Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 12 June 14 >

Purge server cache

June 13

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a nonsense page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53.2

[edit]
  • Delete Provides absolutly no information at all, not important enough to have an article Lorty 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even have the little information it has right

Chipka 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy lumpkins

[edit]

Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to speedily keep. This should be taken to WP:RFD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdyruff

[edit]

Delete. No one will ever type this into the Wikipedia search engine. They should know the full name. Marcus 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Morgan Wick 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhong(UK)

[edit]

This seems to be someones joke page. ScottNestle 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 10:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Bartosh

[edit]

I hate to AfD an article right after the subject's died, but this page seems to be a memorial. It was created just after the death, and is the only page the author has edited. I don't think the subject is notable, but I'm hoping some people who know more about computers than me will have some more informed opinions. I'll abstain, for now. djrobgordon 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Keep* Computer authors and experts are notable enough, at least as notable as cricket players. It mainly needs more information about his achievements.Williamb 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination, article is featured on main page as todays featured article. --

Banana04131 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Actually the bad faith nomination of Phil Collins (todays featured article) actually just links hear. Disregard my previous vote. Banana04131 00:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. -- Kicking222 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An IP vandal put AfD notices on a bunch of pages, including the aforementioned Phil Collins article, but the "this article's entry" link points here. I'm fixing them as I find them. GentlemanGhost 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This was a person who was a well regarded technical expert in the Mac community. He co-wrote the authoritative technical book for Mac OS X Server. At the time of his death he was employed by Apple as a consultant in Japan. He was a former Apple employee who Apple regarded high enough to actually hire as a consultant (something Apple rarely does). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.58.160 (talk • contribs)

It is quite the norm that people are recognized for what they did when they die because of the amount of media attention reporting the death. — Wackymacs 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:Bio.Englishrose 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Wencer 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable24.27.202.53 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have a guideline for this: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Those voting "delete, non-notable", please explain why you believe he does not qualify for this. Those who want the article kept, providing sources that show he passes this guideline would be helpful. — Haeleth Talk 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is obviously sufficiently notable according to WP:BIO guidelines. Silensor 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well within the confines of Wikipedia's policies. Kthejoker 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bartosh was a very well known and respected author, consultant, and trainer. The AFP548.com posting about his death received over 14,000 viewings in less than 24 hours.Macshome 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that this article passes WP:BIO. I found no evidence of multiple non-trivial publications written about him. For those who contend that he does meet WP:BIO, please explain why. Adambiswanger1 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Adambiswanger1 - the above arguments for the article passing WP:BIO are based on the 'Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work' section, not the 'The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)' section.--Briantemple 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True. That's actually the criterion I meant to use. I did spend about 10 minutes searching Google earlier, and I could not find any independent reviews other than those buyer feedbacks on Amazon.com. Wakemp has provided a review though, which is helpful to your case. In any event, I don't feel strongly about the delete, so I'm not going to pointlessly push my case. Thanks Adambiswanger1 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the books that are being used as the reason for 'notability' are widely regarded as definitive in their subject, which is common for O'Reilly titles. reviewed at Slashdot In Addition, Michael was a speaker at major conferences for O'Reilly and Apple over a the last 7 years. Archive presentation at Macenterprise.org Wakemp 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published author, noted computer expert, sounds like enough to stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.250.26 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep AFP548.com has a review of his book as well. [1]. Multiple reviews - here are some more [2][3] - try this google search if you need more [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.188.173.253 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • *Keep* Why? From the guidelines; The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field: Within his field of Macintosh support and development, this is absolutely the case - his book 'Essential Mac OS X Panther Server Administration', published by O'Reilly (O'Reilly Media of course being considered the quintessential and ultimate source for technical resources) was considered the "bible" and last word on the subject. While it's difficult to provide sources that verify with certainty that he was respected within the community (unless you join the lists he frequented and contributed to), he regularly assisted fellow Macintosh support and development professionals with technical issues and his contribution is vast, articulate, accurate and on the whole, unquestionable. His articles, posts to lists and multiple presentations, seminars and training sessions are most certainly widely recognized within his field and in many cases archived for future reference by the community.
    Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work: Reviews: [5] [6] [7] [8]
    Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? Absolutely. Though there are more hits that are obituary-related now, even before his death, the subject had tens of pages full of unique hits. This is only a man "not notable" to those outside his profession, just as Marc Okrand is not notable to those neither nerd nor linguist. 216.254.21.13 05:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Strong Keep*, his contributions to the OS X community are very notable, along with the reasons to keep listed by other members. --Aika 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

He seems to be notable enough to have an effect on society through computer software, if not than might as well get rid of people like Charles O'Hea who ever he is. Enlil Ninlil 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh McFarland

[edit]

Vanity entry, entirely non-notable: googling "josh mcfarland" poker turns up one college link 2005 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agile work

[edit]

this doesnt look like itll ever be encyclopedic even with a lot of work. just a list of instructions at the moment. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tier Ethics

[edit]

Searching for "Mark Ballard" "tier ethics" is a google wack, only shows the wikipedia page; searching for "tier ethics" with google gives 53 hits, most of which use the concept in a different way that use in the article. -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for CosMedic Rejuvenation and Wellness

[edit]

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP. mtz206 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertisement, is non-notable. Ted 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is an advertisement. - Richardcavell 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first article so please let me know how to ammend it. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awennar (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless it is of particular historical or other significance, it doesn't merit its own page. I would also recommend to the nominator a similar page, Paradise Day Spa and Bath House, which is essentially an ad despite its opening by the Mayor and assertions of historical importance. The problem is that there is simply nothing notable about this particular center which would merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia - see WP:NOT and WP:CORP if you are not quite familiar with policies. Maybe it will be significant one day, or maybe it is and needs to be rewritten to assert what it is that makes it so. But for now, it doesn't belong here. Jammo (SM247) 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand and thank-you to everyone for their guidance. It turns out that this business is notable as it will shortly be the first medical spa in the United Stated to become professionally accredited...I'll add this information and hopefully it will be helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awennar (talk • contribs)

Here's the scoop They will be the first accredited spa in the US within the next month or so...which they believe will start a trend that will revolutionize the spa industry...that's all I got folks. Thanks again for the input. Awennar 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited by IMAPC (see article...there is a link). Apparently they are "the" accreditation organization for legal mail-order pharmacies and medical spas in the USA. They perform extrememly rigorous off- and on-site inspections depending on certain criteria.....Awennar 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hailstone and the Electric Company

[edit]

Article appears to be a vanity band page and does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Bumm13 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel (song)

[edit]

Song only appeared on an album, not a single -- Koffieyahoo 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Mo0[talk] 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle-time overhead

[edit]

Protologism. Though defined as a standard by the "International Intangible Management Standards Institute" (which itself doesn't seem very notable [9]), the term doesn't appear to have caught on. Google search returns no hits for this term that correspond with this definition [10]. Article created by User:Kenstandfield whose primary edits lately have been to promote himself, his books, and his institute. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - let's discuss on this AfD's talk page. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related Protologisms:

Please discuss all 4. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scale Expanding Cosmos

[edit]

A non-notable theory by a non-notable engineer (just tagged that nn-bio); no interest in this theory beyond the publications of the author. Sdedeo (tips) 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Day Spa and Bath House

[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Fails WP:CORP (despite being "heralded as the first of its kind in Queensland." --mtz206 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Sally

[edit]

Non-Notable Band Alan 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awcomix

[edit]

Self-published comics, nonnotable NawlinWiki 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Paly Voice

[edit]

Originally tagged as a {{prod}} as a non-notable website. Tag removed without explanation by original creator of article. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. Only 5 ghits. Agent 86 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable student journalism venture. Jammo (SM247) 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Look, I am new at this whole wikipedia thing. Do not delete it please. I'd appreciate help, not you guys trying to delete this page. "Non-notable?" Wikipedia is full of non-notable stuff. Seriously guys, I removed the tag without explanation because I didn't know I was supposed to explain myself. There is nothing wrong with the page. Check it out yourself! Before you try to delete it, can you please tell my why it is "non-notable?" --Sro 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
  • Comments Whether the page is well written is not in dispute here. What has been asserted is that the page breaches one or more official policies or conventions for the inclusion and removal of articles from Wikipedia. In some cases, the very premise of the article is in dispute, and no amount of quality improvements will save it. This is the case here, as the article is apparently about a non-notable student journalism group. It has an insufficient profile, fails a number of basic tests e.g. the Google Test and cites no sources other than its own website. Notability depends on who you talk to (I doubt you would find infrequently served Australian railway stations notable, but there are reasons for including them); however, there is a lower threshold for notability that this article has not met. Please don't take it personally, as you seem to be an interested editor who can contribute to other projects. Also, please don't remove prods without explanation. Jammo (SM247) 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn student webpage. Sro -- no offense, but do read WP:WEB. Sdedeo (tips) 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Keep. Woah, hey, whaddaya know but it seems to be a student-made website that does satisfy WP:WEB! Sdedeo (tips) 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (Just to be clear: won a Webby, as well as a non-vanity award from NSPA. Sdedeo (tips) 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep notable per WP:WEB and the webby [12]. blue520 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fair enough. Jammo (SM247) 02:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search provides 154,000 hits. I didn't look past the first 2000 but every single one of those came from http://voice.paly.net. --Danielrocks123 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WEB and get back to us. Sdedeo (tips) 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis added).
allllllmost there... keep reading... to the second possible criterion. Let us know what you find. Sdedeo (tips) 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you to everyone who said keep. To everyone who wanted to delete the page, I am not quite sure I yet understand why you want to delete the page. From what I gather, some of you think that the facts could be faulty. Just click on each of the links I provide under the Awards section to bring you to the "Webby" page and "Pacemaker" page which both tell you that the journalism site in question has indeed won both awards. I've read all of the links that you have provided me above and still do not understand what is wrong with this page. Thanks for the support. Here is more external info that I can put on the page if you want me to: http://voice.paly.net/press.php --Sro 05:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
I striked out your Keep as you voted already above.--Andeh 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. Thank you Mr. Andy :)--Sro 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
Jammo - in the beginning you voted "delete" and later you voted "keep." I certainly hope (and presume) it is the latter, but which will it be?--Sro 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
Sorry Sro, an oversight on my part. My apologies, my keep is the effective one. Jammo (SM247) 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for standing by me --Sro 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These Afd's usually last 5 days, (maybe a bit longer if there's an admin backlog). BTW these aren't votes there debates. Some people tend to be pretty touchy about referring to these as votes. If there is a consensus to delete it goes if not it stays Ydam 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete not notable at all, unless you only count what the people in The paly voice think. I suspect the majority of keep votes here are coming directly from mmebers of this paly voice group. Trm3 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article and WP:WEB and get back to us. Sdedeo (tips) 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please rememeber to WP:AGF Ydam 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trm3 has good reasoning to suspect that some of the keep votes of this discussion are belonging to people involved with the Paly Voice. A Google search, correlating to Danielrocks123's comment above, will show that the site generates very few relating articles, all of which are directly connected to the operations of the Paly Voice. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

(Record playing.) Please read WP:WEB and the article. Webby == automatic "keep". Sdedeo (tips) 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contary, accusing a majority of the keep voters on here of being directly involved with the Paly Voice is uncivil. Anybody can check the user contributions of these editors and see that they are long time contributers. Attempting to discredit dissenting opinions by throwing around unfounded allegations is uncalled for Ydam 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had you noticed, it wasn't my presumption in the first place, and it's not uncivil to call into question perticular votes when suspicion is aroused. That is all. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
Just so that you all know, no other people who have spoken in this "thread" besides me are from The Paly Voice. As Ydam said, look at the backgrounds of the people saying "keep." Furthermore, the people saying keep have a legitimate reason to keep (the Webby Award). Come on now, no argumentum ad hominems. --Sro 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. Frankly, it's now got to the stage where the creator of this crap is being disruptive (he's done it a lot more than once), which I can consider vandalism, which shall be speedied. Proto||type 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off Puente

[edit]

Non-notable band, content in article is largely false. (May meet speedy deletion criteria.) -- ChrisB 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse video

[edit]

