," and I'm uncomfortable with it being mostly just a list of terms. But it is sourced, and I think it has potential to be cleaned-up into a well-sourced article on the slang vocabulary of a significant subculture. Scorpiondollprincess 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as recreation of original article. Wikipedia's not a dictionary, not is it a collection of slang definitions - these are not widely used enough to warrant an article of their own. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 21:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As much as I'm not a fan of these sorts of articles, I think it is fine if the terms are supported by notable reliable references. I disagree that being "a collection of slang definitions" is alone enough reason to delete, as there are a large number of other such articles (see Talk:Goth slang). I feel we do need to enforce a requirement of notability/sources, otherwise we'll just have an ever increasing list of neologisms (I've already removed some of the more dubious ones). Mdwh 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information is verified, in particular by references to Hodkinson's academic work on the goth subculture. Certainly as verified and pertinent, in fact if not more, than many other slang articles on Wikipedia Deathlibrarian 01:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work to be more than just a listand possibly show where regional variations are in effect. --Brother William 13:07, 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 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity Towers

[edit]

This place is just an apartment building, one of thousands found throughout the world. There is nothing about the history or construction of the buildling that sets it apart in any way. Only 43 google hits, and most of those are obituaries of people who lived there or companies who worked on the building. Indrian 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it may be an apartment building, it is windsor's second-tallest building. If this tower's deleted, you should consider deleting many buildings in New York City, particularly the apartment towers near Battery Park. Let's not also forget all hotels... User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is now, delete. If notability of the building is established as it possibly might be based on Raccoon Fox's argument, my position would change. Erechtheus 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Windsor's second tallest building seems like a small claim of notability at best. There must not be many tall buildings in Windsor, as 26 stories isn't that tall. Wickethewok 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, i'm only concerned because this article is less than 6h old. And the tallest building is only 33 storeys tall....then it's the Royal Windsor Terrace Apartments and Solidarity Towers (tied at 26). i put it in here becuase it's a very popular building in windsor, and is very notable, at least on the local level..... It's notable because it employed MANY people during one of windsor's worst economic crises, and the union helped gather people to construct the apartments. And to Indrian, i didn't mean to attack you. if it seemed i did, i apologize. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 26-story building is not notable for its height even if it's built in an area without any tall buildings. I don't see much of an argument that it's notable for anything other than its height, either. Geoffrey Spear 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, i'm confused as to why this is being nominated for deletion, while Royal Windsor Terrace isn't. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is silly to nominate two nearly identical articles without knowing the will of the community. If this one is deleted, I plan to nominate the other one; if this one is not deleted, nominating the other would be pointless. Indrian 20:26, 2 August 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. Wickethewok 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Capenera

[edit]

Non-notable candidate for statewide office. If he win, of course he deserves mention, but as for now delete. Prod removed by someone other than the author Wildthing61476 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the article stands, it asserts no reasonable basis for notability. If the article is improved with other facts that establish notability on other grounds, the article should survive. Erechtheus 17:44, 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 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football finishes

[edit]

Seems to be an unencyclopedic list of what one fan deems to be the greatest finishes of all time in college football. No criteria for inclusion, no sources to anything else that might suggest these games are important. Delete as an unencyclopedic list. Metros232 17:27, 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 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One

[edit]
  • Has been updated to include song information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canon167 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 July 2006.
  • Weak Delete per WP:COPYVIO. Even with song information included, this article is primarily "about" the lyrics. Can someone cite some verifiable sources about this song and it's notability? I don't favor indiscriminately deleting articles on songs, but this article currently just says, "Here is a song from Lion King II. It's on the Lion King II soundtrack. Here are its lyrics." Perhaps the author(s) could examine what writers of other song articles have done with those pages and work to improve this one? Scorpiondollprincess 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - remvoe the copyrighted lyrics and there is nothing left of the article beyond the fact that it was in the movie and the lyrics echo a plot point. -- Whpq 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find evidence of notability. By the way, I've just removed the lyrics from the article. --Zoz (t) 18:30, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disemvoweling

[edit]

Non-notable internet term. Been prodded, deprodded by one of the authors with no reason given. An annon user gave reason that it "has become widely used and referenced on the interent as a method for moderating online discourse". Never mentioned in context in print. Might be a great way to keep cool heads, but we can't have entries for everything found on discussion fourms. -Royalguard11Talk 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. -Royalguard11Talk 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifable. No reliable sources found for this usage, despite request.[26]. Note that current article was mostly written by the purported inventor.[27] -Will Beback 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Smells strongly of WP:OR and WP:NEO, plus violates WP:V. Scorpiondollprincess 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although its origin is problematic, the article itself is useful in providing an explanation for a term people are likely to encounter online, and resources (via the external links) for moderators who may consider adopting the technique. The first time I encountered the article was when I looked up the term myself, having seen it used, but having had no idea of the history of it or how it's done. Notable writers John Scalzi[28] and Peter David[29] have both mentioned the term in their blogs, and there is some evidence that the term is spreading into other, less precise usage[30]. There are numerous references to disemvoweling online, and sourcing is a problem solely because of strict application of no blogs, no applets, etc. provisos. Since changes to this policy are under consideration, it is probably better to wait for resolution of that issue than to delete this prematurely. The other problems with this article have more to do with interpersonal issues than anything inherent in the article inself. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The change in the status of blogs as sources is still being drafted, and hasn't even been proposed yet. At this rate it may be months before it comes to a vote, and when it does I'm sure it will be controversial. Until such time as blogs are allowed the existing WP:RS policy is active. Maybe we should delete the article now, and resurect it if and when blogs become reliable sources, or when a non-blog source is found. For a mere definition of "disemvoweling", Wiktionary would be the proper location. -Will Beback 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Karen. That's essentially what I came here to say, so why repeat? St jb 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karen though I am sympathetic with Scorpiondollprincess's assertion about neologisms, the term does appear to be spreading pretty quickly, and I think it's going to stick. I suspect if we delete it now it'll eventually have to be resurrected, so we might as well keep it. I do not agree that the article violates the original research rule --Shinto 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's great that the first thing you came to for research was Wikipedia, but the term still doesn't have any veryifyable sources. Blogs are not concidered to be WP:V. Why? Because anyone can have a blog. The term is used in the fourming community only, so we can't say it's a well known term. -Royalguard11Talk 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Anyone can have a blog, but not all blogs and items found on them are equally unreliable. If a notable NASA scientist, for example, reveals on his blog that the rings of Saturn have newly-discovered properties, the fact that the info is on a blog does not invalidate the news. That is why blogs by notable people are being considered for inclusion in verifiability. In this case, several of the blogs one might cite fall into this category. Karen | Talk | contribs 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A neologism used by very few people is still a neologism used by very few people, even if a few of the users are notable. Just because a person is notable doesn't mean every word they produce is. Fan-1967 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment In that case I would say that even though the guys at NASA, we can't believe anything to do with science until it is A. verified by several notable scientists AND B. published in a well known scientific journal/paper/RELIABLE newscast. All things in science are considered THEORYS until they are verified by other scientists. Doesn't matter the nobility of the person/scientists. -Royalguard11Talk 22:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism not yet ready for prime time. Sorry, but 133 blog entries don't cut it for establishing a word as legitimate. Fan-1967 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete**Comment Blogs are vanity presses and the only source for this term. useage, and use as a control technique. Since the article comes from the inventor it is vanity and doesn't qualify. As for what scientists say on blogs, this is different because they have published papers on the topic, so the sources are the scientific journal papers not the blog that are the source. Marky48 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, in a certain sense, is part of my problem with this issue. Disemvoweling itself has been around for many years (as shown in this 1990 RISKS digest, this jargon file entry, and this 2001 Internet Oracle post). In fact, this Google Groups search shows 40+ uses in 1999 and earlier. The basic action is the same (removing vowels from words); what differs is the end result of the action (deleting letters altogether versus often replacing with them some other character such as * or _) and the motivation for the action (the blog focus). If the article wasn't focused solely on blogs, and had some of the early and mid-90's history, it'd be both more general and more accurate. Dori 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's good and useful stuff, which should be used to improve the article and expand its scope. None of this appeared in the research I did, but apparently I didn't dig deeply enough. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Google groups aren't reliable sources either. -Will Beback 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sadly (based on what I've read during the ongoing attempts to write this article), it appears that nothing I wrote above is usable based on WP:NOR. Until/unless someone not affiliated with either the blog world or the professional SF world puts something like this into print, and then that print article is also put online, it's all irrelevant so far as I can tell (although why looking for sources is considered original research only here and one other article is an interesting question in itself). But I'd love to be wrong about that. Dori 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy to tell you that you are wrong. One dividing line between reliable sources and the abyss is the presence of an editing staff. Many internet sources are considered reliable, such as Salon. Neither being in print, nor killing trees, nor sweating ink, nor paying postage are necessary. It isn't about paper; it's about editorial review. One person writing a blog and one person issuing a thesis in a self published book are equally unreliable. World-wide, there are millions of bloggers. Even a thousand references are insignificant in the blogosphere - three plugins and a few hundred mentions are barely small blips on the blogosphere's radar screen. Maybe we need a Glossary of blog terms? -Will Beback 08:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, then this stuff ought to be usable: according to Wikipedia itself, the Jargon File has an editor. According to Wikipedia itself, RISKS Digest has an editor. According to Wikipedia itself, the Straight Dope has an editor (its usage of disemvoweled can be found here). But I have no doubt that someone will now find an objection as to why those edited sources don't count. Or is it that trying to find reliable sources itself counts as original research? Dori 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blog stuff, weirdly enough, tends to be referenced within the blogosphere" Which makes it a colloquialism at best, but an Internet one at that, and thus a intra-group term not recognized by the world at large, or in a dictionary.Marky48 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To echo Will Beback, neologisms stop being neologisms when they achieve widespread use. Based on only a few hundred hits, I don't see how this can be called widespread even within the blogosphere. I don't think this has even minimum usage required to make it into a Glossary of blog terms. Fan-1967 13:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a thought here: Would disemvoweling be better coupled with a list of moderation techniques used on blogs, guestbooks, message boards, listservs and the like? Moderation techniques are not simply used on people who refuse to remain civil; they're applied to spammers and kids who think it's funny to leave "you're stupid"-type comments everywhere. I have other thoughts on this, but this may not be the place since the topic is disemvoweling. St jb 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article discusses a useful technique. Just because the technique is new and hasn't been widely discussed isn't a good reason to avoid discussing it. Trying to define the article as being about a neologism is, IMHO, wrongheaded: it isn't about the word, but about the actions that caused the word to be invented. There should be at least one reliable source here: the article currently mentions that Arthur Hlavaty mentioned the technique in some print publication. If we can find out what this publication was, it might well qualify. JulesH 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentActually Jules we only wrote the center section. She wrote the first article claiming credit which was unsourced save to herself and one other who we don't know anything about. That's a vanity article. Moreover, we can't define the actions as causes. It can be anything that fancies the moderator.Marky48 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In true Wikipedia sprit this article has been rewritten over and over to the point that very little of the wording from early edits exists.St jb 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would the definition need to be primary? Certainly there are other articles on wikipedia whose titles are intended to be interpreted using a less common meaning of the word that forms them (e.g. Right, which is about the second meaning of the third form of the word, as they are listed in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary). This would only be important if wikipedia were a dictionary, which it isn't, and if this article was merely a dictionary definition, which it isn't. JulesH 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the article were rewritten to include WP:Verifiable uses (which includes speed of typing in TXT SPK, but not does include moderation, except in the minds of a few sysadmins, probably including TNH), I might agree it should be Kept. But all of the existing content would have to be deleted first. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "very little of the wording from early edits exists." As we say where I come from in Maine, "Pushaw." In fact most of it is exactly as it was written in the first place. We added a context section that is now gone even though some still want it. The real question is this: can an "inventor" of a term in an online only community write her own article of significance? is it significant and encyclopdedic because she says so and has fans to back her up? That's not NPOV. Moreover, this is the first version:

"Revision as of 19:05, 25 October 2005 Coined by Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Removing all vowels from a troll's comments." Retrieved from [31]

followed by multiple additions by the inventor. It's her article and has been since long before I found it.Marky48 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How much was written by whom can be established factually. For example, see this version[32] (the last TNH version before substantial input by others) and this comparison[33] between TNH's last substantial edit and what's there now. A lot of what we associate with her text is actually an edit or addition to it. Even the first paragraph has been greatly changed, and the spelling bit is not at all what she wrote originally. As for my own small contribution, what survives is basically the "For example" bit. As St jb says, a lot of people have written and rewritten this. What's more significant is that the article is getting better, less TNH-centric and more accurate, partly because of this AfD. It would be a shame to delete it, now that it's so much improved, and so much of the problematic material (vanity as well as subjective) is gone. 'Twould be better to work on it than abandon it. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's most important is that it's still a neologism used by a small number of bloggers or forum posters. Fan-1967 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article discusses a useful technique, one that I have used myself to moderate various weblogs and that many other weblog moderators use as well. It should be noted that one of the major opponents to keeping this article has himself been the subject of disemvowelling, which may explain his antipathy towards it and his attempts to get it deleted from Wikipedia. All his modifications to this article come directly after this technique was applied to him. Documentation is available on this point. While the impulse to prevent people from hearing about disagreeable things that happened to them in the hope of wiping out the disagreeable thing is understandable, that's no reason for attempting to delete it from a reference work. --72.79.1.138 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While perhaps not widespread, the technique has become more and more widespread, and it's generally attributed to Teresa Nielsen Hayden. --Kristjan Wager 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree with the above suggestion that an article on various moderation techniques would be preferable to disemvoweling as an article of its own, until such an article exists I think this one should stay. I also feel that some of the opposition to this article is coming from things external to Wikipedia. Ergative rlt 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Karen. --Gallowglass.
  • Keep In reading the Talk, it looks awfully like certain people are griping about TNH more than anything else. Why doesn't someone cite how many weblog admin are happily using this technique??? I first looked up the definition here on Wiki and was glad to have it defined.

=Chica= 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 30 July 2006[reply]

  • Keep as per Karen. Orangehead 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a technical writer in the software industry, I use Wikipedia as a source for definitions and explanations of Internet jargon. I expect to find new terms in Wikipedia, and came to Wikipedia for information about "disemvoweling." I was surprised (and disappointed) to find that the article is being considered for deletion primarily, it seems, because someone doesn't like the author. Threecoyote
  • commentNo one is "wiping out a disagreeable thing," it just has no place in an encyclopedia. The record will also show I didn't nominate it for deletion, nor do I know the editor who did. I don't think the support group can say the same. They all know each other. it's a call to arms.Marky48 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's true that Marky48 did not initiate this AfD, and previously directed his entergies toward changing the article rather than deleting it. The claim "They all know each other" is incorrect, however. Aside from my being familiar with TNH's online writing, and one personal friend, there is no one in all this with whom I had any prior contact whatsoever, aside from occasionally reading online comments. Nor has this anything to do with whether the article should be deleted. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "The record will also show I didn't nominate it for deletion, nor do I know the editor who did. I don't think the support group can say the same." Actually, I'll bet that this so-called "support group" didn't nominate it for deletion either. As for the support group concept, have you ever heard the phrase "Paranoia is the belief that your enemies are organized"? --65.42.5.234 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have certainly not seen any calls to arms, or whatever you want to call it. I am an infrequent reader of THN's blog, but since I rarely comment there, and rarely read other peoples'comments, I wouldn't be able to recognize anyone from there, unless they were well known to me for other reasons. Marky48, I would say that your allegations border on personal attacks, and you should perhaps tone them down. --Kristjan Wager 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' You know Karen you have to admit what I say is true every time, yet you then discount it as nothing. If all the author's friends and blogswarm come here to vouch for it what does that say about objectivity? Aside from that Ms. Lincoln how was the play?Marky48 01:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, I said that part of what you said was correct, and part was incorrect. Continually stating that everyone who wants to keep the article is in cahoots with each other does not make it so, or invalidate the article itself. Whether the article stays or goes should depend on whether it is accurate and useful, not on who said what or who knows whom. A number of people have found it to be useful, and the accuracy (or at least verifiability, despite disagreements on this point) seems to be improving. Karen | Talk | contribs 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How has the verifiability improved? There still aren't any reliable sources. Using reliable sources we only know that is a technique for controlling trolls by removing the vowels, which accounts for the first sentence. -Will Beback 04:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For one thing, we've linked to the creators of various disemvoweling plug-ins, who have stated where and how they got their inspiration. We can accurately report what the creators have stated about it, and we've done so.
    • Comment I believe that Wikipedia have a policy of assuming good faith Marky48, so your allegations are out of order, unless you can point to specific incidents that back up your allegations. If not, please keep a civil tone, and assume good faith. --Kristjan Wager 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [[34]] This version is rematkably like the current one. Since there is a limit to how many times someone can cite themselves both this and the current version have it down to one.Marky48 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) --65.42.5.234 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that version is remarkably similar to the current one because it's the one just before the AfD was started. Funny how that happens. It's extremely common for articles have few edits during an AfD. What's the relevance? (and btw, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met anyone here & TNH wouldn't know me from Adam) Dori 04:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment That makes one. How about the rest? I picked the wrong version, as she included the section we wrote and I fought even to keep the De Long thread in. The nominator did the final edit. TNH was happy with our section it appears. I can back up all the allegations. Just look at the dialogue from the inventor with the personal attacks on me and then get back to me on assuming good faith. One can't a source to themselves.Marky48 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Marky48 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was refering to your allegations about peoples' reasons for voting. This too, have to be covered by the good faith assumption. What discussion you and TNH might have about the content of the article in questions is irrelevant to the question at hand. --Kristjan Wager 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Until it ends up in the OED, Wikipedia will be the primary resource for defining this term during its growing adoption. Why fight to maintain ignorance? --Danguyf 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Coining an Internet colloquialism is hardly moving the knowledge base of the world forward. What is relevant is blogs can't be sources and this is a blog only term even if one has used 'disemvowel' for other purposes, like the shorthand comment,this is a forum punishment only. That's its only reason for being.

"Marky48, I would say that your allegations border on personal attacks, and you should perhaps tone them down." Well, that's a very subjective claim. You make my point nicely. You read her blog and now come to support the owner. Case closed. I would caution you not to make accusations and give quasi-orders to others. It further seals your personal bias. I've never said no one should come comment. You should dial back your rhetoric pardner. One thing is certain: if the outcome rides on votes hordes will come to support it from knowledge of the blog community in question. The word is out. That's vanity too.Marky48 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • As a matter of fact, I came to the artciel through a link at Tim Lambert's blog. He links to the wikepedia article just next to the comment field, and I was curious to see what the wikipedia article said. I haven't read TNH's blog for several months (that's what I mean with "infrequent reader").
    • In other words, this is a very good example of the perrils of not assuming good faith. Oh, and if you are not aware of it, "giving quasi-orders" as you call it, is part of what we do as editors - don't you ever leave vandal or spam templates at other peoples' talk pages? I certainly do. This is all part of trying to improve wikipedia. --Kristjan Wager 05:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mark, as best I can tell (and I just did a search as well and looking through recent comment threads), this AfD has not even been mentioned in Making Light, ever, nor the Disemvoweling article in the last week. "The word" is therefore not "out." There is no "call to arms." And a suggestion that you tone down your comments is neither no more a "quasi-order" than "You should dial back your rhetoric." Karen | Talk | contribs 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all to all here 1. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 2. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, ie Instruction manuals. Thats what this is. 3. The only references are to blogs, and for the hundredth time, blogs are not WP:V. It's nice people come here for all their information, but Wikipedia isn't here to act as the know-all of everything. -Royalguard11Talk 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I found a reference in the UK paper The Guardian to disemvoweling, which I listed on [[[Talk:DisemvowelingTalk:Disemvoweling]]]. It is a different meaning than what has been discussed, but at least it's a mainstream media (print) use. Yeah, I know someone has shot it down, but I still believe it has some significance since it is an MSM use of the word.St jb 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Obviously Karen. That's why I responded in kind, otherwise there would be no need would there?So only the last week counts? The 66 thread alone is enough with you caterwalling all over the place over these two articles for months about me. And the other AW thread as well so the history is clear and more attempts at bifurcating the issue won't work. The word has been out and will remain so until a victory for the forum and supporters is in hand. Or not. "As for the support group concept, have you ever heard the phrase "Paranoia is the belief that your enemies are organized"? --65.42.5.234 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"