Discusses the act of inverting the colors in an image. I don't know as much about computers as some people do, but this sounds unencyclopedic. Hasn't seen a single major edit since it was created a year ago. See also negative (photography). --Smack (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs more work but contains useful material. BlueValour 02:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BlueValour --Danielrocks123 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't this the same as inverting an image?--Andeh 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. crystal-ballism that more work on article will do anything good. Tychocat 09:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef per Tychocat. Also, it's unsourced and I wonder where it all came from. Kimchi.sg 10:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's essentially a dicdef now, but could be more. Essentially a stub. Ace of Sevens 12:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dict def, and WP:NOT a how-to guide. Proto||type 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an editor/filmmaker, I can tell you that this is wicked an inverted image. I couldn't find an article on the topic, so we could just change the title and wording. I'd be more than happy to help. It's a wicked fun and cool thing to use. Yanksox 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Yanksox makes a good point: as a special effect used in many areas of the visual arts, one can imagine a decent article being written on this subject, simply by covering where and why it's been used. While what we have now is not such an article, it's no worse than many small stubs. The "dicdef" principle really applies only where there is no potential for expansion. This should either be kept, or if the subject is already covered in another article, it should be redirected there; but there is no good reason to delete it. — Haeleth Talk 17:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It may be better to discuss this as a section at Image editing. However, if we do keep it, we should probably rename it to Reverse image. --Smack (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, I have to disagree with the interpretations of most editors who have weighed in above here. I don't think the point of the Reverse video article is a TV or movie effect; it's talking about what happens on a computer screen when you highlight text so that, for example, what had been black text on a white background becomes white text in a black box against a white background. (To see what I mean, click and drag with your mouse over just about any text on this page.) This effect has been around in computers for a long time and was even more common back in the days of 8-bit computers, when it wasn't practical to have on-screen effects like italics and underlining, but it was possible to have the effect described in the article stand in for one of them. At the risk of suggesting how old I am, I used to use the AtariWriter word processing software which showed text on the screen in reverse video when that text was going to be underlined on paper. This is not a dicdef; it's a stub. Vadder 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I read your comments and see what you mean. I still think we could change this to an article about inverted video, which seems to be the most proper use of the page. Yanksox 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering one reason not to do that: pages that currently link to this article should expect it to be about computers, so the links will be wrong if the basic subject matter of this article changes to videography. Vadder 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about a disamb? Yanksox 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A disamb would be good, as long as somebody goes to all the pages linking to Reverse video and points them appropriately past the disamb. Vadder 03:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kondremul

[edit]

This article is basically just one sentence at the beginning, a list of ingredients, and two uses for this medicine, and it all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle —Mets501 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, these names are in roughly alphabetical order. Either the editor is very neat in his medicine cabinet, or this is an experiment! Shenme 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cepestat

[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anacin

[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

holdthefrontpage

[edit]

advertisement, POV Luigivampa 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blash

[edit]

No information given about notability, site has a low Alexa ranking. If his song was chosen this may be notable, but it wasn't. Crystallina 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caldesene

[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Olsen

[edit]

Article does not establish any grounds for notability, seems to fail WP:BIO Yamla 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie role was her only movie role - and it was a bit part, and the film was certainly not a success. The only other credits consisted of a few, low-rated, 30 minute "adventures" shows where she played kid sister to the twin-leads. The salient point here is that she has no career of her own. Rklawton 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castles Society

[edit]

From time to time, I have come across articles with links to this page, which is written in a vainglorious fashion. Checking the "What links here", I went through the pages where it was listed and investigated whether it would be appropriate to link to a badly written article. The link was something copied and pasted in as it fell out of format with all other links in the "See also" sections of the various pages. Ignoring that aspect, it fell totally out of place when considering the content of the various articles (palaces, new construction, etc) and I thought it appropriate to remove the link case by case. Each case proved to necessitate the removal of the link. The article itself really should be deleted. It is unencyclopedic and even if expanded, it isn't a notable topic. The vague term "castle preservation" redirects to it, created by the creator of the Castles Society page himself. I consider the page to be an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Some of the pages that formerly linked are below:


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathi (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Last AfD had absolutely no hint of discussion whatsoever and resulted in a soft redirect, which I don't find appropriate. Anyways, the soft redirect was reverted because the transwiki move apparently wasn't done properly. It's since been done. TheProject 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finaghy Primary School

[edit]

Non-notable primary school with no professed achievements. BlueValour 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "If you aren't interested... don't read" is not a very nice thing to say on wiki. No one can assume that only school students and alumni would read the article. Who's to stop someone that clicks Special:Randompage from landing on the article? Kimchi.sg 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons above. David L Rattigan 10:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Peripitus. Although I don't buy the idea that all schools are notable solely because they exist, a school that is 72 years old surely has a history long enough to be encyclopedic - it couldn't have been quietly collecting dust in that time. Delete the claim of the school being founded in 1934 is unsourced. Not even their website mentions it. [16] This erases my argument for keeping the article. Kimchi.sg 11:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Belfast Education and Library Board say it was founded in 1934 [www.belb.org.uk/publications/354.pdf ]. No particular reason for the schools own site to mention it - they don't have a History section. Dlyons493 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, their web site does mention it. --Rob 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Finaghy, as per the consensus reached on WP:SCH, which everyone promptly seemed to ignore. Wah wah, delete, delete, keep, keep, and every school, no matter how good an article, or how shitty, ends up as no consensus, and yet people still vote. What a waste of time. The article on the location the school is in needs WAY more work on it than the school article, and it's way more important, but people would rather edit the one on the school to prove some kind of stupid point. Proto||type 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, the article on Finaghy is so stubby and short, I've just merged the school article into it, as common sense and WP:SCH dictated. No doubt some fool will revert because it 'hadn't been discussed on the talk page', but I do not care. Proto||type 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try actually clicking on WP:SCH, and see what's at the link you gave. Your unilateral action has been undone. Please read what the {{AFD}} notice says. Given that you haven't read WP:SCH in a long time, have no idea it 's tagged as rejected, you may wish to be cautious about use of the words "stupid" and "fool". --Rob 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, considering you yourself said - on Wikipedia_talk:Schools#Time_to_retire_this - I think changing the redirect may be a bad idea, as it retroactively changes the meaning/context of somebody's archived comments, such as "Do something per WP:SCH, that's a fairly astonishing bit of doublethink. Good work. Shortcuts should be immutable for that very reason, and whoever changed it shouldn't have. No matter. I stand by my vote - merge this unencyclopaedic yellow pages garbage on a school for under-10s into the article on the locality, as god knows it needs expanding. Proto||type 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the "doublethink". I see somebody who made an entirely understandable mistake, which would have been ignored, and sympathized with, if not for the use of insulting terms. --Rob 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I shouldn't get involved with school 'articles'. They just make me cross, as people seem passionately unable to compromise, in either direction. Bah, I'm going back to not having anything to do with them. Proto||type 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article had a prior AFD in June 2005 which resulted in a keep. --Rob 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per well and long established precedent. Jcuk 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndale Primary School

[edit]

Non-notable primary school with no listed achievements. BlueValour 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. Frankchn 02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Hooperbloob 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a school and that is notable. --Kev62nesl 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable, no real content either. I'd say high schools are notable, but not primary schools. --Rory096 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rory096. --Coredesat 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Schools are not automatically notable. Tychocat 09:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can someone please explain the logic behind the argument 'high/secondary schools are notable, but primary/elementary are not'? Bear in mind that for many communities around the world, only 'elementary' education is available. Markb 09:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose to me at least it's the maturity level of the students. High Schools are often a place where strong memories are formed; where the beginnings of a trade are learned, and they are typically larger institutions than primary/elementary schools—often graduating tens of thousands of students while they are in service. So I think there's a weak case for High Schools being called notable. I don't see one for primary/elementary schools, unless they're unique in some respect. — RJH (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't buy the notion that any schools, high schools included, have automatic, inherited "notability" or worthiness for an article. One could make a reasonably logical argument though for the cultural importance of high schools in American/Canadian culture as pointed out by RJH. 30 years from now, people will still be attending High School Reunions... nobody formally gets together with the people they attended middle/jr high with. Also consider that HS is the first level of schooling that gives students some sort of usable certification of learning (i.e. a diploma). Of course IMO, having a hard cutoff for HS leads into the possibility of systemic/cultural bias as pointed out by Markb above. Of course to me, it is preferable to judge each article on it's actual merits rather than blanket "school = keep" or "school = delete".--Isotope23 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potential for expansion, and Wikipedia isn't paper. David L Rattigan 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although it has been around since 1956 (according to the school's website [17] it appears to be devoid of notable past events or interesting features. In other words, non-notable. Kimchi.sg 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while precedent has established that high schools are inherantly notable the same is not true of primary schools. Ydam 10:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable has been asserted or found about this primary school. Re: Ydam's comment, I'd like to know where a precedent has been set that high schools are inherently notable. - Motor (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents. I don't necessarily agree that high schools are inherently notable but nearly every one that comes to AFD gets kept. I would call that a precedent. Ydam 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the school AFDs resulting in "no consenus" is hardly what I'd call setting a precedent for being inherently notable. But this isn't the place to discuss it so... - Motor (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a consensus and a precedent though, for instance legal rulings don't have to be unanimous by judges/juries to set a precedent, but anyway we digress... Ydam 13:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary schools in the UK cover reception and years 1 - 6, that's up to age 11. A pupil spends more time in primary school than in secondary schools, with a leaving age of 16. Markb 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Police Cadet Corps/Dragon & Lion Dance Troupe

[edit]

Two extracurricular activities at a school (apparently in Hong Kong); school clubs are nonnotable in themselves NawlinWiki 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to Yoshi's Story. JPD (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's Story tech demo

[edit]

Second nomination, but first under new title. I argue that even if tech demos were applicable to be articles, consider this - it may be that this is a notable tech demo, but it is also another thing - a port. It is known that it is Yoshi's Story, and thusly, like any other port, should not be included as its own page. If the Breath of Fire Game Boy Advance port does not warrant its own page, then even if a tech demo was deserving of being its own article, it's the same as Yoshi's Story, but on a different system. The article should be deleted, as it is an obscure title that people will likely not visit. It does not need any more mention than on Yoshi's Story's page. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Self Determination

[edit]

Seems like original thought &/or opinion. It is *not* one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points as stated in the article. I can't think of how to edit this into something usable. NawlinWiki 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Timmins

[edit]

Non-notable individual/possible vanity Alan 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deviant Realms

[edit]

Leads to a small set of private servers of no great significance; vanity article -- DarkLordSeth 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EightStar

[edit]

Delete This is clearly an advertisment. information written and sourced entirely by company. Librarianofages 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity - what search string are you using ? this search brings back about 10k results. Are you excluding similar results ? Megapixie 05:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That search give 225 distinct Ghits by my count - just go to the last one. The seach I did myself was just for EightStar. Dlyons493 Talk 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, to be fair searching for DeBeers only brings back 770 unique ghits. DeBeers and Diamond brings back 713. Admittedly it brings back 398,000 non-unique hits. So I don't think the uniqueness criteria is that great an idea - since are we saying that this company is 1/4 as notable as DeBeers ? That's still pretty notable. Megapixie 13:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G4, already deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Streets in London

[edit]

Too trivial Geopgeop 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete with witty Family Guy reference. DS 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vodka stinger with a whiskey back

[edit]

Delete. Mentioned only once on an episode of Family Guy; doesn't warrant its own article —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice One

[edit]

This page has been on WP:PNT for two weeks, and only the first couple of lines are in English (added by someone other than the author, apparently.) From what I can read in the article, this person is a DJ, and is notable if the claims in the article are true (but they're unsourced.) Unless someone is willing to translate this and elevate it above the vanity it looks like right now, I think this should be deleted, without prejudice towards recreation (in English.) Grandmasterka 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's way more in there than that though. Not a db-bio, but needs to be verified, cleaned up and have the vanity taken out if translated. (Which doesn't look like it will happen.) Grandmasterka 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Newton

[edit]

not notable; one of the least notable Duke basketball players in recent memory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedog423 (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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegularity

[edit]

This article is a barely anthing more than an elaborate dictionary entry. To make matters worse, it was created by Ray Crowther, the same person who invented the word just two years ago. A google search for the term turns up only 167 results, and the article also seems to be doing some advertising for http://pegularity.org.uk/ which isn't even worthy of an Alexa rank. --Hetar 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A8) – Gurch 11:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Left to Lose

[edit]

Lack of notability Article is the summary of one band's history. See WP:MUSIC for policies on bands. Interlingua talk 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic_anti-Semitism

[edit]

This article seems to have been created for the sole purpose of creating a "counter" to the New anti-Semitism article. It consists entirely of OR (such as the false claim that 'Classic anti-Semitism refers to the the political right's attempts to ..." as well as "Examples" which are irrelevant to "Classical anti-Semitism Isarig 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was boldly redirected by User:Kevin1243 to sex organ. Proto||type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peepee

[edit]

Unencyclopedic article on a slang term. History shows that it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, and I can't see how it can be made into a useful encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 04:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected, so this just needs to be closed. Kevin 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Oaks Co-op, Vancouver

[edit]

Article is minutiae about some multiple-unit housing complex, is in no way encyclopedic. Bumm13 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily kept after the article has been rewritten to be about the actual person. Any debate about whether he is encyclopaedic would go through a seperate AFD (and I don't think it will, though) Proto||type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Ruff

[edit]

Delete. This page is about Edgar Winter, not Chuck Ruff. There is no need to move the article, however, because the page Edgar Winter is identical. --Danielrocks123 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about a totally different person. A redirect would be inappropriate because someone searching for Chuck Ruff probably does not want a page about a different person. --Danielrocks123 05:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was other consensus to delete, but as this has been merged to Shorewood, Wisconsin apparently, we need to preserve the article history so I'm redirecting there. W.marsh 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek's Pharmacy

[edit]