Is inferring someone is a paranoid a good faith assertion?Marky48 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment It was "shot down" because the useage was completely different. It was a verb in that piece I believe and meant to indicate a short hand instant messaging coded text sort of thing.Marky48 03:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You mean like this word Cricket? One word used in several contexts - what will they think of next? St jb 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Disemvoweling" is, of course, a gerund of the verb to "disemvowel." The older usage, which still involves removing vowels from words but often for different purposes, would make a great addition to the article, with juicy non-blog citations to boot. If we fix this thing up properly, it will be more comprehensive and interesting, and not at all a dictionary definition or how-to manual, neither of which adequately describe the text as it stands. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd really like to take a stab at it. My 'net access is going to be off and on for the next few days and I'd appreciate the opportunity to work on it over the next week. St jb 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentYeah, no attitide here. Cricket can be found in the dictionary and I doubt it has an "inventor" listed. What would be an example of a copy editor for a print organiazation using this technique on the job. Hey Watson get rid of these vowels in the story. It's 'overvoweled.'Marky48 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup Comment. Checking again, there is no WP:RS that this definition is used at all. However, Risks Digest is (almost) a WP:RS, although it's a personal digest, and primarily sourced from Usenet. But that one (and the jargon file) replace the vowels by "splat" characters ("*" or "?"). Still, there's no WP:RS, even under WP:WEB, for its use as a moderation tool. So, this definition has no support. Still delete, but without prejudice toward an article on the use described as quasi-censorship of individual words (N*z*) and in TXT SPK. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. I'd like to take a stab at a total rewrite, but this will require a few days. St jb
Comment on the idea of rewriting the article only to refer to "splat out" self-censorship/"TXT SPK": I don't think these ideas are really notable enough to deserve a wikipedia article, at least not to themselves. What more can you say about either than a single sentence? They should perhaps be mentioned at wiktionary, but I don't think it would be a good idea to have a whole encyclopedia entry on them. Wikipedia, as somebody kindly pointed out above, is not a dictionary, so we shouldn't be aiming at a dictionary definition. Which is why I feel that ultimately, cataloguing uses of the word that don't refer to the same technique the article is talking about is a pointless activity. Yes, they should probably be mentioned. But it isn't really relevant to the core of what the article is about, which is a forum moderation technique. Likewise, I'm not certain it's critical that we include the information that Arthur Hlavaty was the first person to use the term in print (presumably that's in reference to the technique being discussed... the print edition of the Jargon File probably contained the "splat out" definition and was published a few years previously). Although I'd still like to know where it was printed and what he said about it... this is almost certainly a WP:RS that so far we haven't followed up.
As to the idea that wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and that therefore this topic (as a little-known technique practiced only by a small proportion of forum moderators, a group which isn't particularly numerous to start with) shouldn't be covered, I'm still far from convinced. The topic isn't an instruction manual. It provides information about why the technique is used, and discussion of the merits of different approaches to performing it. It used to include, and hopefully will again some day when we can find suitable sources, a discussion of the merits of the technique.
If there were another article that it could be merged into, I'd support that, but I don't see one that's appropriate. The technique is useful. Knowledge about it is spreading, and more and more people are going to come across mentions of it and are therefore wondering what it's about. We've seen a few comment on this thread here. Therefore it is useful for wikipedia to contain an article on the subject. That the article presently lacks sources is a problem, yes. It's one that can be fixed, I'm sure: I mentioned one possible source in the last paragraph that we need to follow up and cite. There may well be others. Others will almost undoubtedly come along in the future.
There's something else that Wikipedia isn't, as well: paper. JulesH 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, comp.risks is notable and reliable. I was thinking about comp.telecom.digest, which is only marginally so. The Jargon file is frequently updated, but not constitute a WP:RS, as notability-checking is not done, only fact-checking. TXT SPK has been commented on in the mainstream media, although the term disemvoweling may not have been used there. And there's still no WP:RS for this definition. If you can find one while the AfD is open, go ahead. If not, a deletion is still in order. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term has been used at least once in the mainstream media, in the UK Guardian. [35] This does refer to TXT SPK. Someone else found it used in The Straight Dope [36], a column that has appeared in alternative newspapers for years. I also found a reference this morning in a small newspaper called The HawkEye [37]. Is that a help? St jb 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I see someone else mentioned The HawkEye, and I'm sure somone has mentioned The Straight Dope as well. Need a program to track the players sometimes. (grin) St jb 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian supports its use in referring to TXT SPK; the others are just intentional typos, rather than having a meaning. (Would disemvoweling HAL change it to HL?) No reference to its use in moderating boards. comp.risks suggests use (with splats) for self-moderating; but it still only talks about single, objectionable (to someone) words, rather than phrased. There's no source for the definition in the article, so a delete is still in order. A rewrite, leaving nothing of the existing article, seems a possible alternative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was me that mentioned the Straight Dope and the Jargon File above. Based on the Straight Dope site, I believe that that column was included in the book Return of the Straight Dope (Ballantine Books, 1994, ISBN 0345381114), but I don't have access to a copy to be sure about that. Similarly, if it's in the Jargon File, it's probably in The New Hacker's Dictionary (MIT Press, 1996, ISBN 0262680920). If either of those books include the word, then they ought to qualify as RS (along with comp.risks, where I'm happy to see someone finally agree that that counts as a RS). Dori 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You better talk to Tony Sidaway and several other admins about the Jargon file not being RS, it was quoted and touted about as RS numerous times to defend Lumber Cartel. As such there is precedent for its acceptance as a reliable source.--Crossmr 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it would be necessary for Jargon File to perform "notability checking" for it to be a reliable source. The only think that a reliable source is required to do is provide accurate information. Why would we expect an external editor to follow the same standards we use here? JulesH 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A) "Usefulness" is not a criterion for retaining articles. B) It appears that the writer already was familiar with the technique, and is a fan of the putative inventor. -Will Beback 21:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep with rewrite I've been digging through google. It appears this term goes back much further that its purported creation. This reference [39] pegs its usage in the 18th century. It was likely a word that fell out of use until the practice was reborn only modernized. As a potentially historical term the article could be rewritten both to reflect the past usage and to reflect the modern usage of the term. There have also been forum and web plugins created for automating this technique. While it has limited google prescence it does seem to have a history.--Crossmr 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm still not sure why the history of use of the word is even relevant. The article isn't about the word, but about the technique that is described. If we want an article about history of the word's usage, I suspect wiktionary is a more appropriate place.
      Because the impression that I got from the article was that she invented the whole she-bang which is obviously false as the practice existed in the 18th century as a form of moderation. It was used to take the bite out of profanity much the same way its used now to take the bite out of trolls. Her invention isn't so much an invention as it is a re-application of an old technique, as such its quite pertinent to the article.--Crossmr 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment perhaps they should go back to the first voweless language? That of ancient Israel.[40]. "In a discussion of the technique on J. Bradford DeLong's weblog, it was suggested that disemvoweling acts to publicly ridicule the offender, and therefore is more likely to make them stop." Or leave after the mob throws enough insults and cyber popcorn and then the so-called offender can't respond. Been there done that. This is just another fan mentioning the TNH weblog, not this article. Their tentacles run deep in the blogosphere. What we have is more repeating on blog comments. That isn't a source.Marky48 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought the Lumber Cartel was the American Forestry Association. Not in Internet lingo. The Hacker's volume didn't have it from searching the book through Google. Only a reference to the book I cited within another, but it was restricted. Moreover Lomas didn't use it in the HK. He just said the language contained no vowels.Marky48 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the Hawkeye article. I conducted some original reporting, uncommon on blogs. Here is the answer:

Mark, I made it up.

Bob

Original Message -----

From: Marky48 To: bsaar@thehawkeye.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:53 PM Subject: Disemvoweling Marky48 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Mark! We have another inventor! Thanks! St jb 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone explain to me why this article is any different from numerous other wikipedia articles about webspecific phrases? E.g. Poe's Law, Blogwar, or Skitt's law. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for deletion of such articles, since I feel they fit the wikipedia format very well, but we could use the same arguments for deletion for many of the Internet culture articles.

In general, I am of the general opinion that it's better to have one article too much, than one too little. --Kristjan Wager 16:28, 4 August 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 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Calabro

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. YUL89YYZ 17:43, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Backyard Cricket Association

[edit]

Non-notable organization. Was tagged as speedy, was removed by one of the partrons of the organization. [41] -Royalguard11Talk 17:53, 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 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Stone

[edit]

nn, no ghits other than links to corporate biographies, no notable accomplishments Thanatosil 17:54, 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 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Sampling Union

[edit]

There is nothing to sugest that this organization exists. If it does, nothing on first page of google. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same article, one misspelled, both non-notable.:

Comment Should we add that article to this AfD, or is it too late? -Royalguard11Talk 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too late, though, to be proper, the two who have already voted should be asked to amend their votes to make it clear whether they also wish the third entry deleted. Fan-1967 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for sepetate delete here. -Royalguard11Talk 21:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Leif Erickson Classic

[edit]

Non-notable 'video scavenger hunt', single author. The article is linked from Scavenger Hunt but I do not believe this merits its own article.Diagonalfish 18:03, 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 transwiki. Its now on Wiktionary. Wickethewok 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circling the drain

[edit]

Does not establish notability, comes close to being just a dicdef, and is based on Original Research assumptions in an apparent attempt to coin yet another bogus TV-syndrome neologism. wikipediatrix 18:04, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Abdul Qayyum

[edit]

This was prodded a while back and has been prodded again. It's tagged as original research. I'm just moving it here as a courtesy to the most recent prodder, I don't currently have an opinion. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:10, 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 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Steven Blanchard -Vietnam

[edit]

some sort of POV fork of Doc Blanchard. Could be merged except it is totally unreferenced - and pretty dubious. --Aoratos 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Blanchard vietnam and CAP Marines by the same editor --Aoratos 18:28, 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 Xezbeth.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Thorne

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. YUL89YYZ 18:34, 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 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javette Coffee

[edit]

I am the author of the Javette article. (I read that I could remove the prod tag once I edited the article, which I did extensively.) I have attempted to use the examples of Sanka, Nestle's, and Starbucks to edit this article, knowing that these are acceptable entries. Could someone explain the difference between Javette and these mentioned articles so that this article can be improved upon. Thanks. --Javette Coffee 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one (there may be more than one) difference that comes to my mind between Javette and the articles you mentioned. There are no rules against writing articles about yourself, however it is discouraged. In other words: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved." (from WP:AUTO) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the author again...To the above critic...I would bet that Starbucks (actually their PR company) had something to do with the Wikipedia entry...with all of the history and the photo of it's 1st store...it's a good bet. (That's the way it works when you hire a PR Co.) I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a forum to introduce new innovations to the market, but maybe I was mistaken.

You were mistaken. Wikipedia is definitely not "a forum to introduced new innovations to the market." When you created the article, you should have noticed that above the edit box, it says "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies." We have a formal policy that says Wikipedia is not a soapbox that says "Wikipedia articles are not self-promotion." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought who better to write an entry than the person who understands it best.