Yes, we've gotten to the point where we need a vote to decide whether the neighbourhood pharmacy is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Harro5 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that in the history. Am I looking in the wrong place? Kevin 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Rename and Keep Eluchil404 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gated Reverb

[edit]

Delete original research. --Danielrocks123 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have no idea about sound editing, but this appears to be a bona fide notable technique (see the 21,700 Google hits). Needs cleanup and sourcing, though. Sandstein 04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (But I would say that wouldn't I!) I added this because there was a poorly written paragraph on the Genesis page referring to "reverse Noise Gate" which I changed to the correct term "Gated Reverb" wikified & then found out there wasn't a page for it. Created the page because it's one of the all time classic drum recording techniques, added a couple of categories, wandered off rationalising the categories on a number of other webpages related to sound recording techniques & when I returned to Gated Reverb I found it was marked for deletion. Well, 10/10 for speed, 0/10 for actually GOOGLING, finding out it IS a legit technique & then helping me by making some changes so it does meet quality standards. I've added a few links to other internet articles on the subject hopefully to pacify the "original research" nazi. I agree with Sandstein that it needs a cleanup but it's a really trivial matter to verify that this is not original research so let's untag it. In future, DanielRocks123, there's this way cool website called Google that can stop you looking stupid ;) Megamanic 04:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I first marked this page for deletion I had done a google search that produced a lot of hits that seemed to be advertisements. If this technique is actually a legitimate technique then I stand corrected, although I would suggest citing some sources. In addition, please refrain from calling people Nazis as somebody could get quite offended. Thanks. --Danielrocks123 05:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, no offense intended. Didn't see any advertisments myself on Google. Lots of references to things like "I am trying to create the gated reverb effect - used on many productions like Genesis and ..." The first article listed is to a reputable recording magazine (Sound On Sound) with the following Quote:- Probably the simplest form of change you can add to reverb is to call up a gated setting. This has no natural counterpart, so the abrupt cessation of reverb at the end of the gate period attracts attention. Getting a gated reverb sound is usually just a matter of calling up a suitable preset or creating your own patch using the editing parameters in your effects, but it can help to keep in mind how the effect was originally engineered.
The gated effect was first applied to drums, and involved putting up ambience mics in a very live room to capture the reverb sound. These mics were then fed through a conventional stereo gate, which was externally keyed from the close mics on the drum kit. Setting a hold time of half a second or so, followed by a fast release time, causes the gate to allow only the first half second of reverb to pass though after each drum hit, before closing again. Figure 1 shows how gated drums can be created using the traditional method. A compressor was often used to maintain the level of the reverb, and this is shown in the illustration. The result is the gated drum sound that has become something of a cliché, though the effect doesn't have to become stale if you use it sparingly.
Which is pretty much what I put in the article. My point is that you went off half cocked. I'm happy to admit the article needs work, I'm a computer programmer/Musician not a copywriter Jim. I contributed it with the intention of seeing it evolve & hopefully improve with the contributions of others. I'm delighted to accept the suggested name change to lose the Camel Caps (and I note this for any articles I may add in the future) but I want you to be a little more discerning when it comes to tagging articles for deletion - especially in areas that you aren't knowledgable. The fact that it was tagged within 2 minutes of creation puts an absolute limit on how long you could have spent researching before making the decision... Megamanic 09:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...to err is human: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs)


I've "Moved" Gated Reverb to Gated reverb as that's the concensus of just about everybody & it makes sense. I've done a little bit more cleanup but I'm not best qualified to do this so it's over to the community. I'm new to this stuff, how long before we lose the deletion tag? Megamanic 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for the discussion but although Flanging is an exemplary article it would be very hard to do the same thing with Gated reverb as it's what I would call a "derived" effect (the result of chaining two effects one after the other) whereas Flanging is a particular type of delay effect. If you examine anything you're going to do to a sound it drops into one of two camps - alteration (probably not the right term) or delay. A distortion pedal basically hard clips the signal which is an easy example of altering the timbre whereas a 1 second digital delay is a clear example of the latter. Flanging is the result of a very short delay and the way I remember from my copy of "The Digital Delay Handbook" it goes 1-3ms = Phasing, 4-10ms = Flanging, then in through Chorusing & ADT to slapback echo so maybe we need an article on the theory of signal processing that brings all of these primary & secondary effects together & more importantly is linked to by all of these articles. Megamanic 08:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 SEC Tournament Championship Game

[edit]

Are there very many articles about individual games? I'm a big college sports fan, but I have a little problem with recaps of individual games other than maybe national title games. Even then, if we're talking basketball, there's an article on each year's tournament itself, so you don't really need a separate article about the game. (Also, please note that this article is about the women's basketball championship game, so it should probably be renamed if it is kept.) I will not oppose a speedy keep if there is otherwise overwhelming consensus for a keep ... I just think that individual game articles set a dangerous crufty precedent (as much as I hate that word). BigDT 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as apparent hoax. DS 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Age of the Feathered Serpent

[edit]

There is no such 'golden age' known or recognised by Mayanist scholarship- 1st C. AD would place this in the preclassic era, and there's nowhere near enough known about the details of this period to support any such claim. If not an actual hoax or piece of fiction, it is possible that this is some poor distillation of some LDS account somewhere speculating about this period/region. Even if so, it is better covered somewhere like Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, but I really don't see anything salvagable or sensible here. Delete, as unverified, not useful, and wrong. cjllw | TALK 04:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. That's right, I'm being bold. It's a hoax, it's A7, and if there is a claim to notability, it's a hoaxy one, and I chose to ignore any such claims for the greater good. Proto||type 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyran Million

[edit]

This article about a musician included various faked references (for example, a link to an article in Rolling Stone which turned out to be about a completely different band), which have since been removed from the article. This leaves the rest of the article as unverifiable, vanity, and/or a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this person satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off Puente, where his band's article has been submitted for deletion too. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Morrison

[edit]

Procedural nomination. I noticed the redlinked AFD and that an IP user User:213.122.69.118 had added it to the list and tagged the article with a prod (rather than an AFD). I switched it to an AFD and created this page. As for looking at the article itself, it certainly appears to be more than a vanity page ... can someone familiar with British politics comment on whether this is a real/notable individual or just someone's wishful thinking? No vote. BigDT 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is clearly a vanity entry with no credible references. Where is Morrison mentioned in any detail any printed books, for instance, that deal with the Far Right in the UK? True, he has one passing reference in one book, and that is all. Does that merit an entry, here, though? (If I am in error, somene correct me.) He is a very minor figure on the Far Right, famous for the amount of times he has created or been part of some organization, which then splits because of him or which he re-names or which he disbands. Are we going to include every minor figure in politics who gets one reference in one book? 213.122.78.162 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just called him 'famous' ... Dogville 07:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is regularly covered in Searchlight Magazine, although given that their website is pretty poor most of the articles are not on there. I've left my copies at home but I'll sort out referencing in the near future if that is the problem. His propensity for starting and stopping movements is, to an extent, indicative of the fractured nature of the far right in Britain rather than his own lack of notability. The fact that he is covered in books as far apart chronologically as that of Ray Hill and Nick Ryan's Homeland indicates his longevity on the far right, another important aspect of his notability. Therefore he is definitely notable enough for an article. Keresaspa 12:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intangible accounting

[edit]

I was unable to find prominent news reports or academic papers not associated with Ken Standfield, who is credited with creating the term(and who wrote the article). Therefore, I judge it to be a neologism which has failed to catch on in the wider world of economics, and it's inclusion in Wikipedia to be an attempt at self-promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Intangible accounting is real, but not strongly associated with Ken Standfield. See, for example, International Accounting Standard 38 - Intangible assets. This is a hot issue in the accounting community, covering issues such as how to value development costs of computer software, but the article here seems to be about something else entirely. Standfield is trying to figure out how to deal with accounting for non-financial items. This is a real subject. See, for example, Attention economy; you can run out of attention separately from money, because you can't buy time. But Standfield's take on this seems to be off in another direction. I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems to be a reuse of a known term for a new idea. There could be an article on this subject, but it will need a neutral party with accounting expertise to write it. --John Nagle 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation matches my very foggy understanding of accounting. It says, for example, that assets can be valued only if "it is probable that the future economic benefits that are attributable to the asset will flow to the enterprise; and the cost of the asset can be measured reliably." In other words, it is very clearly concerned with the dollar value of intangible assets, and their role in financial transactions, just like everything else in accounting. The article we're discussing talks about "non-financial transactions" and is, as you say, something completely different. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are numerous articles and books on intangible assets such as brands, but the direction here is purely self-serving. I do agree with above comment that an independant article with wider references would be welcome. Nelson50 09:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite per Nelson50. --Coredesat 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've removed the Standfield stuff and what remains seems valid enough to me (I am not an accountant). Accounting for intangibles is a valid field - hopefully someone will add to this article in a factual way. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Nagle's comment above, and mine. I don't think this article is a valid description of how intangibles are treated in standard accounting. That is, what is being called "intangible accounting" is not "standard accounting practices for intangibles." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right - why not just make the appropriate changes? If you get it roughly right now it can improve over time. The topic seems worth an article. Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless provided with good, verifiable source citations, prior to expiration of AfD discussion showing that this is a currently accepted discipline. I know very little of accounting, but it bothers me that what the article says seems to conflict with what little I do know. I believed that in standard accounting intangibles were valued by the amount actually paid to acquire them; that is, they are treated as part of ordinary financial transactions. I worry that this article is using words like "capital" with private meanings that do not correspond to their dictionary definitions or their accepted usage in accounting or economics, and that perhaps one of Standfield's purposes in creating the article to promote novel meanings for these words. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Accounting may be concerned with intangible assets, but could someone point me to a non-KS use of the term "intangible accounting"? Right now it sort of seems like creating an article called "squishy physics". Sure physics deals with squishy things... but.... Sdedeo (tips) 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worse than that, because there is AFAIK no existing meaning for the phrase "squishy physics." A better analogy would be someone writing an article on the ratiocination processes of police detectives under the title "fuzzy logic." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article contains one potentially interesting sentence about "effective time", whatever that is. It appears to me that including that in intangible asset, if there is a notable theory, might be the best choice. RandomP 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - already at bs:Riblja čorba. - Mike Rosoft 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riblja corba

[edit]

This page has been on WP:PNT for the required two weeks. It is about a band. I believe it's in Bosnian. Unless this wall of text is translated and the band is notable, this should be deleted. Grandmasterka 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a repost. It was largely similar, though this version was longer; the last sentence was the same in both, "the band's future is unknown." Well, duh. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Terrorism

[edit]

I don't see how this band meets any of the notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music), also no listing on allmusic.com.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Looking back a the old AfD (this one is the second AfD), is this a repost?--blue520 06:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, see the reference to "Nokturnal Mortum" in the old AfD. --Rory096 07:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tom harrison as {{db-repost}} material.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape scams

[edit]

It was deprodded, then tagged for speedy with the justification that it violated WP:BEANS and had been deleted before, though I can find no evidence of the latter in the deletion log, so I'm bringin it here. I think the original prod tag is good: Wikipedia is not a game guide. This appears to be original research, which violates official policy. Chaser T 07:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit as Revealed in Acts through Revelation

[edit]

The title itself is POV - "revealed" is a theological term. The article appears to be entirely original research with no sources given, and only one POV represented throughout. From the layout it appears to be a college essay. There are already several related articles, eg Holy Spirit, Acts etc. I suggest anyone with an interest in the article merge any material they feel is important into other articles; then it can be deleted. David L Rattigan 07:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rude on Rails

[edit]

This is a poorly-written article which serves little purpose and is plagued with violations of the NPOV. It also uses made-up words and has little reason for existance, as it does not provide a lot of factual information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickv111 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 June 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 of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boring Business Systems

[edit]

Previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boring Business Systems) close dno consensus, but all five "keep" voters were later found to be probable sockpuppets of a single editor (now indef-blocked), no editor in good standing with a real edit history voted keep, and several advocated deletion. This article seems to exist solely to allow a small group of people to poke fun at the domain name (the company was founded by a Mr. Boring, incidentally, in case you were wondering). Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that fails to address WP:CORP which sets out very clearly notability criteria for companines. This company meets none of them, hence by the accepted definition on Wikipedia it is non-notable. --Wisden17 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian supremacy

[edit]

Got the {{unreferenced}} tag weeks ago, but no reliable source were given. Note that the linked article from the Time Magazine doesn't use the term "Asian supremacy". A careful web search turns up Wikipedia and mirrors, some forum postings and places where the words are used in another meaning (most often supremacy within Asia, like "India's South Asian supremacy remains intact.")

Delete as original research and neologism.

Pjacobi 09:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Tychocat 10:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maulik baxi

[edit]

Non-notable person, page was created simply for self-promotion, text is taken almost entirely from http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/maulikbaxi Travelbird 10:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Unsourced, no verification. Profile at website is where this should be. WP is not a free web-host. Tychocat 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Default action is merge to Wellington High School Deathphoenix ʕ 00:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livewire (Wellington)

[edit]

Non notable and uneeded for such a small thing so delete. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. Cute, but nn. Tychocat 10:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article mentions that it is Wellington, New Zealand. Jammo (SM247) 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill Bill Show

[edit]

Non-notable, do we need an article about a baby?. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caldecort

[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allerest

[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites

[edit]

Unmaintanble spam magnet.There are millions of websites, and tens of thousands that could be described as notable. Category:Websites is quite adequate. Previous nomination (here) was closed as no consensus, with some reservations. Ezeu 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Non-notable websites shouldn't have a category, let alone be on wikipedia. --Arnzy (whats up?) 12:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saryn Hooks

[edit]

Third place finisher in the National Spelling Bee? NawlinWiki 11:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PriceHot.com

[edit]

Advertisement. Fails WP:CORP. mtz206 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity (science)

[edit]

This article repeats objectivity (philosophy), which itself states that it is "concerned by epistemic and metaphysical discussions of objectivity", the possibility and the various ways (according to different domains - objectivity in physics is not the same as that in history) according to which objectivity can be achieved. It is a pure artificial distinction to radically separate the philosophical discussion of objectivity to other general objectivity articles, since philosophers discuss about this general sense of objectivity. The nature of an objective reality, Kant's distinction between noumenons and phenomenons, the Hegelian dialectic about the spirit and history, marxist materialist conception about reality (necessarily historic reality), is an ontological discussion, which could maybe be better carried on at the being article. If it is decided to be kept to the "objectivity (philosophy)" article, as well as the "propositions" subsection, this doesn't mean that it is necessary to create again ten thousands articles about objectivity in specific fields. The "objectivity (philosophy)" article should be used for a general discussion of objectivity in all fields. Philosophy is not, by definition, radically distinguished from "non-philosophical" topics, such as history, journalism, etc. Henceforth, to avoid noise and multiplication of articles, it would be wise to delete this one, and find a solution for the repeat of a general discussion on objectivity on the objectivity article and the objectivity (philosophy) article. Lapaz 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was objectively incomplete. Listing now. - Liberatore(T) 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. I'm not sure if there's a joke here, or who's it on. Tychocat 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beg your pardon? I am not sure that I am mentally equipped to follow the reasoning of the nomination. As far as I'm aware, the concept of objectivity in science can be discussed without delving into Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena; in fact, science is only about the world as we experience it and has no business in distinguishing it from a metaphysical concept of a presumed world as it truly is. The article is not quite a dictionary definition either, or else I should advise you to acquire another dictionary. If the nominator's recommendation is to merge this into Objectivity (philosophy), well, we don't need to do that through the mechanism of a deletion debate. But I'm not sure what the intention of the recommendation is. Perhaps it is to deny that there are other concepts of objectivity than the philosophical one, and that all traces should be erased of articles that attempt to bypass an ontological discussion using Hegelian dialectic. --LambiamTalk 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It won't, not from me, in any case. I can see how this could go. Tychocat 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dicdef, not a specifically scientific use of the word. Tevildo 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I think it was me who created the article. To follow Lambiam I feel there is significant difference to how the term objectivity is used in Science with its strict philosophical usage. In science it has a more pragmatic usage, perhaps more equivilent to objectivity (journalism). It is more a thing to be aimed for rather than an absolute measure. Whilst I feel there is ample scope to expand this article to give a good treatment of how the word objective is used in science, alas I do not have time to devote to it. Further Objectivity (philosophy) is too full of philosophical jargon to make it an accessable article for the average scientist. Further still quantum physics with its paradoxes related to observers has useful contribution to the whole notion of objectivity. --Salix alba (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mark as stub, and expand. Gillespie's Edge of Objectivity is specifically on this subject (rather than philosophy), and I'm sure there are others; I read it too long ago to edit the article today. In any case, this nomination is a merge request; there's no case to delete. Septentrionalis 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lambiam has done a significant expansion (it was already and still is marked as a stub). The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. The article is not a dictionary definition anymore, it is far too long for that and doesn't read that way. A merge could be done if the editors of the two pages want to, but that should be discussed on those two pages. If a merge happens, and if the resultant redirect isn't necessary, though I suspect it would be, then that can be brought up at RFD. GRBerry 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim_(insult)

[edit]

Not encylopaedic - seems more suited to urbandictionary.com Gordonross 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabeworks

[edit]

I'm not sure if this website is important enough to have an article -- Snailwalker | talk 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomeo and Juliet

[edit]

The whole article seems as if it were written by a studio executive. It also represents crystallballism. Ohyeahmormons 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No different than many other future film articles. Qutezuce 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment. About "it seems as if it were written by a studio executive", just summarize the reactions from the people involved instead of quoting them in full, and the problem is solved. Other than those quotes, I don't see anything objectionable with the article. As Qutezuce said, it is just an article about a future film (one that's been talked about in the press quite a bit) like any other. This one's pretty high-profile, so while of course it could get cancelled (ANY future film could), there are plenty of sources verifying its existence. I think it would be more usefull for Wikipedia to have an article about it than to not ackowledge its existence because there's a slight chance that it won't be released (a chance which is always there with any future film). See: Wikipedia is not paper. Unless you're advocating that ALL future film articles on Wikipedia be deleted, I don't see any reason to single this one out. If you ARE advocating that, this is not the place to do it. Esn 13:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: One more thing, the article needs more references or external links than just one from IMDB which requires an IMDBPro membership. I'll see what I can do (but please help if you know a good article about the film). Esn 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC
      • If it "has been talked about in the press quite a bit" then those press references should be cited in the article. If mainstream news sources are cited to show that the preparations for this film are already notable in 2006 I'll consider changing my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would use that Toronto Sun article as a reason not to consider this film reliable. Elton John and his partner are going to create a studio to produce this movie. Not only does the movie not exist yet, the studio that's supposed to make it doesn't even exist yet. Fan1967 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If and when the company actually exists, and production ever actually begins, an article may be appropriate. Too many things up in the air right now. What's the financing plan for the company? Who's going to run it? When is it going to start up? Until those things happen, too many things can fall apart. Fan1967 14:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are absolutely relevant. Until those things are answered, none of this planned production can even be remotely regarded as "almost certain". Fan1967 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of sourcing about people talking about planning a movie. That's a very different thing from sourcing about people actually making a movie. This kind of talk happens all the time in Hollywood for movies that never actually get made. Fan1967 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how you can believe that. When the company actually exists, and production is actually scheduled, you might say that. Until then, it's a plan, and those fall apart in Hollywood allthe time. Fan1967 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, a movie is not an event, it is a movie, so that section does not apply. This article is not about the date of the release of the movie, or the premiere party -- it is about the movie itself. And the movie currently exists, it does not exist as a series of 80000+ individual frames with accompanying audio, but it exists in the press, it exists in a early pre-production stage. Whether or not it actually comes out is a not relevent. If you want to argue that this be deleted you should be arguing that this film in its current state does not warrant inclusion because it is not notable enough. My counter-argument to that is that future films are acceptable fodder for articles (the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section specifically mentions articles about future films when it says that those articles must be careful not to be advertising, hence it makes them acceptable articles as long as they are written in an NPOV manner), and this film in particular has merited mention in the press. Qutezuce 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Qutezuce just said. Even IF the film doesn't come out, it's been talked about in the press enough to warrant an article. There are films which have never been released that have articles about them (see: Category:Unfinished films). If it is never released, the article could be changed to say that very fact in the opening line; that it was an animation project for which Elton John was to do the soundtrack that was never released. Wikipedia is not paper, so I see nothing wrong with having an article on an unreleased film. Esn 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to Greenside, Gauteng. JPD (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenside, South Africa

[edit]

Subject too trivial. Xhin 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge with Greenside, Gauteng. It is a town, and it already has a Wikipedia entry. I had no trouble expanding this article after a search on Google with "Greenside, South Africa", during which I also discovered the existing Wikipedia article on this suburb. -- Mareklug talk 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Closed as this is a copyright violation and as such should not appear on AfD. Copyvio tagged as material lifted from [23].  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Black

[edit]

Delete Unstable use of article. Please write something without copyright violations. LILVOKA.

Keep Than use the "Re-write tag" or "copyvio" or "clean-up". He IS notable. Lajbi 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV, advertisement, possibly vanity page. Tychocat 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only with a COMPLETE rewrite The person is notable- not just am I using the "I've heard of him, so he's probably notable" criteria, but he's worked with many well-known musicians, and "Guerilla Black" gets an astounding 173,000 Google hits, including a very strong 690 unique hits (and, of course, every top entry refers to the rapper). But, in all obviousness, the article in its current state is nothing short of terrible. I think the entire article should be thrown out, and a stub should be created along with an {{expand}} tag. -- Kicking222 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article should had went through the copyvio process instead of afd. I would suggest closing this debate and have someone stick a {{copyvio}} in there. hateless 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HanuRamaKwanzMas

[edit]

Borderline violation of WP:NOR and non-notable. Google brings up a very small 110 results. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 09:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also add Jewmas to the list of deletion-worthy Christmas-type neologistic festivals. This term only gets 920 Google hits, compared to 158,000 for Chrismukkah Bwithh 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD G1) – Gurch 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels, Restaurents, and Cafe's

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. Mo0[talk] 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IDA (drug store)

[edit]

This is basically an advert and I don't see any other purpose unless it has an important history. Delete Palexandridis 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Young Park

[edit]

The reason this article should be deleted is because this article is written regarding someone who has a specific talent and achievement that does not yet merit a page on Wikipedia. There are other students who gain a high caliber of achievement locally, nationally, and internationally, and Wikipedia's policies do not allow a page about them to be published. Danielb087 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Elections in India. TigerShark 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian election process

[edit]

This article was originally marked for merging with Elections in India. However, not all the information was notably related to Elections in India. I've moved the significant information into the main article (Elections in India) and have marked this page for deletion. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internation Anarchy

[edit]

This page is vain and not necessary on wikipedia


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Camps Association

[edit]

Delete Subject is non-notable. Produces only three google hits on "Jewish Camps Association" [24], including the site itself. Jens Nielsen 13:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject is wholly notable, as a not-for-profit organization just getting off the ground dedicated to advancing the cause of 100's of Jewish Days and Overnight Camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.146.224 (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 of the debate was Keep. feydey 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason King (journalist)

[edit]

Prodded as Yet another minor music journalist. Greil Marcus he's not. Deprodded on grounds Greil Marcus isn't the cutoff point for journalists, and article asserts regular appearances in major media. This latter point is true as this google search confirms (~600 hits) [25], but is simply organising a symposium (and hence enjoying the brief spotlight of media exposure) actually synonymous with notability? He is an Assistant Professor of Recorded Music. Eusebeus 23:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable in principle; "notability" sucks. David L Rattigan 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MentorshipART

[edit]

the article itself says that the term is not used much. Google agrees, giving it 38 unique hits. delete Where (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article was requested for over two years. It was placed at the top of the Recent Changes, prominently, as a requested article. I fulfil the request, and it is instantly slapped with a Deletion. WikiPolice = morons. If you don't want articles written, don't f*cking ask for them to be written. 20:06, 17 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewPages (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, neologism not in general use. The article creation queue is only a suggestions list, not a list of pre-approved topics. -- The Anome 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who chips in quite a bit at WP:AR2, I'd still say delete this. There's a reason a lot of long-requested articles don't get created. Proto||type 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. It looks like Learncasting was already deleted per this AfD, but Podagogy was not. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learncasting

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is nothing but a dictionary definition (and a made-up, neologistic one at that), plus a barrage of spammy podcasting links. Delete the damned thing, as this is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary or a linkfarm. Proto||type 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finola Hackett

[edit]