Fine as far as it goes, but a Wikipedia editor can only use his or her expertise to help in organizing, interpreting, and presenting material. Everything that goes into an article is supposed to derived from material that has been published by reputable sources and the source must be cited.

To the critic below...Thanks for the crack on the Entrepreneur Magazine article. It was a really great day for us when a small company is recognized by a national magazine for it's innovative idea. Recognition is verification that you're on the right track.

Good. In a year or so Javette Coffee may be a suitable topic for an article... if the story can be told by, say, citing articles in food magazines.

Go ahead and delete the article. Wikipedia and Javette are probably not a good fit for each other. --Javette Coffee 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a forum to introduce new innovations to the market" No, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a forum to introduce new innovations to the market (WP:NOR). As for Starbucks, just because Starbucks may or may not have violated WP:AUTO doesn't mean that others should too. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia and Javette are probably not a good fit for each other." That's a good way to look at it. Not at this time, no. The mistake you made is very common and it's no big deal. I, for one, would be glad to have a knowledgeable editor contributing to articles about food processing, aseptic packaging, and the like. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article started out as an obvious advertisement. It has moved in the direction of an actual encyclopedia entry, but hasn't gone far enough. It is still an advertisement. The author did assert it's notability, so CSD doesn't apply. Also, the author removed my prod tag so here we are. Please note that the only contributor is a user called Javette Coffee. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no longer reads like an ad, but 2 questions remain: is it notable, and is it a vanity article? Any thoughts? -- Tivedshambo (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read "Criteria for products and services" under WP:CORP and it says that Javette should have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". I looked in google for a while and found the company website, a bunch of message board posts which all looked like obvious spam, and a few actual articles. Yahoo Shopping says "This merchant is not yet rated and reviewed." entrepreneur.com and about.com each had an article about the company, but even entrepreneur.com didn't think it deserved it's own article (the article was about three other companies). I'm sticking with my vote for now. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and explain the technology, relations to other similar products, that sort of thing. It's very much link-orphaned now, but is one of a range of foodstuffs that is of some interest. Aye-Aye 13:23, 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. SynergeticMaggot 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BattleMaster

[edit]

No indicated notability, no reliable sources. Fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, after all, it looks like a legit game, though I've never heard of it. It doesn't read much like an ad and has (a claimed) 1500 players. What makes it in need of deletion? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legit game, a friend of mine played it at some point. Lack of sources is a problem, but we don't delete articles because of that. The list of active players is available in-game as well, so their number can be checked by whoever cares to create an account there. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (a little bit weaker than ordinary though). WP:WEB is not really applicable here (just happens to be a game that uses web browser as the platform). The game itself, and materials released by the developers, can be used as the primary source - though, of course, multiple sources are always good, I'm just saying that in case of no controversy, it's enough to trust the primary source. (Is someone denying World of Warcraft has bazillion users, for example? If so, how do you propose we verify their claims?) 1500 players, which the article claims, doesn't sound too big, but I think it's in the green. Satisfies my own "I've heard of it outside of Wikipedia" test. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Legit game, with me being one of the players and article maintainers. The statistics were quoted with sources, and you can visit the game and its wiki community with links provided in the article. This is all "well-sourced". -- G.S.K.Lee 08:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Definitely a legit game - I've played it myself. Has an active online community. -- Wantok 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Definitly a legit game, been playing it for an awful long time now and it only takes a look at the game it's self to see how many players there are, and more importantly you can see how much information is already being used and stored within the Wiki, and to delete all that effort now would leave a very foul taste in our mouths. The BattleMaster Wiki is always being updated, as is the game it's self.
  • Strong Keep'. A good game, and a good article. Eirik-Com1ando 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Same as above; I've been playing this game for quite a long time now myself, and actually found out about it through this wikipedia article. Definitely legit and has stats linked in the game or on the main page that show how many players there are, and show other things as well. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 10:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Coming up on 4 years playing this game. Very much legit, and hard to stay away from. The current statistics chart (pointed out above) indicates nearly 1800 registered users, with almost 1100 having logged in within the last 3 days. PhoenixSunrise 13:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. By the standards used to claim this article does not meet WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE, just about any arguably niche game with a smaller user base would be deleted. All that aside, the game is definitvily real (I play it). Also, it has survived long enough (four years, or so), and is unique enough in some mechanical aspects to deserve being kepyt. Chilango2 11:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I don't know that WP:WEB should apply, since this isn't a website, but an multiplayer videogame which happens to use a HTTP and a browser as its UI. As far as WP:SOFTWARE, Wikipeda has entries on many other videogames most of which don't seem to meet the proposed criteria of WP:SOFTWARE. Sagsaw 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to the game and signed up to see, definately real, seems a good game with a very active community. Seems more legit than others which are on the wiki.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs

[edit]

delete per explicit wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, items ...is not "Lists of such definitions" and "A usage guide or slang and idiom guide". The previous vote (August 2005) was no consensus ad plagued by socks. Mukadderat 18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Definition list. As policy. --Gekedo 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Can be cleaned up, or converted into a category itself (after retention) for this. rootology 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly good, well referenced list of sexual slurs. There is no reason to delete it (WP:NOT isn't a strait jacket). --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a perfectly good, well referenced candidate for wiktionary (which is by the way, very poorly referenced). Please take a look into the Sexual slang article how it is neatly handled (I mean, wiktionary reference at the top of the article). `'mikka (t) 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete, or just delete; Wikipedia is explicitly (no pun intended) not a list of dictionary terms. A wonderful piece of work, referenced, thorough, yet not an encyclopaedic article. We already have sexual slang and sexual slurs articles, so not only is this a violation of a principle policy, it's also duplicating information held in a more suitable manner. WP:NOT is not a strait jacket? Yes, it is. If it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia, it shouldn't be here. We have a dictionary wiki for this stuff. 'I like it' is not a suitable reason to keep something which by its very nature fails one of the principle policies. Proto::type 14:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This article clearly isn't suitable for a dictionary because dictionaries don't group words according to usage. It's a classic list article that can lead off to other parts of the encyclopedia (and it does that already) and there is a very good candidate for merge at Sexual slur, producing a combination of elucidation and example. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Proto Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or transwiki the stuff Wikt doesn't already have. It doesn't matter that Wikt doesn't typically carry lists; the GFDL allows the list to be broken up into individual entries as Wiktionarians get to them. It only remains here because of the comparative obscurity of Wiktionary to many of those on previous AfDs, and an apparent feeling that Wikipedia must carry everything, even while Wikimedia offers a wide range of options. It does fail one of the guiding content guidelines that exists for a good reason -- that the articles that fall into such a category offer nothing encyclopedic about their contents beyond the outline of a meaning. It's true that WP:NOT isn't a straight jacket, but it does offer pretty good advice for a range of good reasons. This list is quite distinctly without anything above a bare-bones content, whereas the Sexual slurs article is a much better, if very weakly referenced at present, example. -Splash - tk 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well maintained, well referenced article that demonstrates the uses of sexual slurs. Complaints in previous AfDs focused on references. Well, this is an entirely new and far more scholarly approach to the subject. As shown by many of the references, this is a serious area of academic scholarship and should be covered here (note that the sexual slurs article was spun off from this list). Does not fail any policy as WP:NOT specifically permits glossary pages. I would, though, invite those who are piously spouting off about policy while praising the sexual slurs article to consider sourcing that article, as it currently fails WP:V. --JJay 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well now, that wasn't very pleasant, was it? Also, what do the previous AfDs have to do with this one, where neither the nominator nor the other editors actually talk about the problems they raised? Academic scholarship? Which of the references is an academic paper, as opposed to say.... a dictionary? -Splash - tk 00:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous AfDs have obvious bearing. They pointed to problems with the article and the problems were fixed. However, survival of two AfDs indicates support for the underlying validity of the concept. Many of the references I have added are from academic sources and, in fact, every item on the list could be sourced from academic sources, as I proposed months ago on the talk page. --JJay 00:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but this AfD does the pious spouting you identified, rather than complaining about references; which is to say that it challenges the underlygin validity of the concept far more directly than before. Alright, one of the sources is academicish. But I will be quite shocked if you can find any academic paper (rather than news report or those famed dictionary entries </spout>) containing analysis about "cockgobbler", for example. -Splash - tk 00:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are aware that unsourced entries are generally removed from the list, as has been infinitely discussed on the talk page (hence, I have removed your cock gobbler entry). Regarding your point on references, I have never used a "news source" or internet "dictionary" as sources. I have used Duke University Press, Australian Institute of Criminology, NYU Press, "Social Forces" and other high level printed sources. I am thus somewhat surprised that you do not consider these to be "academicish". --JJay 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't object to your sources or find them in the least inadequate; they are very good, reliable sources. The NYU one I hadn't spotted as I just looked throught the ones at the bottom; likewise "Social Forces". The Australian Institute was the academicish one I referred to. On re-visiting the Duke Uni Press one (which I only Amazoned quickly at the time), it is indeed academic. So there are more such sources than I had thought, I'll agree. Nevertheless, the bulk of them do come from dictionaries; which again are perfectly fine as sources (as long they're not of the Urband variety!). Probably your considerably better-than-average sources would find a warmer home in the relevant articles, some of which exist for certain terms, and for the others there's the lack of referencing in Sexual slurs that we've both been at pains to point out. -Splash - tk 01:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per --JJay. Thanks RaveenS 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well established and maintained article. Metamagician3000 06:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and of course, my favorite...