Second place finisher at national spelling bee -- notable? See above discussion of Saryn Hooks. NawlinWiki 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7, as with Saryn Hooks. Tagged. PJM 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Winner of Canadian Bee, #2 at the American Bee, certainly notable - why not? This really is a famous "athlete" that competed and won at the highest level on live TV - and we're not paper - so why do we need to delete it? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not a speedy by any means, but it is notable for being in the top two in a large event. It doesn't hurt to alter the status quo of the spelling bee competition bios. Notablity, is there according to WP:BIO, "(people) who have played in a competition of equivalent standing (to) a league sport." Yanksox 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is clearly isn't a speedy delete, as there is a claim. She may qualify under WP:BIO if sufficient media coverage is shown in the article (beyond one day's news). I'll wait to see if there's improvement. --Rob 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check this[26] out for a quick google slice of how spread out the news is. Yanksox 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CrazyRussian. An athlete of notability sufficient for an encyclopedia with LOTS of space. Interlingua talk 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep I'm going to basically paraphrase the argument I made on the talk page for this article: It is my opinion that every National Spelling Bee winner is quite notable. To win an extremely well-known and well-regarded competition, one which millions of people enter and has been nationally televised for a decade, is as strong a claim of notability as being a famous Go or poker player (and I'm a huge poker fan, so I don't want my Marcel Luske article deleted!). Coming in second in this competition is definitely a claim of notability which may, in and of itself, help the person pass WP:BIO. But, for the sake of disagreement, let's say it's not. The CanSpell National Spelling Bee is a nationally-held tournament in Canada, and both years it has been held, Finola has won it. WP:BIO asserts notability for "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," and Finola has been involved in three different newsworthy events (albeit all regarding spelling). Just look at Yanksox's Google News link to see how widespread coverage of national spelling bees (American and Canadian) is. Or just search "Finola Hackett" on regular Google and check out the 20,100 total and 277 unique hits. -- Kicking222 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crzrussian and Kicking222. If she were merely a second, possibly not, but she was a first, twice. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kicking222 - she's the two-time Canadian champion, that's pretty darn impressive, and then placing second in the U.S. just adds to it. Tony Fox 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, she won the Candian one twice which is pretty notable in itself. -- DrunkenSmurf 17:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep to counter the bogus speedy delete. ;-) Obviously notable as a two-time champion of CanSpell National Spelling Bee. Silensor 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Delete per nom. Winning a spelling be is not notable. Ardenn 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; national spelling bees are, amazingly, major "sporting" events. — brighterorange (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per other users. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Same for Saryn Hooks. "Wikipedia has lots of space" arguments miss the point of an encyclopedia. Bwithh 22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these things are televised and international, so the second place finisher is notable IMO. --Eivindt@c 00:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable for being a Canadian in a US-based competition called the National Spelling Bee. Because of her, commentators noted a feature of the Bee that I (and I'm sure most other Americans watching) were not aware of: the contest is open to qualifying children in all English-speaking countries. As an example of one such child who placed in the Bee, she is notable. -Fsotrain09 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The memory of this event is still quite strong in the minds of everyone and this is swaying there opinion toward keeping the article. I predict that if we wait a year and try this AfD again, no one will remember who she is and then the article will no doubt be voted off. --Atrian 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I live in the same province as her and she is famous now!!! Thankyoubaby 05:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The National Spelling Bee is a highly relevant event, and the runner-up certainly deserves recognition for her hard work and dedication. Additionally, Finola Hackett has become famous because of the primetime broadcast of the National Spelling Bee. She is also the Canadian national champion, and she should have an article for that reason alone. Keep her article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.187.155.89 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong keep per Kicking222 above, among others. Even if we don't automatically consider spelling-bee winners notable, Finola is easily the most famous spelling champion/competitor Canada has known to date, and has enjoyed extensive media coverage as a result. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Two-time winner of CanSpell. Only one other speller (Jody-Anne Maxwell - Jamaica and Scripps 1998) has won two national bees in a lifetime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.202 (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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freecast Shoutcasting

[edit]

Non-notable hosting service. Haakon 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE (userfied to User:Cole8865). TigerShark 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Stefan

[edit]

Not sure if it qualifies as a speedy (says he's a famous architect), so I decided to revert my own deletion and bring it here. Highly unlikely to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip_Cacayorin

[edit]

Vanity, non-notability, resume. Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Battams

[edit]

Well-written and interesting article; unforunately, it's also probably false. Google turns up nada when on both him and Emily Dean (also submitted for deletion) when "-wikipedia" is added. The submitter, ShahXerxes, submitted both of them at once. His main other notable contribution was to defend another article that may have been written by him or a compatriot: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Robertson

Seems like we have one intelligent ringleader, and his (school?) friends. The topic in both is Australian. It's probably of the same variety.

Note that if these two are deleted, the Cainites Category will also be empty. SnowFire 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cester

[edit]

NN-Bio; spam. Userfy or delete. Lupo 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi guys, Sorry I am going to get my agent to do this properly and cite references etc I rushed in a little too eager. Will be sorted within next couple of days - Thomas Cester

Hi, Thomas. Per my earlier private message, I don't think getting your agent to rewrite the article is going to solve the issue. David L Rattigan 07:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HI David, Thanks for your time offline. Certainly didn't intent to be a nuissance but have a good understanding as to the issues raised by the creation if this article and am happy for it to be deleted. Thanks for your time David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.83 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 14 June 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 of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hester_Pharmaceuticals

[edit]

No notability, advert. Uses (crystal ball) to talk about future notablity, which it clearly lacks now.Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany 1 England 5 (2001)

[edit]

Listing here because it has an AfD template on it. I gather that there is a notability concern, but I don't have an opinion on the matter. iMeowbot~Meow 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was going to include the word "weak" before the word "delete" because there is so much info on the game, but no matter how long the article is, the game is still pretty non-notable. It was a World Cup qualifier (not even an actual World Cup game) that did not directly lead to England qualifying; even if qualification had been the direct result of this game, England didn't even make the semifinals for this World Cup, much less win it. The game had no particularly spectacular qualities- hell, it wasn't even close. The article is also highly POV, written entirely from the British perspective. Thus, the game doesn't really have any notability, and thus, shouldn't really have a WP article. -- Kicking222 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Well I'm a football/soccer fan, but I have a difficult time seeing the notability of individual matches except in a few cases. I can see a case for World Cup final games and European Cup final matches (e.g. 2006 UEFA Champions League Final), but qualifier games? It's a bit much, regardless of the result. Perhaps a summary paragraph could be added to Football World Cup 2002 (qualification UEFA). — RJH (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a remarkable result that impacted on both the German and English football cultures. It cannot be included in the articles of the national teams bcause it would unbalance them. BlueValour 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this result really did impact both cultures, the article makes absolutely no claim of such (aside from a slight amount of POV material). The article itself claims that England had beaten Germany at Euro 2000, less than 14 months prior, so this couldn't be such a spectacular upset. Germany's team was obviously not particularly demoralized, as they were the World Cup runners-up. Meanwhile, England's team couldn't have been particularly boosted, as they still only reached the quarterfinals. In hindsight, it's rather obvious that much more was made of this match than it should have been. As far as "unbalancing" the national teams' articles... well, this article is already quite unbalanced. -- Kicking222 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was a spectacular upset. If you don't know that beating Germany 5-1 in Germany is spectacular, you can't know anything much about real football. CalJW 05:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment Judging by his/her edit summary, this user is also British, which could easily skew his/her view on this article. (Note that I'm not claiming that it does, but that it could.) -- Kicking222 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're American, and that may skew your view on anything to do with foobtall. Should we start ignoring the views of all Americans on the significance of any baseball topic? CalJW 05:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as part of the England and Germany football rivalry, where its context and importance are explained better. Kusma (討論) 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's here because England doesn't win against Germany all that frequently. I would say merge into England and Germany football rivalry, but it's really far too wordy too merge. A footnote to history that gives England fans the warm fuzzy, but really not that notable and deep in POV territory. ~ trialsanderrors 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Notability" sucks. It's historical information that someone's gotta find interesting. It's verifiable in principle, but needs a few sources. David L Rattigan 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to England and Germany football rivalry. This match is not important or legendary enough to have its own entry, but the content can be useful. Punkmorten 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but rewrite per punkmorten, important game but you can say that about most WC qualifying matches. --Eivindt@c 00:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Name one other World Cup qualifying match that England played that's half as famous as this one. There simply isn't one, not even those which did lead immediately to qualification. CalJW 05:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number of people who can remember this game is probably in the tens of millions. It is probably the second most famous victory in the history of the England national team after the 1966 World Cup final. CalJW 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A legendary game. Bits of commentary from it are played regularly on BBC Radio 5 Live. Landolitan 06:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, known but not legendary. MaxSem 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This match is remembered by a nation years after the event, which is more than can be said of many Wikipedia article topics. Olborne 09:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to ask all the Americans who are voting delete to try to understand that this match is far more important in the history of English sport than each individual Superbowl is in the history of American sport, and every single one of them has an article. If this is deleted, I would ask the administrator who deletes it to delete all the articles about individual Superbowls at the same time. Piccadilly 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced regularly by English commentators and fans even five-years later Robert Mercer 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete This is a silly article that will not attract much interest from anyone except English football fans but it is an important event for some and perhaps the section at the England-Germany football rivalry can be expanded. If the article stays then the name needs to be changed as the score is not enough to identify when or at what level of competition this happened and isn't a decent name for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps World Cup Qualifier (England, Germany 2001) --Westee 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we deleted all the articles which appeal to smaller constituencies than "English football fans" how many would that be what? 1 million articles? 1.1 million? And that's ignoring the Germans. Twittenham 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a silly article IN MY OPINION, not exactly something an encyclopedia can do without is it. But I leaned more to the merge option than anything else. The lack of a decent title alone makes me sceptical about this being some pivotal moment in pop or sports history. As far as I am concerned it should be merged into the section on the England-Germany football rivalry. Despite it significance for some English people I really don't see much for a single article, there are literally thousands of football games at the national, club, or amateur level that have great sentimental value for some group somewhere and this is just one of them and nothing else. This article should go to England-Germany football rivaly or maybe even a brief mention in world cup 2002 article.Sorry, but really if you take away feelings of national pride there isn't much to make to discuss here except for one normal qualifying match to a championship --Westee 13:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form Can't decide between a merge or straight keep, although would probably lean towards a merge. Certainly this game had a significant impact on English sport, culturally and psychologically. I wouldn't be against a rename and certainly a general tidy up of the article is warranted. Badgerpatrol 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion it it's the nomination that is "silly" Westee, when Wikipedia is full of pop culture fancruft. This wouldn't be found in EB, but it is way above the level of notability that Wikipedia usually accepts. Twittenham 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a very important match in English footballing history, and is still available to buy as an indivual match on DVD. Clothing stores produce t-shirts with a replica of the scoreboard on. I believe a whole book about the match is in the works. It's more 'notable' than around 50% of the stuff on Wikipedia. Tim 16:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was one of the best results in the history of English football and is still talked about to this day as the greatest of the past 40 years. "This was a very important match in English footballing history, and is still available to buy as an indivual match on DVD. Clothing stores produce t-shirts with a replica of the scoreboard on. I believe a whole book about the match is in the works. It's more 'notable' than around 50% of the stuff on Wikipedia." Is my 100% opinion. 195.93.21.3
  • Strong keep This is the only occaision that I can recall where a major football power lost at home by four goals in a competitive match. Not only notable but possibly unique. TerriersFan 23:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable exception to Lineker's Law of England-Germany football matches. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep or Merge to England/Germany football rivalry; I was responsible for the article in its current state, although I only did that becasue someone had put a rather poor article there in the first place. --Robdurbar 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is one of the greatest and most significant matches in soccer history, well worthy of its own article. For those who don't seem to know, the high scoreline for a match between two strong footballing nations is an extremely rare event. I find it an outrage that its worthiness is even being questioned, and the pro-delete comments are preposterous, particularly the description of it being "non-notable". The match is still discussed in the bars of England and Germany to this day. Neither does the article justify the comment of "silly" - it is appropriately titled and well-written. I would question the impartiality and policy of the whole encyclopedia should this unfortunate unreasonable and provocative proposal be carried out. Instead I look forward to the degrading "scheduled for deletion" banner being removed pdq and this amazing soccer encounter being rightfully immortalised without further question. Headshaker, 18:45, 18 June 2006
Whatthe hell?? Why on Earth would this be considered one of the most important matches in football history. Now that claim I have never ever heard before. It was a qualifier last time I checked and neither Germany's worst defeat nor England's highest win and considering Germany went on to be second in the actual tournament it certainly can not be called a turning point in German football or the beginning of a spectacular winning streak for England. This match has been largely forgotten outside of England, mostly because of relative insignificance outside of that country. And beleive me mate this match is not regurlarly discussed in bars in Germany, now that I can guarantee you. One of the greatest matches in football history... uh no. A relatively average qualifying match that is celebrated by some England fans like an actual world cup victory; yes! --Westee 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AiroPeek

[edit]

Article for non-notable and insignificant product. Reads like advertising copy, and appears to have sole non-minor contributor as developer of product. Steven Fisher 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: See also EtherPeek & OmniPeek, more advertising copy for related products. -- Steven Fisher 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable and insignificant is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years. 2) Please define advertising. As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising. Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template? 3) This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition. Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising copy. -- Steven Fisher 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to AiroPeek. Have I tried to hide my connection? No. I used my real name and e-mail. See my user info for direct e-mail. Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with? (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: [31]) 2) Apologies are in order: I assumed [32] was the same Steven Fisher. Now I see that his first name is not the same. I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher. 3) I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording? Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue? As for being notable, how does one prove notability? Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek - [33], 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek [34]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (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 of the debate was Delete. I will consider userfying this to User:Lessirkm if Matthew requests it, but only if he becomes at least a semi-active user on Wikipedia. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Krissel

[edit]

Page fails WP:BIO in regards to, "architects...whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." There is no indication of that, the only notable thing that he did was enter the contest to design the new WTC towers[35]. Also, I have the question the purpose of this article when the creator of the article has this edit, Delete as non-notable. Yanksox 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't notice that! Nice job! Yanksox 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialite list

[edit]

List of the 'best' socialites. Probably falls under WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV. Deprodded by author with explaination "Real list please do not delete." given in article. Matt Eason 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think Kicking222 was referring to a biographical article belonging to one of the names on the list that has been deleted before, not this article. There's nothing in the deletion log for Socialite list. Matt Eason 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He was referring to the first name on the list, who, based on the few forum postings under her name that turn up in google, is a non-notable Canadian teenager. Fan1967 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Winblad