As you can see, Wikipedia has a growing tradition of supporting its articles with lists of slang terms. Perhaps it is time to rethink the policy WP:NOT

Note that Mukadderat has made a wholesale move to delete all of the following slang lists:

Does anyone besides me see an anti-ethnic and anti-profanity bias here? Mukadderat seems to be very selective in his AfD nominations, which wreaks of censorship, which is a clear Wikipedia policy violation. --List Expert 13:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is entirely reasonable to nominate articles which violate WP:NOT. A list of Madras Tamil slang words does not belong in an English language encyclopedia, and is not verifiable. -Will Beback 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the talk page for this glossary? The editors there have gone through a great deal of effort to verify every word on the list. So your statement that it is not verifiable is complete and utter shash. And since these words are part of subculture venacular, they are entirely encyclopedic. --List Expert 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? It would sure save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have never heard the cry of censorship uttered by anyone other than a POV pusher. The entire thiung is uncited sexcruft, and notwithstanding the blatant attempt to rewrite policy to prevent attempts to delete unverifiable content, verifiability is a core principle. WP:ILIKEIT carries substantially less weight than WP:V and WP:RS and rightly so. Just zis Guy you know? 11:13, 4 August 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 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay slang words and phrases

[edit]

Delete per explicit wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, items ...is not "Lists of such definitions" and "A usage guide or slang and idiom guide". Mukadderat 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on SamuelWantman's arguments below, I withdraw this delete "vote" and ask that we consider all slang lists together. SP-KP 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each article should be judged by its own merits. For example, taking category:Lists of songs, List of songs whose title includes dates and times is a search tool for wikipedia articles of particluar type and although a listcruft, but mildly reasonable. On the other hand List of songs whose second word of the title ends with letter "e" would be my prime candidate for deletion.`'mikka (t) 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a week argument beacuse we cannot in any fair arugument equate List of songs whose second word of the title ends with letter "e" with List of gay slang words and phrases because the latter is a subject of scholarly journal articles in all most all major languages in the West and the former is NOT, if that what nominators are are looking for and it is also subject of scholarly articles, research papers in the east too. So is the nomination for List_of_Madras_Tamil_slang_words and List_of_Sri_Lankan_Tamil_slang_and_swear_words are also flawed and should be withdrawn till issues are resolved.Huracane 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slang is an encyclopedic subject. What we call genre of music Rock N Roll, once was a slang word to have sex used by a marginalized American ethnic group. Today it is a respectable word, so is most of our vocabulary. In any language slang is one route by language changes through experimentation and eventual acceptance. RaveenS 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone besides me see an anti-ethnic, anti-minority, and anti-profanity bias here? Mukadderat seems to be very selective in his AfD nominations, which wreaks of censorship, which is a clear Wikipedia policy violation.--List Expert 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is entirely reasonable to nominate articles which violate WP:NOT. A list of Madras Tamil slang words does not belong in an English language encyclopedia, and is not verifiable. -Will Beback 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment what makes you say it is unverifiable? if something is true it is probably verifiable somwhere perhaps on a Tamil website or book or translation guide. A bilingual English-Tamil speaker would come in hnady hear. I think your view is defensive, ignorant, unencyclopedia, and even xenophobic and downright silly.
  • keep Glossaries of specific jargon are encyclopedic, this list used to be part of the Gay slang article but was made into its own separate article, i think important links may verify the terms and Gay slang is a subcultural vernacular which is verifiable simply because you are unfamilair with it and the mediams, films, books, websites, people, television channels (Logo, PinkTV, QTV, RainbowNetwork, Pridevision yeah there are 5 now!) which it is used in does not make it unverifiable.Qrc2006 05:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*aditionally various other languages maintain this list in their wikipedias i know other langauges have their own rules and some allow lists but spanish for example is hardcore against lists but has allowed this one for the purpose of glossarizing and illustrating Modismos gay/Argot gay Qrc2006 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? It would sure save a lot of wasted time and effort on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:14, 4 August 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 nominator.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LA Freewaves

[edit]

What do I have to change to make sure it's not advertising? After all this is a festival that has been happening since 1989. Can someone email me at daniel@freewaves.org?

Advertising. Delete as nominator. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 19:59, 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 closed as no consensus by User:Mailer diablo. - Bobet 08:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan Tamil slang and swear words

[edit]

Mukadderat 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and will exapnd articleRaveenS 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Arvind's argument or else book burnigRaveenS
See withdrawl of delete [42] because these nominations are arbitary and may be prejudicial on the part of nominators. Collective decision of the community is neededHuracane 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is no loger a mere list of slang, effort has been made to make it into an article about Sri Lankan Tamil slangRaveenS

Does anyone besides me see an anti-ethnic, anti-minority, and anti-profanity bias here? Mukadderat seems to be very selective in his AfD nominations, which wreaks of censorship, which is a clear Wikipedia policy violation.--List Expert 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is entirely reasonable to nominate articles which violate WP:NOT. A list of Madras Tamil slang words does not belong in an English language encyclopedia, and is not verifiable. -Will Beback 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First this is not Madras Tamil slang, second this is no longer a listRaveenS
  • Comment - Looks like admins will do what ever they feel like, use consensus, stick to the his/he interpretation of the rules to keep or delete articles. See [43] Hence I took the initiative to convert this list to an article on loan words. What a travesty, at the very least the deleted list should be been merged with the Trinidadian English Creole, it was a easy way out decision RaveenS 15:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violtate what part of WP:NOTRaveenS
  • Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? It would sure save a lot of wasted time and effort on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:07, 4 August 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 CANCELLED. Nominated by and being run by a bunch of sockpuppets (almost all the deleters are now indef blocked). -Splash - tk 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irv Weinstein

[edit]

Not notable. To quote WP:BIO: Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. All the Google hits about Irv Weinstein are all in pages about the Buffalo, New York area where he appeared on TV. He apparently has done no national television work and would fail the "well-known television production" rule, since he only appeared there. All local TV personalities unless they have been on national or international broadcasts or have some done some other work to make them notable sould be deleted because they are just cruft. A short bio on the TV station page is enough. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, he's not some two-bit reporter who was on for five years and vanished. He's extremely well-known in both the Buffalo and Toronto areas. Kirjtc2 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as somebody who grew up in Toronto, Irv was a fixture on the news for the Buffalo, and southwestern Ontario area, and was part of the longest running anchor team. That sets him apart from the run of the mill TV news anchors. -- Whpq 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Part of the longest running anchor team in the history of television. That in itself is notable, in addition to the iconic factor in Western New York and Southern Ontario. Snickerdo 20:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's notable enough. Travislangley 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems well-known and respected in his home area. He further established notability by breaking longevity records. SliceNYC 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because he is supposedly well known in one city doesn't mean anything. It isn't like the guy ever appeared on TV anywhere else. Smells of cruft and a WP:BIO violation. Kramden4700 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and as per Kramden4700. Degree of celebrity is too localized, parochial and minor. Fails WP:BIO. Bwithh 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100% pure cruft. This guy isn't Al Roker or Ted Koppel, just some guy who wasn't good enough to leave local TV to get a network TV job where he may actually have become a notable person, someone notable enought to meet the WP:BIO standards. Adam 1212 02:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, Kramden4700, and Bwithh. Being "extremely well-known in both the Buffalo and Toronto areas" and "well-known and respected in his home area" are really meaningless in the greater scheme of things. Because he was "a fixture on the news for the Buffalo" doesn't make him notable. He was not "some two-bit reporter who was on for five years and vanished" instead he was some two-bit anchor who languished in a televison backwater because he didn't have the talent to get a network job. There are most likely at least a hundred people like him and unless they did something truly notable, like became a congressperson, mass murder, astronaut, etc. then maybe they would be of some note. Irv, you may have been good enough for Buffalo, but that is it! Cheesehead 1980 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't happen to know a User:Spotteddogsdotorg, would you? Kirjtc2 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:BIO guidelines specifically state that the criteria being applied 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". This nomination 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. -- Whpq 19:10, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil

[edit]
Comment This is no longer a List and it never was a A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. It is an article on Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil.RaveenS 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this user, seem to follow Mukadderat around in deletion requests ?RaveenS 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, maybe I'm just a little dense today, but could you please explain what makes articles such as List of borrowed words in Indonesian, List of Latin words with English derivatives, and List of common phrases in constructed languages amongst others, more encyclopaedic than the article under consideration here? This is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like to understand what you see the difference as being. -- Arvind 00:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary has grown beyond simple collection of translations and becomes more organized, "encyclopedish". See e.g., wikt:Category:Swadesh lists and take a look into Template talk:Swadesh lists. Here people are reasonable about moving a big number of lists where they belong. See also wikt:Wikisaurus:insane for other interesting developments in wikitionary. So IMO it is time to move most of such lists there. For example there was a move to convert artices like List of English words of Russian origin into wiktionary categories, like wikt:Category:Russian derivations. (And I only now noticed that this approach exactly fits the discussed Sri Lankan article.) `'mikka (t) 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you justify delete lets work to move into wictitionary categories instead deleting content
I see your argument, but I think the sheer number of articles involved means that a centralised discussion is warranted, rather than an ad hoc article-by-article deletion debate, because the latter will lead to inconsistent decisions being taken in relation to different articles. I'll stick to voting keep for now, but without prejudice to deleting or transwikiing as part of a process that applies to all similar articles. -- Arvind 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont see this list of words being any different than any other list sof words. Those who are advocating it are seeing Wikipedia through a Eurocentric view point. If this is delete, there hundreds of other list of words that need to be deleted.RaveenS 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Why this is keep then ?[reply]
List_of_English_words_of_Portuguese_origin because it is a european language with world dominance compared to another european languge ? Then how about this Arabic_influence_on_the_Spanish_language.
Based on the discussion on this AFD nomination, I have modified this into an article dealing with Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil. It is no longer a List of loan words in Sri Lankan TamilRaveenS
  • Keep It does appear that there are many lists of loan words in different languages. One question I do have is why this article is in the English and not the Tamil Wikipedia? It doesn't really mean much to those not familiar with Tamil. Tyronen 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move it then
You could move it to the Tamil WP, but it most certainly should be kept in the English Wikipedia as well because if anyone who doesn't know Tamil (like me) is doing any research into the language, it'll be impossible to read this article if it's only in Tamil. --snowolfd4 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because as long as lists like List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin are acceptable, I don't see a reason to delete the one in discussion. The list even has some introductory words which embed it. This isn't a "slang or idiom guide" but an enlightening overview over historic processes concerning the language. (For the same reason: Don't move it.) Krankman 22:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is content from Sri Lanka that is just begining to mushroom, may be move to wictionary but not delete. May be nominators can get thet gloves on and work to move it than to simply delete hard work of others. Better suggestion would have been to develop a template to move such things to wictionary. I think nominating this for deletin is totally unfair and wrong Huracane 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer a list, it Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil. Thanks RaveenS
List Expert, even though Mikka removed your "personal attack", I have to agree with you that AfDs by Mukadderat must obviously be viewed with special caution. (By the way, Mikka, in my opinion a user's AfD policy may at times be well relevant for the ensuing discussion!) Krankman 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just disgusting. The nomination is done with a legitimate reason, citing immediately applicable policy. While I agree that policies are not cast in stone and may be overridden in particular cases with solid arguments (or by brute force), but your wikilawyering against Mukadderat are not warranted by his edits. Yes, he nominated several word lists. No he did not nominate all word lists. So what? `'mikka (t) 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the information is unverifiable? There are a) dictionaries, b) scientific treatises on the topic and c) tons of books on borrowing processes in general.
Can you please state in which point(s) exactly this article violates WP:NOT. Do you mean this one? I don't think it applies at all because the article is neither a guide nor a list of definitions. And it can and will be expanded into an even more informative article if you give us the time.
Again, if articles like this one are not desired in WP, more exact rules for what constitutes a relevant article need to be defined. No offence! Cheers, Krankman 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for a couple of websites, focused mostly on Portugese, I don't see the references that Krankman mentions. What is the purpose, in an English-language encyclopedia, of this article? As for WP:NOT, this is a list of words. -Will Beback 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can't cite any titles at this moment, but there are papers on the subject. The purpose is to collect knowledge about as many things as possible, I suppose, isn't it? As I said, it's not supposed to be a list of words, but to evolve into something more meaningful if you give it time to grow. Krankman 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An "article like that" would be I see a possible confusion here. The nominated article was List of loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil. After that someone moved it to "Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil", with less worrying title and expanded it to make it more encyclopedic. Believing that not the page is heading into an encyclopedic direction, I am inclined to change my vote now:
Keep and expand with encyclopedic content. `'mikka (t) 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For linguistically-defined lists of words we have wiktionary, which may have category wiktionary:Category:Loan words and subcategories thereof. `'mikka (t) 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? It would sure save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:16, 4 August 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 the article. Mailer Diablo 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore sexual slang