[edit]

Subject doesn't seem notable, and it reads like an advertisment. RedRollerskate 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Dominic Kindergarten

[edit]

Kindergartens are non-notable and this looks a particularly unremarkable one. BlueValour 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PYRO-ENERGEN

[edit]

This is a non-notable piece of quackery that has no relevant citations and no verifiability to the claims made in the article. Delete as spam. JDoorjam Talk 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, interesting. I looked at the original article, and it contained the information about it being unscientific (including a link to a website about quackery), so I assumed it wasn't created by someone actually promoting the product. However, you are right, this user seemed to be spamming several articles with the link. David L Rattigan 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence is forthcoming that this device is notable in some way. As it stands, there are only 133 unique Google results (2500-odd non-unique), which suggests that it's not just unscientific, but unimportant too. — Haeleth Talk 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was speedied once earlier, then restored after User:Jtakano asked for and received help (by me and others) in trying to rewrite it. However, it turned out to be nearly impossible to write a good article about the device as there doesn't seem to be any (internet based) reliable sources on it. My own view is that it is at best marginally notable, but as User:Jtakano was reasonable about it and willing to listen to suggestions I gave it the benefit of the doubt. Henrik 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If many of you believe that the article is nonsense in Wikipedia, you may delete it, that's fine with me. But if you think the article can be improved in someway, like, merging informations, e.g. rife machines, then so much better. Or any other ideas? Jtakano
    Comment Citing sources is always a good idea. There are three rationales posted above for deletion: 1) "non-notable", 2) "no relevant citations", and 3) "no verifiability". Citing sources would knock out #2 and #3. These should be independent sources. If it was invented, was it patented? If so, cite the patent for the invention. I don't know Japanese patent law, but I suspect there is some equivalent to the U.S. patent office that will have made a decision if an application was made. I know that Henrik said there aren't any internet based reliable sources, but hard copy is still legitimate.
    For notability the way of solving the problem is less clear. Why is this worthy of being in an encyclopedia? What source are you going to cite to verify the answer to that question. It should be a source that is neither from the inventor, manufacturor, distributor nor a copy of a press release by one of those. GRBerry 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not even certain whether there is a claim to notability in the article. GRBerry 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability. Ral315 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and the sole reference is to the product's website. --Auger Martel 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -R. S. Shaw 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought I'd seen this before, and decided that it was a worthy topic for an encyclopedia; but sure, if you think it's spam, get rid of it. [ælfəks] 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grasmere Elementary School

[edit]

Elementary Schools are not notable. --Danielrocks123 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. --Danielrocks123 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hop Yat Church Chan Pak Wang Memorial Kindergarten

[edit]

Kindergartens are non-notable and this one professes no achievements. BlueValour 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annieville Elementary School

[edit]

I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. --Danielrocks123 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. --Danielrocks123 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. School articles like this are the shame of Wikipedia. Our critics point at them, and their endless trivialities about the most utterly banal things, and their endless duplication of "facts" which are the same for every one of millions of identical schools across the world, as evidence that Wikipedia is good only for children. They are essentially wrecking our dreams of gaining some credibility as a serious encyclopedia. Do you see hundreds of articles about individual elementary schools in Britannica or Encarta? Nope. Think there could be a reason for that? Hmmm, I wonder. — Haeleth Talk 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're ashamed of Wikipedia, and prefer those other encyclopedias, you should go buy them. They need the sales. People aren't buying enough, because they get what they need here instead. Why on Earth are you editing an encyclopedia with over a million articles, if you hate the existance of those very articles? --Rob 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't see the need for WP to pander to our detractors. Besides, their main cause of derision is the edit this page link on every page, something which is WP's major distinction and strength. Having articles that neither encyclopedia will touch is a part of WP's charm and a major distinction between them. I don't see a need for WP to turn into a clone of either. hateless 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless an elementary school has a claim to fame it doesn't need an article here. They are often carbon copies of each other with little if anything to set them apart. --Crossmr 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absent a Wikipedia:Schools policy or guideline, schools are generally notable. It doesn't seem appropriate to delete schools on a piecemeal basis when the community has not arrived at consensus on a policy or guideline. A policy discussion seems to be erupting here but this isn't an appropriate place for it to occur. Accurizer 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as per precedent. Antmoney85 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable per precedent. hateless 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per precedent. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. Schools have no inherent notability. No individual notability or importance for any of these schools has been suggested or advanced. That said, I still don't like these mass noms, and I'd be willing to reconsider any individual article where someone can show verifiable proof that any particular school listed here is notable or distinct enough from the average school to merit an article (though I don't suppose that will actually be necessary, nor will it likely influence the eventual outcome).--Isotope23 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless any of these schools have distinguishing characteristics such as teaching methods, notable founder, etc. The local elementary school is about as notable as the local PTA, the local pizza place, that one intersection down the road that doesn't have a stop sign but ought to, etc. Opabinia regalis 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep em all as I am against mass nomination of articles. If you wish to argue for a new policy on elementary schools, do it elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all of these please and argue about policy elsewhere Yuckfoo 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per usual... Rich Farmbrough 23:00 13 June 2006 (GMT).
  • Delete them all as per nom Bwithh 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Weak Delete. My reluctance isn't that I'd be sorry to see these articles go, but because of the broad-block nomination. I'd rather be making a strong statement one way or another. While I believe schools are not inherently notable, and there is no policy on keeping or deleting schools, I also concede that some schools may, for very specific reasons, be notable. Until there is a firm policy, I'd prefer to consider each article on its own merits, notability, or non-notability. That all said, none of these articles appears to be about an encyclopedic or notable school. Agent 86 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canadianshoper 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All these schools are notable. CalJW 05:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge into the appropriate district article (I believe this is School District 37 Delta, but they were starting to blur together) or weak keep and expand. I continue my belief that elementary/middle schools' claim to notability is weaker than that of high schools, but I also prefer more info than just a list entry with no further info. Also, block noms of this type are unhelpful, some of these had more info than others. Please start a policy discussion off AfD if you want to change what seems to be current consensus on these articles. BryanG(talk) 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge all Per near agreement at WP:SCH, keep or merge all. Merges do not require AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CalJW Thankyoubaby 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How do we know that there isn't one that's exceptional in here? Check them all? No thanks. Golfcam 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep as per Golfcam. YUL89YYZ 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say the same thing I say every time schools come up on AFD now: I don't particularly like the established consensus in favour of elementary and high school articles, but the consensus is what it is and there's no particular reason to single Canadian schools out as somehow less notable than schools elsewhere. If you'd like to pitch for a rethink of the whole shebang, start a policy discussion (and good luck trying), but in the absence of that there are no valid reasons to treat these differently than other schools. Keep. Bearcat 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pardon my ignorance, but where can I find the established consensus on elementary and high school articles? As far as I've found, there isn't one, but if there is, I may have to reconsider how I respond to these school nominations. Agent 86 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the lot and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all. Well established precedent has elementary schools being given their own pages. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. - pm_shef 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's simple, a merge gets counded as a keep so it is the right vote that results in a wrong action. WP:SCH resulted in no consensus not a justification to keep. Vegaswikian 05:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong precedent to include schools, notable subject.--Auger Martel 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Schools are considered notable, elementary or not. Jgamekeeper 11:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are all important. We need more school stubs, not less. --JJay 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree that it doesn't seem appropriate to delete schools on a piecemeal basis when the community has not arrived at consensus on a policy or guideline. I further agree that this is not the place for said policy discussion. The merge or keep and expand comment has good merit however again, this is not the place for policy discussion whether that policy is pro- or anti-deletion. BigNate37 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If students' interest in knowledge is increased slightly because they can find their school here, then let Wikipedia err to their benefit. Deet 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Campbell

[edit]

A DRV consensus found that the previous AfD on this subject was improperly closed. The article is resubmitted to AfD for evaluation of verifiability and notability. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I voted "delete" the first time around because the article was unsourced and unverified, so now the sourcing consists of... a letter to an editor and an article by Joseph D. Campbell himself? Uh, no. In fact, you can read the letter to the editor here, and in all four pages, Campbell is mentioned twice, and only in passing. -- Kicking222 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and the WP:BIO guideline. It has been established that he published one article? That sure doesn't pass the professor test... — Haeleth Talk 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep he seems to have a published biography (ISBN 1412068835). The "keep" is weak because it has no Amazon sales rank, suggesting a very very very obscure book. But in general I'd say anyone with a published book biography is probably worth a couple K of space on Wikipedia's servers as well, so keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Anyone can publish a biography on themselves, claiming how they are the great pioneers of a new scientific field. Thing is, besides what he's said about himself, nothing else collaborates his story. The one article he published was NOT in a peer-reviewed publication. Medical Hypotheses is a publication that really fits the name. It's for the publishing of hypotheses and possibly radical thoughts, often in order to try to get support from others in investigating the ideas. The website even says that it's a gateway to mainstream science, but is not meant to be a mainstream scientific publication itself. The other source is a Letter to the Editor, which doesn't come close to meeting reputable source criteria. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yeah, I may have been slightly crazy to suggest not proceeding with deletion in the first AfD because of the late introduction of sources (which may have caused the admin to do just that, despite super majority consensus to delete). These sources are pretty weak. Still, it's often better to give editors the benefit of the doubt. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would avoid statements like "nothing else collaborates his story" where Dr. Lemke's publication has collaborated at least a part of it. There is verification, using independent resources, that it is not a hoax, the issue now is whether or not he is notable. Bejnar 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the prof test. Kafziel 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails "average professor" test. A vanity-press autobiography doesn't help his case any. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per above. Makgraf 02:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xoloz. I know this is the medical doctor, not the author Joseph Campbell. --Starionwolf 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep, but since I haven't received the list of scientific publications that Dr. Lemke indicated that she was sending me, I am willing to have it deleted, pending full verification of notablility. What is the procedure for that after a successful delete? Do I just post the revised article? It may be a week or three since the American Library Association meetings will be taking up my time. Not the original editor. Bejnar 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Army installations in Germany

[edit]

Seems to be just a list with no other context Pat Payne 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by request of creator; left talk page. — brighterorange (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion/First paragraph

[edit]

This appears to be an attempt at getting consensus on the first paragraph of the Abortion article, with plenty of discussion on the talk page. While the discussion should probably be preserved somewhere, I don't think this belongs in the main article namespace. I suggest moving this somewhere under the talk page for the main abortion article. Hirudo 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. I am the creator of this page and was not aware that this sort of convention was not appropriate. I figured since we had a subpage just for first paragraph discussion, it would be helpful to have a place to edit and try out new ideas that wasn't the main article (which would lead to edit warring). I'm not opposed to deleting this seeing how it doesn't serve much of a purpose and goes against convetion. --Andrew c 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move to talk space. - RoyBoy 800 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move - note that the Talk page of this "article" should not be deleted. It's been a useful fork of the Abortion talk page so far and should be archived at some point. AvB ÷ talk 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- 9cds(talk) 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hunter

[edit]

I don't actually feel this article should be deleted - I'm the editor who created it. However, Sunholm first listed it as a speedy candidate (which was rejected by Kungfuadam) and has now prodded it. I outlined on its talk page the reasons why I feel the article establishes the subject's notability - most markedly by being a lead character in two notable TV series and being in a band that had four top twenty UK hit singles. I don't feel a simple prod is fair, since the rationale I outlined has been ignored, so I've brought it to AfD to establish consensus. Seb Patrick 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you don't trust IMDb, then what's your resource of choice for checking up on TV appearances? I'm aware there are inaccuracies on IMDb, but what else is there? If you Google "StarStreet" you'll find info on the pop group, Rebecca's involvement and the accompanying TV series; and I already pointed to everyhit.com for evidence of their chart success. BBC Comedy Guide (surely verifiable as all its content is from a published book) covers Microsoap. There's also a wealth of information on Family Affairs online (sadly its official site is down as it's no longer being produced), including its own WP entry which actually lists Rebecca by name! I've given you verifiable sources... what more do you want? Seb Patrick 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassavetes

[edit]

Group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, not notable group. feydey 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean names for its surrounding seas

[edit]

No real point to this article. If someone wants to know the korean names for those seas, all they have to do is go to those seas' artilces. Each of those three seas lists the korean names. I can't see the purpose to this page. Masterhatch 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magutavent

[edit]

Nonsense neologism, only 29 Ghits and only relevant ones are for this page and its mirrors NawlinWiki 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete no notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Of Lyrics

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable (fails WP:MUSIC). Page contributor removed PROD tag from article. -- Chet nc (talk)(contrib) 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, default action is to merge the list back to List of Portable Software. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portable Computer Games

[edit]

Article is a list of non-notable games, full of spam links to game sites, these games are not portable. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be lost, it's still in the page history for the main article, and I found this page while on new pages patrol.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 23:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was not even funny. DS 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carboclayzer

[edit]

Seems like a pretty blatant hoax to me Irongargoyle 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-flat minor