[edit]
Done and incoporatedRaveenS 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was originally named Singapore sexual slang before someone changed the title to List of Singapore sexual slang. It was already decided in 2005 not to delete it. Thus, this is a redundant discussion. It should be retained.Groyn88 13:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See withdrawl o delecte for Gay slangs [44] due to thea rbitary nature of delete requests and may be prejudicial. Collective decion is needed, leaving Gay slangs and removing Singapore sexula slang will demonstrate this prejudicial and bias in these nominations. I stronglu rge that this nomination be withdrawn like the gay slang nominationHuracane 22:00, 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 rewritten version. Kimchi.sg 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Clean Water Agency

[edit]

It's a clean water agency. It's in Ontario. Er.... That's it. Another article on some piece of Ontario administrivia from the pen opf WikiWoo (talk · contribs); the first three incarnations were speedied as copyvios. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the total rewrite, I'll change to keep. It doesn't read as a copyvio now and I did my normal google checking for a copyvio and nothing turned up. Brian 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete Speedy under A8/WP:SNOW (the site isn't making money from the content of its site, but it's not gonna pass the 7 day process, and is a waste of more time. Protect from recreation. The JPStalk to me 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhat's with all the cloak and daggars over this Crown Corporation? The Gestapo from Ontario Government is all over this. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would the Ontario government have any interest in suppressing material that you have taken from one of its agencies' websites? Could it be that some people don't think that the agency is notable or that (as people have explained ad nauseum to you) you really can't post copyrighted material here? No. It must be a conspiracy. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete and salt As an apparent member of the "Gestapo from Ontario Government" (Chicago branch), I am sick of having to keep deleting this page as a copyvio, politely explaining to its author that you cannot take apparently copyrighted work (see Crown copyright#Canada), change a few words and publish it on Wikipedia and being accused of vandalism and censorship for my trouble. On the other hand, I think that articles on provincial agencies could potentially be kept if they have received enough coverage. This would mean that an editor who wanted to work on them would could go get books and articles and write a proper article, rather than just serially reposting slightly altered copyrighted material in an attempt to just barely get over the {{db-copyvio}} bar. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and IP ban This page is word-for-word cut and pastes from the official site. I can no longer assume good faith where this editor is concerned. No matter the name, the end result is always the same. --DarkAudit 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. OzLawyer, Commander of the Ontario Gestapo, 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely rewrote the article again trying to satisfy you all I barely touch the facts that are on the site and there is NO WAY this is copyright or a non notable organization.WikiWoo 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Keep, assuming the copyright problem no longer applies. I am somewhat surprised that there is no reference in the article to this agency's role in the aftermath of the Walkerton Tragedy. In fact, maybe I'll go put a little note about it in the article. Agent 86 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rewrite consisted of an error-riddled history that violated WP:CITE and WP:V, among others, but I've written some footnoted paragraphs on OCWA's history, and with Agent 86's contribution of the Walkerton piece, I think this article is now good enough to keep. --Gary Will 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now a brand new article that is nothing like the original All the delete votes apply to the original article that is no longer there. The vote continuing makes no sense at all.WikiWoo 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is to Keep the new articleWikiWoo 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiWoo, that might be true - but wait for an administrator to close out the AfD - you are not entitled to remove the AfD tag or close the AfD Brian 04:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Reassess to keep providing all the good edits by others don't get reverted as government conspiracy to censor (undoubtedly WikiWoo will have a problem with some of the current and forthcoming edits, I'm sure). In that case, delete WikiWoo. =) OzLawyer 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I guess I do wear a tin foil hat...after 30 years dealing with Regional Governments in Ontario people tend to get like that. I'm not the only one. It's a bizzar world of intrigue, complexity and covert operations going on of every conceivable kind, where the truth is usually stranger than any fiction, as the non-elected unsurp authority from the democrticaly elected representatives of the people by selectively managing Billions upon Billions of taxpayer's dollars in the exclusive hands of a couple of dozen people. I have a lifetime of personal experience and knowledge that can help to bring these diverse pieces of information together in a place that it can be a usefull source of reference information. Please don't be too critical of my efforts and I am trying to adapt and learn the rules. I know I am not a great linguist, but please try to work with the information I can identify and bring on board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Government agencies are encylopedic. The article does need some work, but that is not a reason to delete. Vegaswikian 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above statement. Orangehead 17:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travelsim

[edit]

Deprodded by author, so brought here. Spam. No pretense at anything else. Fan-1967 19:23, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Torres (porn star)

[edit]

This porn actor has credits from 13 videos and doesn't meet the WP:PORN BIO proposals. Not notable. feydey 19:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. The WP:PORN BIO proposals have not been accepted by the community yet. One key point of discussion is that the "100 videos" test would exclude all but one (maybe two) gay porn stars if applied in the way that Feydey is trying to apply it. Are we going to say that Wikipedia does not accept articles on gay porn stars as a matter of policy? This article was nominated for deletion 1 hour and 12 minutes after it was created, leaving very, very little time for it to grow into a worthwhile article. Furthermore, I believe that, as the star of several films that focus on Latino men, he qualifies under Item 8 of the proposed criteria: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." Zeromacnoo 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This nomination should never have happened, nominator really "jumped the gun" on this one.
Before nominating an AfD:
Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a template.

This policy wasn't followed; it couldn't possibly have been given the short time lapse between the creation of the article and its nomination. Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is not applicable, it needs to be finalized and revised to set forth reasonable standards of notability in gay porn. As it stands now, it could only be applied to straight porn; several attempts to change the language in discussion have failed or been ignored. I invite everyone to come back to the table and discuss this on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) page; if that is going to be policy, it needs to be fixed so that it can be used as a criteria for including gay porn stars, not a weapon to elminate all but a handful of them. I'm moving the rest of my comnments here to the Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) page so as to give more editors a chance to consider them; however, I will point out that for the two studios Mr. Torres worked for 2004, his output equalled 16% of Big City Video's entire output for the year and 21% of Raging Stallion Studios' output for that year.—Chidom talk  21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I'll say it again, as has been said many times before, you cannot judge a gay porn performer's output by straight porn standards. As I noted above, Mr. Torres's output for 2004 is hardly "A few movies"; it comprised 16% of the output of one of the studios he worked for, and 21% of the other. Both are niche studios within the gay porn genre (which some would argue is a niche itself); he more than meets the requirement of item 8 in the draft of Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors); his output in his niche has been prolific. You want to use the proposed guidelines, fine—he meets them.—Chidom talk  20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does matter that it's a proposal. The terms of that policy will change before it is approved; this article not meeting the current criteria doesn't mean that it won't in the future. Nominating an article so quickly is against policy and smacks of POV prejudice.—Chidom talk  23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. What I choose to support deletion is up to me. PORN BIO can in fact be used on AfD's and it applies here. The nomination is here for 5 days, if you want it saved, I'd advise you to start working on it. SynergeticMaggot 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If SynergeticMaggot doesn't need a good reason, neither do I. -Smahoney 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposed guideline may not pass since it is biased. It should not be used as a reason to delete, especially where other reasons for notability have been rasied by other editors. Vegaswikian 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is in fact a reason why I decided delete. It does not meet requirements of any bio, let alone the proposed. No awards, has not been in 100 movies, no verification, and non notable. These are all valid reasons why we shouldnt keep every person in the porn industry. SynergeticMaggot 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the star of several films that focus on Latino men, he qualifies under Item 8 of the proposed criteria: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." Zeromacnoo 22:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ciesla

[edit]

bio of apparently not-very-public person, original research, verifiability, potential libel CHE 19:26, 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. Wickethewok 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Askastudent

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB Rklawton 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A google search shows that many schools have implemented an "ask a student" program. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about this one. Also, if we insisted that the article be substantiated with references, I suspect most of it would evaporate. --technopilgrim 20:22, 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 as nonsense. Kimchi.sg 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola Mansion

[edit]

Looks to be nonesense, Google shows no relevant hits. Text hints that it is a joke. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:33, 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 redirected to Super Soaker. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Soaker Max Infusion

[edit]

Non-notable page about a line of water guns. Bad ideas 19:39, 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 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine's lightsaber duels

[edit]

A blow-by-blow description of the fights Palpatine has in the movies. A little too detailed for us I think. DJ Clayworth 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:OR WilyD 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the author actually edited it abit so it aint so detailed. now i think the delete should fail. - jan. 28, Dillion Ryan
This comment was posted by the article's author, who did the 'editing'. Still way too detailed. Still delete. DJ Clayworth 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the author, DILLION RYAN, i presume, shortaned it to one paragraph, detailed, but no too detailed now, KEEP IT
    • Comment. Regardless of the detail, it violates the POV policy. This thing is full of opinion (e.g., "excellent"). No matter what, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every detail on earth. If someone wants to note Palpatine's swordplay skills, he/she/they should do so in Palpatine's article. Travislangley 23:58, 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. Mailer Diablo 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Anupam Rai

[edit]

NN bio - fails WP:BIO Valrith 19:50, 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 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Online

[edit]

Advert/vanity for a non-notable fangame (as per User:A Man In Black). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:50, 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 no consensus, default to keep. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway recordings

[edit]

Delete as vanity/promotional page. Proposed deletion was contested by (Brendaok (talk · contribs)) who's first (and currently only) edit was to remove the template without comment. Article is about Fenway recordings written by Fenwayrecordings (talk · contribs). --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We edited this to make it more neutral, please let us know if there is anything else we can do. We've tried to align this by the standards of entries for other independent record labels.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenwayrecordings (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 Speedy keep, just because the team is Bulgarian, doesn't make them non-notable. - FrancisTyers · 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akademik Sofia

[edit]

NN sports team Valrith 19:55, 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 after a cleanup, and assume good faith that it will be cleaned up and cleared of copyvio problems. Turnstep 06:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LA Freewaves

[edit]

GNU Free Documentation License gives permission to copy. Nobody has attempted to make changes to the article to make it fit the criteria. --Freewaves 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd nomination: Still copyvio. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Copyvio should be handled through WP:CP, but more importantly, this is blatant advertising that does not have a place in the encyclopedia. As far as the copyright issue, permission wasn't asserted properly. Maybe someone experienced in copyright assertions can direct the creating editor on how to assert copyright. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my assertion on WP:CP. I want to debate the claim that this is "blatant advertising." Freewaves is a nonprofit organization that hosts film festivals. Why is there such an outcry when all the page is doing is documenting the founder/director, organization, recent festivals, and recent artists? Put it up to debate.

I decided to change my vote to keep, as long as it's cleaned up. --Bigtop 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I disagree with User:Bigtop and User:Kungfuadam on both issues of copyright violation and the accusation of advertisement. I propose that if LA Freewaves is deleted for "advertisement" then any art event, artists, organization, festival is deemed advertisement. Furthermore, I want to say that User:Kungfuadam did not apporach me to change the text he deemed to be "advertisement" nor did he inform me of what text he believed to be "advertising" upon my request. I believe User:Kungfuadam is abusing his power as an admin and jeapordizing the dissemination of valuable information concerning the art world, especially new media art. I also want to say that there are other wikipedia pages that mention LA Freewaves, and so this is a notable organization/ film festival. User:Freewaves
  • Neutral Delete VERY weak keep As the page current only have a copyvio on it, I cannot give a reasonable answer on this. However, if the page was nothing more than cut and pasted text from another webpage, then by all means delete. I'm convinced now that there is no way to write this article with it being a copyvio, or in such a way that it is unencyclopedic It looks better, but I'm still shaky on this page. Wildthing61476 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked by the Director of LA Freewaves to create this wiki page. She has given me permission to use the material on Freewaves for this purpose. I have submitted this information to WP:CP upon the request of User:kungfuadam. He then proceeded to inform that the article would get deleted anyway because it was "blatant advertising" but did not inform me on what text he accused was advertisement upon my request. --Freewaves 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it's frowned upon to create an article that is just copy and pasted from another website, even if you do have permission to post it. Wildthing61476 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make the page read less like an advertisment and more like an encyclopediac article, then yes and I'll support it. Wildthing61476 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can certainly do that. Is there any way to get the page back up so I can edit? Or should I be doing editing in the temp page? Also, what parts do you think resemble advertising?--Freewaves 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited the LA Freewaves page to discard any subjective words (rhetoric) that might be mistaken for advertising. Look over for yourself in the temporary page. Can someone please restore my page?--Freewaves 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think deleting the entry would deprive future generations of a piece of the Los Angeles underground film scene that otherwise would not be recorded except in print and the festival's website--Freewaves 01:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read the temp file and I'm sorry it STILL reads like the website. Wildthing61476 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, where else could I retrieve information about the organization and festival? The point is I can change all of the text that sounds like rhetoric, but the fact is, Freewaves deserves to be documented, it's part of the history of Los Angeles film festivals. If Sundance is allowed to stay, Freewaves should also be allowed to stay. It should be REVISED NOT DELETED. User:Freewaves

Innstead of censoring information, why don't you guys try to change it to fit your standards?--24.205.22.26 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless cleaned up, removing the massive list of artists, and with reliable sources cited to verify the article and ensure that the group meets WP:ORG guidelines. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extensive changes have been made to the page.--69.232.179.158 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up (assuming it's possible).Weak keep. The /temp page is still full of copyvio from the freewaves site (intro paragraph and whole non-obviously-worded sentences in descriptions of the festivals, for example), is POV and non-excyclopediac ("nibble subversively at the crumbs left by Hollywood"). It's got a large list (not a good sign) of links to external sites (shouldn't be such a major component of the content) that are often NN: instad, consider highlighting a handful of major entries (the winners?). DMacks 06:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Not sure it's notable enough to have a page, but the /temp page seems mostly fixed for my more serious content concerns. DMacks 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've advised User:Freewaves about how he can rework the article to try and remove the copyvio (even so far as to recommend that he immediately submit the article to Peer review for criticism). However, whether the article stays or goes will depend on how much of my (and the PR reviewers') advice he has taken. For the moment, I'll sit on the fence with this one. --JB Adder | Talk 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The temp page has been submitted for peer review.--Freewaves 18:48, 2 August 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 for being that infamous game (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day#That_infamous_game) yet again, with yet another set of people claiming to have invented it. Uncle G 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-surfing

[edit]

This topic has been created and deleted numerous times - including AfD's. It keeps showing up under new names. Feel free to speedy. Rklawton 20:22, 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. JIP | Talk 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art dreco

[edit]

"Movement" that is really advertising for a single nonnotable artist (who is also the page author). NawlinWiki 20:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE BEST MOVEMENT EVER!!!! This is a completely valid form of art and I cry when I think that people thing otherwise! Please keep Art Dreco on Winkopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.238.192 (talk • contribs)

Art Dreco is as good and valid a performance art concept as The Church of the Subgenius, SCHWA, and anything Andy Kaufman ever did including his untimely passing. Its roots can be traced to the very heart and soul of Dada, not to mention Mama - especially YoMama, but I will admit, not YoYoMa who is in fact a cellist. Look it up if you don't believe me. To dismiss Dreco as a conceit by one mad individual does a great disservice to all the other mad individuals who have given so much to the movement - and taken so much from its detractors. The short-sighted criticisms of a few bitter rivals (you know who you are...) only proves my point. Long Live Dreco! When Wikipedia is but a faint bzt bzt bzt echo of cyberdust, I promise you - there will still be Art Dreco. You'll see. We'll show them all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.238.192 (talk • contribs)


As page author I'd like to clear up some misconceptions of some earlier postings.

Art Dreco is not the work of any artist. A cursory look at the Art Dreco Institute website reveals work spread out over two centuries and created on every continent.

Art Dreco is not a commercial or promotional endeavor. The Institute has existed since 1973, has been listed in the Encycopedia of Associations, since 1976 and has been reported on in numerous magazines, newspapers, radio and television programs.

It raises valid aeshtetic, philosophical and artistic issues. In order to value, understand or appreciate this art movement a sense of humor is important... I find this also to be true in life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdrexler (talk • contribs)

Show them the pictures, Paul! Show them the pictures! Then they'll believe in us!! Kitch is a mere mouse flatus in a tornado compared to the depth and texture of the Great Dreco Legacy. I've devoted too much of my waking, non-medicated life to this movement to be dismissed by a pack of effete ivory tower art school poseurs. THIS IS THE REAL DEAL! I AM SOMEBODY!! I was an extra in a commercial with Paul Hogan for Gopod's sake!! Quick, somebody, call Jesse Jackson about this OUTRAGE! Just you wait. Some day, Tachen will do a book about us, and then won't you be sorry, Mister Smartypants. We'll be featured guests on David Letterman while our detractors watch in their dank garrets, eating cold pizza, ramen and lots 'n' lots of CROW! Dreco will not be silenced! Long Live Dreco! "Ah, Dreco - c'est la Roi du Merde" - Marcel Duchamp - Look it up if you don't believe me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.44.247 (talk • contribs) 17:02, July 29, 2006

  • Keep. This is priceless. The concept itself is a work of art. The beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholder. It needs work, but it should not be deleted. Let the authors work on it some more before considering deletion. There are certainly articles less desirable than this one. --Dematt 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of censoring, ignoring or eliminating the definition of an art form such as Art Dreco because of a difference in taste,some personal pique or someones idea of sociopolical/artistic correctness strikes me as reminicent of the recently devolved Soviet attempts to limit its citizens' exposure to and participation in anything but exclusively Kremlin approved art, publications and other personal expression. Such limitation, while growing more dangerously prevalent in these fear driven days of neoconservative domination, are inconsistent with the intention of this republic's original comittment to basic freedom of expression and should be exposed and resisted whenever uncovered. Limitation of intellectual/informational choice is especially ironic and antithetical to the rationale for this Wikipedia's open-source existence. As a University Professor at a northeastern graduate faculty and as a Visiting Professor at a bay area Jesuit university, I have referred to Art Dreco as a jazz-like American art form and listed its Art Dreco Institute as a source and resource in each class syllibus. Its samples and examples communicate the rapidly evolving nature of our creative/production-related culture and helps portray the ideal of individualism in a society moving towards anti-intellectual artistic conformity. Dada had a similar history: obscured at its origins by a totalitarian necessity to demand and define 'realism'. Other historic examples of such artistic limitations include the violence that erupted at the debut of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' and book burnings following the first publication of Allen Ginsberg's 'Howl'. The recent banning and derision of The Dixie Chicks (some of their cd cases having become good Art Dreco examples) by disinformation and censorship along with allegations of anti-patriotic/un-Americanism has unfortunately appeared here (with certain ominous echoes) for those not predisposed to the influence and lessons of history. Art Dreco's proponents and its many collectors are much better sources than I am for in-depth analyses. It clearly has many of its roots in humor and I was happy to be able to find it with some of its best and most classic commentary in this Wickipedia entry. As a suggestion for those who have made its authenticity an issue, I dig back a few decades for a phrase often used by young people directed at adults who were unduly obsessed with their limit and control : "Get a life". Were I to see that homily stitched on linen or stenciled on dayglo paper, I would likely consider it Art Dreco and would likely add it to my personal collection of classics (now including an African-American curb jockey, a rusting change box from the old Los Angeles 'Red Car' street car line....and a collection of backyard incinerator pieces from 1940 pre-smog-abatement back yards now an 'alternative living space' for a family of cats. Art Dreco is where you find it; a most art-lover-friendly form. I was pleased to find the Art Dreco listing here, and hope it remains a part of this valuable collection of information not always available in more limited and restrictive publications. Unreconstructedrebel 02:17, 2 August 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. JIP | Talk 09:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeoos

[edit]

Blatant advertising/spam. Prod removed from author other than original writer of article Wildthing61476 20:49, 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 redirect (redirs are cheap). Wickethewok 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta GT

[edit]

Seems to be made only to have a direct link from Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2, in a piece of info no one's presented evidence on the talk page for to be proved. No merge, as the Vegeta page is so hugely long anything here is already covered in too much plot detail. Voice of Treason 20:57, 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 per nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot 14:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbusted

[edit]

Non-notable local band Dsreyn 20:58, 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 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FindProductReview.com

[edit]

Non-notable spam. Alexa ranking 423,588. Delete per WP:WEB. --Haakon 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Site is a few months old, doesn't seem to have generated any outside interest. Google search returns thousands of hits, but they all seem to be (a) from the website itself or (b) fundamentally the same copy that's here, posted in every forum or site they can find. Fan-1967 21:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google Page Rank comes up 0, MSN Search comes up with 828 sites that link to it - even obscure blogs get better traffic. If the site gets some momentum, then perhaps it should be added back in at a later date. --Tenzing347 14:40, 2 August 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 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Eddy

[edit]

I see no signs that any of this is accurate. Google search finds a blog where Adventure Eddy is published [45], but I can find nothing to corroborate the claims of novels and radio programs. It appears to be vanity and a possible hoax. The blog of the writer, Roland Hulme, has an entry that even validates that this is nothing more than a blog driven creation [46]. IrishGuy talk 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A story featuring Adventure Eddy was published in magazine for students on a summer program in Paris in 2003. Exactly the same story was published in 2004. I believe Roland Hulme was one of the editors of the magazine, so it probably wasn't published because of it's literary merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.58.105 (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 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Accredited Commodity samplers

[edit]

There is nothing to sugest that this organization exists. If it does, nothing on first page of google. See here for other like pages. -Royalguard11Talk 21:20, 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 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric Order of Nihil

[edit]

I was tempted to simply tag this db-nonsense, but it does not quite fit the category. It is certainly nonsensical, as well as being a neologism, hoax, and "something made up in school one day" (possibly while high), and is not at all encyclopaedic. I think we should give them just what they long for: annihilation. Charles 21:24, 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 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Calvin Nguele

[edit]

Nonnotable academic. NawlinWiki 21:35, 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 Super speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Poops

[edit]

Obviously just immature spam. AQHAHAHAHAHA OMG POOP IS SO FUNNY. Grow up people. Newspaper98 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No block - he made a good call by tagging Lugdi devi for speedy, with the reason "who cares?". Indeed it had no assertion of the girl's notability. Kimchi.sg 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Newspaper98's actions are often ill-advised, but I'm not sure it's bad faith we're seeing here, more likely just knee-jerk reactions and failure to consult Google before making a nomination. Crabapplecove 00:47, 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 no consensus, particularly given that the few delete comments were made before clean up. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frickley Colliery Brass Band

[edit]

This article is basically an advertisment and was obvioulsy written by the band, the language is like "we are regrouping" and "other bands in our area" obvioulsy the writer is in the band most likely also the band is not notable SirGrant 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of notability assertion. BigHaz 22:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yomangani 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The question here is whether this band is as notable as say Grimethorpe Colliery Band. If it is then it could be edited to make it respectable. I suspect it is not as notable as the Grimethorpe band, but that is very notable. It is described as being founded as the learner band for Carlton Main Frickley Colliery Band but is now independent. Perhaps it could be merged there. --Bduke 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I have started the process of wikifing and improving the article, adding links, removing "we" and "our" and adding a category. It still needs more work, but it might be recoverable. --Bduke 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a factual article and not an advertisement. Googled the band and found they compete nationally and win prizes, as well as that they have a cd for sale on Amazon.com. The music sample on their website shows a very high standard of musicianship. They appear to be nationally competitive. (I was looking at the site for the Main Frickley etc, not the training band, so no opinion.) There is no rule that only the top couple of bands in Britain can be in WikipediaEdison 03:02, 30 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 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of East Francia / Germany

[edit]

The content is available in identical format with a better introduction, more context, and a more complete list at List of German monarchs. The title of this article is also a poor choice. Srnec 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated Monarchic rulers of Germany, 1806 onwards for the same reasons as above (including the abhorrent title). Srnec 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I, the creator of those pages, made them for various reasons but among them are the following.

A link to King of Germany should not link to the List of German monarchs, because it gives the someone innacurate impression that these persons were German, or even German momarchs the list also gives the false impression of the existence of some "German" superstate from 843 onwards. (The term "german" in it's modern meaning doesn't appear until the late 15th century)

When people click on a link of King of Germany they should not be linked to a page containing German emperors who in some cases lived and entire millenium after they did. No, instead they should be linked to the Kings of Germany, and just that. Note that I'm planning to expands the 2 pages I made, so that they become real articles, instead of semi-lists. Rex 09:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHi, at present there is no encylclopedic value in the two articles nominated by Srnec. If they are turned into redirects in their present form as I recommend, it is reasonable to turn those redirects into full articles when you are able to. I agree with you on King of Germany, note however that it wasn't nominated for deletion and could itself be turned into a full article. The information that is currently contained can always be re-pasted again if it is needed as it exists in the larger List of German monarchs article. Perhaps there would be scope for renaming the main article List of Germanic monarchs. MLA 10:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, I wouldn't rename the list of German monarchs to something with Germanic [...], the meaning of german and germanic are just too different, and the article would just explode.
But I agree with that proposition, they will temporarily be turned into redirects, until I have recreated those 2 articles in a way that they add more value to wikipedia.excellent.
Rex 10:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; useless as redirects as nobody would search for these. Regarding Rex/Sander's point that it is (perhaps) unhelpful to conflate German rulers from all periods, the same could be said for many such lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 30 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SnapNames.com

[edit]

Non-notable service, has a very small discription with many links at the bottom (all external). Created exclusivly by User:Snapnames, so it could very well be an ad. I have nominated this for speedy deletion several times under A3. Brought here to get a general concensus. -Royalguard11Talk 22:49, 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 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LA Casting

[edit]

Article submitted for deletion because it does not appear to be compliant with Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), also it appears to be advertisement. --Jmatt1122 22:55, 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 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Own a piece of america

[edit]

Blattant advert span it seems to me. Mattisse 22:57, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Madinya

[edit]

Not notable, autobiography written by new user. I've notified user of Sandbox. Author continues to delete article, even after MyNameIsNotBob's revert. --Jmatt1122 23:15, 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. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Watts

[edit]

Here is a man who knew some famous people. So do I. Apparently part of an effort to slipstream Johnny Lee Clary (n.b: not Julian Clary) into the project. Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete for notability by association. Potentially, though, a state president of the NAACP may be notable. Not at the moment, mind you. BigHaz 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons explained by JzG. I would be willing to reconsider if a) evidence of greater notability was presented and b) the efforts to turn it into a promotion for Johnny Lee Clary ceased. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Keep after JCarriker's revision, but I must observe that many of the sources used are of less than the highest quality, particularly the one which is a plain-text document saved as a Microsoft Word document. Since it shows itself within the first few paragraphs not to have been checked from grammar mistakes ("who's" when it should be "whose") I can't imagine that it can be considered a terribly reliable source. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not consider any of the sources to be excellent, but I do feel that they are reliable and are all from publications. With the exception of the Newsweek story, I would not add any of them, to say George W. Bush or John Kerry, given the wide availability of source on both men. However, the amount of information available without original research on Watts is rather limited, I feel that in proportion to the topic and difficulty of finding source on him the sources are quite good. The sources also distinguish themselves in that, while there are some discrepancies between them they agree on the basics where their subject matter overlaps.
    • I do not particularly care for that source myself; especially the format the document is in. A better-organized html version of the article appears on the Florida Baptist Witness website. I chose the text document only because it is the original source of the article, but I have no objection to substituting the present version for the html one. The Southern Baptist Press distributes stories to smaller more localized Baptist publications, giving it a very high readership. In spite of the poor archive format and the grammatical error, I think that it can be considered a generally reliable source of information on an article about a Baptist evangelist. These types of grammatical errors are common in smaller publications, and while it may not inspire confidence, for it does not cast doubt on the content of the article just the grammatical compotence of its author. If you have deep concerns about any of the other sources, please bring them to my attention as well. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not sufficiently asserted at present. NawlinWiki 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per jzg /wangi 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: Although anything that gets the nonsense IP "keep keep keeps" like this one really does make me wonder... /wangi 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Info on talk page is material for an article. See Category:John Clary merge. --Uncle Ed 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had no trouble finding sources about Watts independent of Clary's website and have used them to expand his article, complete with inline references. This man served as the leader of the Oklahoma NAACP for sixteen years, and is respected by members of both the civil rights and Baptist communities. He was a major figure in the civil rights movement in Oklahoma. State wide figures are considered notable by wikipedia guidelines. It has been asserted on the article talk page that Watts was a member of LBJ's civil rights commisson. The only online source I found for this was Clary's website, a source that I chose not to use at this time, but I see no reason to question the veracity of the claim. Such accomplishments make him notable in his own right—his connections to more prominent people only makes him more notable and it easier to expand and reference his article. I'd like to ask those that have already voted to please review the current version of the article. -JCarriker 19:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man was very well known in the Civil Rights era. To not allow an article on this man is injustice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.81.114 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-31 13:16:12
  • KEEPDoes it really matter if one promotes another? The Reverend Wade Watts was a civil rights activist and that in itself should be enough to keep the entry in wiki. H has done more for Black America than some other notable people. So I say keep the entry. (VRM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.45.101 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-31 13:17:36
  • KEEP! Rev. Watts was a wonderful man who did so much for civil rights in OK and elsewhere, how could you even consider deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.147.70 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-31 14:53:54
  • Keep A state head of the NAACP for sixteen years is notable and per User:JCarriker.--Dakota 15:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above statement. Orangehead 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that watts is a great man, look at the hatred made towards him and how he overcame. He has been an inspiration to many, including the former leader of the KKK Johnny Lee Clary, who says Watts was instrumental in his conversion to christianity and rejection of Klan policy. He is quite famous, but because it is pre Net days we must look deeper. Potters house 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Note: Potters house (talk · contribs) is the article's author.[reply]
But I only created it, I didn't make what is written now, see history. Potters house 15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antaeus Feldspar is aware of that; he means that you are the creator of the article. In the future, please be sure to mention that you have worked on or created an article when you vote on its deletion. Thanks. -JCarriker 16:02, 2 August 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_27&oldid=1116775174"