[edit]
  • Strong delete. Having played both pieces, I'm quite certain that Chopin's Schzero Op. 31 is in B-flat minor (alternatively, in D-flat major, the key in which it ends), and his Prelude Op. 28 No. 15 in D-flat major, and I've never seen anything suggest otherwise. The Prelude has a section in C-sharp minor, which would be equivalent to the supposed D-flat minor. I've never seen this section written in flats, however, and I don't think the fact that there's one section of the Prelude that goes into a key, that, if written in flats, would constitute D-flat minor, is enough of a reason for saying that the Prelude is in D-flat minor. Furthermore, I can't see any place where the Scherzo goes into anything remotely approaching D-flat minor. The closest thing one can find is a section in E major, equivalent to F-flat minor, the relative key to D-flat minor. Unless there's an actual manuscript edition somewhere that suggests that these pieces were originally written in an eight-flat key signature, I'm inclined to dismiss this as a hoax. (I can't speak for the Rachmaninoff or Schubert pieces.) TheProject 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am changing my vote also. I did the same search and found a surprising number of pieces in this key. Although I am skeptical whether anyone editing the article will find actual references to people writing about the key and its qualities, in theory it could be expanded. David L Rattigan 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Rachmaninov, Schubert, Chopin! — brighterorange (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. We also have articles on A major, A minor, A-flat major, A-flat minor, A-sharp minor, B major, B minor, B-flat major, B-flat minor, C major, C minor, C-flat major, C-sharp major, C-sharp minor, D major, D minor, D-flat major, D-sharp minor, E major, E minor, E-flat major, E-flat minor, F major, F minor, F-sharp major, F-sharp minor, G major, G minor, G-flat major, and G-sharp minor. Either all should stay, or all should go. On behalf of the Action Committee for Equal Opportunity for all Musical Keys, While all keys are equal, some are more equal than others. Sincerely, LambiamTalk 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (modified 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment: those keys all technically "exist" (i.e. can be written in standard sharps and flats notation) within the circle of fifths. D-flat minor, however, is a non-existent key that involves being written using double-flats. See circle of fifths -- it will explain it better than I can. TheProject 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no clue why this is being nominated. I'm completely puzzled by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nominated because the key doesn't exist. TheProject 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here, let me explain. In music, major keys start from C major and either add sharps or add flats, up to a maximum of seven (there are seven named white keys in an octave with which to make sharp or flat). Minor keys are related to major keys in a one-to-one correspondence and are arrived at by taking the major key, going down three steps (not three letters) on a keyboard, and changing the "major" to "minor.
        • Starting from C major and adding sharps and going up a fifth every time one adds another sharp, one arrives at the key of G major, which has one sharp (F sharp), then the key of D major, which has two (F and C sharps), then A major (FCG), E major (FCGD), B major (FCGDA), F-sharp major (FCGDAE), and C-sharp major (FCGDABB). After this, there are no more keys going up, as all named white keys ABCDEFG have already had a sharp applied to them. Therefore, there is no key that is a fifth above C-sharp major, which would technically be G-sharp major.
        • The minor key corresponding to C major is A minor, and the minor keys corresponding to the major keys I've just listed by adding sharps are E minor, B minor, F-sharp minor, C-sharp minor, G-sharp minor, D-sharp minor, and A-sharp minor. Again, there is no minor key that is a fifth above A-sharp minor, as this would involve an eighth sharp, and there are only seven notes to sharp.
        • Adding flats brings a key down by a fifth every time another flat is added. Starting from C major and going down, one arrives at the key of F major, which has one flat (B flat), then the key of B-flat major (B and E flats), E-flat major (BEA), A-flat major (BEAD), D-flat major (BEADG), G-flat major (BEADGC), and C-flat major (BEADGCF). Again, after this, all named white keys ABCDEFG have already had a flat applied to them. Therefore, there is no key with an eighth flat that is a fifth below C-flat major (which would be F-flat major).
        • The minor keys corresponding to these keys are, respectively, D minor, G minor, C minor, F minor, B-flat minor, E-flat minor, and A-flat minor. The key that would theoretically follow next is a fifth down from A-flat minor, which is D-flat minor -- the subject of the article in question. The issue is that D-flat minor would involve an eighth flat.
        • Basically, the imaginary keys that have eighth or more flats -- in this case D-flat minor -- are nothing more than that: imaginary. Hence why this key is not the same as the other keys listed by Lambiam. Hope that all made sense. TheProject 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was a music minor in college. I'm aware of how the typical scale structure works, and I'm still not at all bothered by this article. My puzzlement is why people are looking to delete this, as it's otherwise legitimate, albeit obscure and little-used, as well as not entirely technically sound. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, you looked a bit confused. :-) I still don't see the basis of your opposition. It's not a legitimate key. TheProject 23:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • TheProject, my understanding is that what you are saying is only true for equal-temperament scales. In other temperaments, you can sharp or flat anything as many times as you want. B-double-flat is not exactly the same as A. D-flat minor has to exist, because, for example, you might want to modulate up a fourth from A-flat minor. If you announced that you were then in C-sharp minor, you'd be theoretically wrong, and in a non-equal-temperament scale, you'd be tonally wrong as well. I'm not a music major, so I admit I could be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is. --Allen 04:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Very true -- it does apply strictly to equal-temperament, and I hadn't quite thought about that. But unless there's a notable work written before equal temperament in D-flat minor, I think this should be a non-issue. If we included D-flat minor based on equal temperament alone, we'd also have to include A-sharp major, which seems absurd to me. Also, as I've said already, I can't find any works in this supposed key, probably because equal-temperament occurred soon after notation was developed. :-) TheProject 06:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some more research on the four pieces supposedly in D-flat minor listed in the article. The two Chopin works I've covered in my comment already, and looking through Amazon's collections of recordings of either work should verify that the Scherzo is in B-flat minor/D-flat major and the Prelude is in D-flat major. The Rachmaninoff work doesn't exist -- his Op. 8 is a trio elegante, and the work on the CD in the link I believe refers to Scriabin's Op. 8 No. 10, which is in D-flat major, according to B&N[38] and Amazon[39], and I suspect it's similar to the two Chopin works with modulation in key. As for the Schubert quartet, look at the cover image carefully: the title card says "String Quartets in E flat and D minor". A look at List of compositions by Schubert verifies indeed that the Death and the Maiden Quartet is indeed in D minor. So we're again left without any piece in the supposed key of D-flat minor, and quite frankly, I'd change "little-used" to "never-used". :-) TheProject 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost everything about "D-flat minor" is covered in minor scale, by the way. TheProject 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I appreciate the level of research and knowledge being brought to bear here. I should stress that I have no technical knowledge of music, I'm merely looking for examples of D-flat minor music referenced out on the web. If there are none and the experts here concur that this key is a minor technical oddity then I'm happy for the article to be deleted.
    However I am still able to find several pieces of music that claim to be in D-flat minor. Could someone with the appropriate technical knowledge take a look at the following and render an opinion?
  • this references a Rachmaninov etude that apparently has a movement in D Flat minor
  • (towards the bottom) references a Skrjabin etude
  • this references a Chopin nocturne
  • this has a prelude and fugue by Shostakovich
  • this has a Dvorák waltz
  • this article talks about Elgar's use of the key
    • Not having heard or seen the score for this piece, I can't really speak for it, but the article mentions that the key is modulated into (i.e. the piece moves to the key temporarily) for a two bar-phrase. This isn't really writing in the key -- for example, moving to a key a fifth above the key that the piece is written for, temporarily, is standard in classical pieces, and sometimes, if a piece is written in C-sharp major, the music will move temporarily into the imaginary key of G-sharp major. However, the piece won't actually change keys to G-sharp major; the temporary key change is simulated, rather than written in. Also, given that the key of the piece is B minor (two sharps), I'm wondering if perhaps it's simulated in C-sharp minor (four sharps), rather than D-flat major (eight flats), as it would be very unusual to simulate a key written in flats (and especially with so many flats) using a base key written in sharps. TheProject 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From quick searches going in the other direction (find the work and the keys normally used):
  • Chopin Op 9/1: B flat minor
  • Rachmaninov Op 33/5 E flat minor
  • Scriabin Op 8/12 D sharp minor
  • Shostakovich Prelude and Fugue no. 15, D flat major
  • Dvorák waltz, Op 54/2 (B 105/2) D flat major
  • The Elger article is not really talking about a scale there. Also, I don't trust that write-up as a whole, because it lists the title as "Quartet for Strings in B minor, Op. 83" but the recording itself is E minor.[40] [41]--iMeowbot~Meow 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are a lot more. Are they all incorrect?
    Genuine thanks for the effort to improve Wikipedia whatever "side" you come down on. This is a very constructive debate. Gwernol 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first five all appear to be "bloopers", so to speak. The sixth one I consider dubious, at best. Hope that moves this discussion forward. TheProject 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the wisest thing to do here is to Redirect to C# minor, and add a note about the non-existence or rarity of Db minor. Perhaps in some methods or other pieces of music Db is seen as a learning exercise? Also in Jazz keys change often, and a tonal center may conveniently be writte as Db minor, as opposed to C# minor--This is done becuase the key signature need not be changed and no confusion occurs. Adambiswanger1 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Nonsense, but clever nonsense :) --iMeowbot~Meow 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after moving it to BJAODN per iMeowbot. It fooled me too. lol --Starionwolf 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect and Merge as a music student, I can appreciate this article. It may not be the most popular key, but it isn't far enough from reality to warrant deletion. It is a legit key, but can probably be safely deprecated as a variety of C#minor, so long as some mention is made of D-flat as an enharmonic spelling. At least in the world of even-temperment, this should be sufficient. --Godwhacker 05:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With the vast number of possible DNA combinations, it's just about plausible that talking wolves with purple feathers could exist. Still, we don't have an article on such a species because that combination hasn't actually occurred. A good example of why an article on nonexistent beasts (other than those labeled as fiction) aren't good article subjects appears right in this thread: the article currently contains copied erroneous examples of the key's usage. --iMeowbot~Meow 16:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really worth changing my vote, since it seems the article is destined for the garbage can anyway, but this has been a most illuminating discussion! David L Rattigan 18:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St bridget of sweden school

[edit]

The article is about a small K-8 school in Van Nuys, CA, which seems completely un-notable —Ryan McDaniel 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead soldier

[edit]

Neologism, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Accurizer 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Iranian origin

[edit]

Wikipedia is not (yet) an etymological dictionary. Does not appear that there's enough info to make a move to Wiktionary useful either. Hirudo 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the above and 95% of articles that start with "List of" BigDT 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OmniPeek

[edit]

Advertising copy for non-notable product. Steven Fisher 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: See also EtherPeek & AiroPeek, more advertising copy for related products. -- Steven Fisher 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as marketing bull#&%! - Richardcavell 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years. 2) Please define advertising. As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising and "marketing bull...". Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template? In fact, you could pretty much replace Wireshark with OmniPeek in that entry -- would that be better? 3) This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition. Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Reads simply as a pure advertisement. Hardly notable.--Auger Martel 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising copy. -- Steven Fisher 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to OmniPeek. Have I tried to hide my connection? No. I used my real name and e-mail. See my user info for direct e-mail. Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with? (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: [45]) 2) Apologies are in order: I assumed [46] was the same Steven Fisher. Now I see that his first name is not the same. I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher. 3) I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording? Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue? As for being notable, how does one prove notability? Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek - [47], 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek [48]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep I have to agree strongly that this is inline with Wireshark's entry. I also do not consider a developer attempting to document the history and evolution of its products, which it appears is the intent of Wireshark as well, to be considered advertising. Does anyone recall Wireshark's entry when it first appeared? I am sure it is similar to OmniPeek's, which given the chance to evolve, would be supplemented by end-users and take on the community feel I believe was intended. Perhaps adapting to a format inline with Wiresharks would be more acceptable.Josh Gluck 11:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EtherPeek

[edit]

Advertising copy for non-notable product. See also: OmniPeek & AiroPeek, additional advertising copy by same author for related products. Listed separately. Steven Fisher 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years. 2) Please define advertising. As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising. Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template? In fact, you could pretty much replace Wireshark with OmniPeek in that entry -- would that be better? 3) This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition. Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Advertising, not notable and no references.--Auger Martel 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to OmniPeek. Have I tried to hide my connection? No. I used my real name and e-mail. See my user info for direct e-mail. Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with? (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: [50]) 2) Apologies are in order: I assumed [51] was the same Steven Fisher. Now I see that his first name is not the same. I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher. 3) I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording? Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue? As for being notable, how does one prove notability? Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek - [52], 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek [53]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne class starhip

[edit]

Not notable enough. Delete or merge into List of Starfleet ship classes. Also, there is a spelling error in the title. Philip Stevens 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ferguson (Missouri)

[edit]

Not notable vanity entry RedRollerskate 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Duff

[edit]

nn, child of two celebrities. Has one acting credit, in a movie with her parents. Google search mostly turns up their bios. Ckessler 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NiceWare

[edit]

Adcruft about a non-notable product RedRollerskate 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A8 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoorgan

[edit]

Neologism - 3 Google hits. The only English-language hit does not relate to the term as defined in the article. Perhaps there exists some published work on this that isn't on the Internet..? Rklawton 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Center School (Connecticut)

[edit]

Non-notable Kindergarten to 1st grade with no obvious redeeming features. BlueValour 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to segregated cycle facilities. Two contributors (TedE and SPUI) have hinted that something here might be worth adding to that article. In case that is true, and because redirects are cheap, I will preserve the history. The last version of the article may be viewed here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bike lane debate

[edit]

This is not an article; it is a collection of disembodied arguments and rebuttals not attributed to any people. Thus, they are not facts and cannot be verifiable. Maybe an article can be made for this topic, but the current contents are unsalvageable. — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Wald (onomastics) wasn't included formally in this afd so it stays, I suggest WP:PROD-ing it if anything. W.marsh 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roth (onomastics)

[edit]

Per talk page, extreme form of listcruft - irrelevant, obscure subject, without hope of rescuing page into anything suitably encyclopaedic DWaterson 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete My delete vote is only a "weak" one because I can't figure out what the hell this page is actually trying to tell me (and yes, I read its talk page, too). Per nom, it is just to be an indiscriminate list of names. -- Kicking222 21:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222, also note large portions in what appears to be a combination of German and east European languages, possibly Polish and Hungarian. Jammo (SM247) 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added the confusing clean-up tag to the Roth article. I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether it should stay or go, but I found this page; Wald (onomastics), which is very similar, with all the same problems as the Roth article, and is by the same author. If one goes, so should the other, and if one stays, so should the other. I've not listed it for deletion or done anything with it though. ONUnicorn 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... :) DWaterson 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only assume that this article was meant to be a combination etymology and disambiguation for anything that begins with the Roth prefix. There are many English articles that start with the same prefix but we don't have a page for "pre" or "con". --Freyr 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, nominator has voted keep and there have been no other delete votes. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dicknail

[edit]

Not notable, and name is obscene. george 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took 10 minutes and the magic of Google to find some background info and an image, and I'm not even a Hole fan. An editor who liked Hole would be able to expand this article much further. -Big Smooth 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Expansion by Big Smooth has drastically improved the article contents. I've changed my vote to Strong Keep. -- Scientizzle 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe OK perhaps keep You have to throw an article into the deletion pile and then pound on it with both fists to get anyone to put even the basic information down. I'm totally opposed to one sentence articles, and a lot of them are given a free pass. george 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless there's some sort of specific Wikipedia policy you can point us to that forbids one-sentence articles, I don't see what your beef is. Aplomado talk 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because one sentence articles aren't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ever see a one sentence article in Britannica? Also, it is just plain lazy. If you care enough to start an article, then at least trouble yourself to write a couple paragraphs. Sheesh. george 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Single by a very notable band. Can't we just close these AfD discussions already? -- Kicking222 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not notable, its just a waste of space. Whether or not Courtney Love wrote proto-feminist anger songs about men's reproductive organs has and will have ZERO effect on history. Wikipedia is not a teen chat room or MySpace! george 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense, but you should be temporarily blocked from editing WP. You're trying to prove multiple points at the same time (that we should remove one-line stubs; that we should remove everything related to Hole; that we should removed articles with filthy titles), and all of your points are incredibly stupid. Guess what? I don't like Hole, either! And I hate Nirvana! But you know what else? Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I think we should eliminate their presence on WP. In my opinion, Nirvana is the most overrated band of all-time, but you won't see me AfD'ing Blew. No matter what you think, Hole is notable. Things with curses in them can be notable. And single-sentence articles can be notable. So get off your high horse and live with the fact that, in your mind, WP isn't perfect. Nothing is. -- Kicking222 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as the nominator has voted "keep." Aplomado talk 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn; keep. DarthVader 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstrade Securities

[edit]

Prod contested. {{notability}} & {{expand}} tags removed (several times). Author has yet to address concerns about meeting WP:CORP, either by maintenance tag in the article or messages to user talk page. Latest addition, "Firstrade advertises that both market orders and limit orders can be traded for a flat $6.95 commission fee" reads like a blatant advertisement. "Firstrade Securities" seems like it might be notable, but I don't know enough to expand the article and the article creator seems to reject any notion of meeting Wikipedia guidelines. Scientizzle 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. We've made the content less "advertisement-like". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstrade (talk • contribs)

Thanks. -- Scientizzle 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retard Girl

[edit]

Each album could be listed on the Hole page. This is not notable. george 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the classic Wikipedia argument - why don't you expand it. The reason I don't is there's nothing to say. Its so unnotable that even one sentence is too much said. george 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't argue with you. As User:Gwernol has aptly put it on your talk page: We are not here to build "the Encyclopedia of things that George finds inoffensive" nor "the Encyclopedia of stuff George has heard of". Aplomado talk 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparantly we are building the encyclopedia of topics that nobody bothered to write anything about, even the person who created the article! george 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Non-notable albums by notable bands should be merged into the band article. It betters serves the information. Ted 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete nobody has anything to say about it. Its a Wikipedia sentence, not an article. george 21:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It's the first single by a highly notable band- that's all that needs to be said. I don't care what the single's name is, and I'd like to politely refer User:Georgeccampbell to WP is not censored. In addition, his idea that an article should be deleted because it's only a sentence is equal to the statement that every single stub should be deleted, which is ludicrous. -- Kicking222 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge the content with Hole (band) and redirect to there. Juneappal 21:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There its expanded and has a picture. This should not be deleted or merged. Should pages for singles by other artists also be deleted or merged? No. It deserves its own page. It is a major part in the history of "Hole". Its their very first single and very important.User:Caladonia
Template:Infobox Single is used in nearly 4,000 articles, so I think the consensus is that singles are notable on their own, as I believe they should be. Singles often make or break the careers of contemporary artists, and with some work they can make for good stand-alone articles. -Big Smooth 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deoete. W.marsh 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Lux

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution (book)

[edit]

Speedy Deletedb empty, no sign of expansion,merge would be good too.--AeomMai 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Video Group

[edit]

Delete vanity spam. probably WP:CORP. Also attempted to do an end-run around the NP patrol by abandoning the originally created New Video Group Inc. and recreating it here. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Poe

[edit]

This is Mary Cheney's partner; no assertion that she has done anything notable other than being Mary Cheney's partner NawlinWiki 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Pharmaceuticals

[edit]

Delete as advertisement, WP:SPAM. See other contributions by creator: [55]. mtz206 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova the Hedgehog

[edit]

There's absolutely no source for this; one's [57] given in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game), but it's a GameFAQs topic which seems to go by the reasoning "This is real, trust me! :O"; such a source is fleeting anyway (no GameFAQs topic stays around forever), but that's just unreliable. I don't believe it, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... maybe when there's a better source. Shadow Hog 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadbus

[edit]

Advertising for non-notable company. Haakon 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues etc.

[edit]

Weekly local talk show on Christian radio station; nonnotable NawlinWiki 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This station (KFUO-AM) would be considered non-notable. It's a 5,000 watt AM station with hardly any ratings at all. It's only notable through its sister FM station, which has been the premier classical music station in St. Louis forever. Fan1967 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There you go, then. I'd say that it's sufficient but not necessary for the station to be nonnotable in order for the program itself to be ruled nonnotable. -- Docether 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qtd

[edit]

This article can never be more than a dictionary definition and thus should be deleted as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RicDod 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Aspen

[edit]

Not notable pornographic actress, doesn't meet WP:PORN_BIO. feydey 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy lumpkins

[edit]

Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Galaxies:Roleplay - Immersion War

[edit]

This looks very unencyclopedic to me and almost seems like an online discussion. It is written in the first person and often talks about personal computer game experiences from the author. --CapitalR 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -CapitalR 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Looks like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere. -- Docether 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete -Damn guys, it is cut and paste from a Roleplaying community, we are working at refining our use of different roleplay mechanics within Star Wars Galaxies, is there a better place for this? I have seen other Star Wars Galaxies references like this, we just set this up today and are cutting and pasting to get started then we will reform it to look "encyclopedic"--Dewbacca 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, there are better places than this. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a how-to. Wikipedia is not a fan forum. If you want to have a wikipedia-style interface and database, you can create your own wiki on your own server Bwithh 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Follow You Into The Dark

[edit]

not notable. george 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This information could easily be placed on Death Cab for Cutie. george 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Let me expand on this. If people deem it important enough to call out an artist or band's song to its own page, then they should have something to say about it. This page could barely justify four lonely words. I think that when it was decided that individual songs or albums could get their own articles, it was intended that there be some interesting or notable reason. Basically, notable is the watchword that trumps all others. This just isn't worth the nanometers of magentic disk space it is consuming. george 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So expand it. it's the next single, it has a video by a guy who did one of the best videos of the 1990s, Radiohead's "Just," it'll have a retail single release, etc. No need to rush, and a couple seconds of research would have borne this out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So expand it it is the old Wikipedia Canard. I say that if the person who initiated the article couldn't come up with a sentence or two about the topic, then why would you expect anyone else to. The truth is that this dreck would have sat there in that condition for months or years. The only reason anyone even attempted to Wikify it or add to it is because it got marked for deletion. george 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have expanded as opposed to AfDing it, too, you know. Besides, this time, I put my money where my mouth was and I at least made it into a viable stub. Took ten seconds to plug the song name into Google News and snag a press release announcing the single with the video information. Took another thirty to make the viable stub. How long did it take to do the AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its still not notable. Every moping teenager who penned a song in his garage is going to want a Wikipedia page. Maybe if they sell more than 100 CD's then it will deserve a Wiki page. Otherwise it is free advertising for an audienceless musician. george 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nvip netbattle board

[edit]

Not notable, they admit only having about 100 members and only being a place to chat. Irongargoyle 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also hosted on a free service.--Andeh 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lakshmi Tobacco Company

[edit]

nonnotable Indian company NawlinWiki 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jud Lounsbury

[edit]

Person obscure not well known enough to be included in wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by User0007 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment I suspect he thought if he kept resaving the article (looks like about 70 resaves in 20 minutes) that maybe someone would notice and help him delete it? I guess he didn't know about AfD. Fan1967 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A6/A7). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Dorman

[edit]

Character assassination; claims of fraud but no reference to conviction; references are to forum posts Gtoomey 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a wel known fraud.213.37.206.116 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the article quotes "forum posts", the "Forum Posts" contain the links and actual discussions that were taking place between Mr. Dorman and the online community which he deceived for his own personal monetary gain. Once exposed as a fraud he continued to post altered pics in an attempt to maintain credibility. The BB.com forums have over 100,000 registered members, many of which take the advice and buy the supplements of the "Fitness Experts". Mr. Dorman deserves to have his name posted up here as a warning against future schemes he may concoct. SM
  • Keep Louis Dorman is wellknown in the bodybuilding community for his blatant use of doctored images for his own commercial enterprise. The claims made in the article clearly link to discussion on the Bodybuilding.com board. In addition, Louis Dorman himself admitted to doctoring pictures -- "highlighting and cropped" -- in the following post: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=9912993&postcount=223. These are cardinal sins in the bodybuilding community. As a result of his infamy for it, this page exists. 24.79.43.137 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He Lied...That's a fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.237.63 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep He is a well known photoshop scam artist who is smoke screening consumers for self profit. 24.60.206.121 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a liar and a fraud and photoshop exptert who edited the mainframe of his pictures72.72.99.201 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep He is a fraud! Keep this article. Unsigned comment by User: 72.240.117.113
  • Keep he lied to gain money and fame. keep this page to warn people he may try to trick in the future 24.26.109.63 20:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while his fat loss is impressive, it has been proven that he doctored photos of himself. 70.180.85.95 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This man's blatant lies deserve to be viewed by the public. Without the proper knowledge, many may be misled by his fraudulent advice and information. 24.247.250.245 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is a fraud.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.230.7.12 (talk • contribs) .
I agree. Unfortunately, however, the only person guilty of "character assassination" is Louis Dorman himself. As the article's citations show, he is thoroughly guilty of what the article accuses him of. In fact, it was even accompanied by a public admission, which I attempted to discuss with Gtoomey in his talk page. Unfortunately, there was no response -- only an AfD listing. 24.79.43.137 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol, they're using a forum as references for this page? Speedy delete as a blatant attack page, without prejudice to the recreation of the article since he seems somewhat notable in the bodybuilding community. BTW this is some of the most vigilant meatpuppetry I have ever seen in an AfD. It seems that no matter how much we slap that warning up there, everyone still thinks that this is a ballot box. Aplomado talk 21:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the bodybuilding community, Louis Dorman is guilty of what is tantamount to fraud. He admitted to his own doctoring of photos and exploited them for his commercial game. His ads were featured in nationally printed, well-known bodybuilding and entertainment magazines including (but not limited to): FHM, Muscle and Fitness, MensJournal, Menshealth, Maxim,and Flex. [62] in addition, as you can see -- the bodybuilding community congregates largely online, and on message boards -- and Dorman happened to be exposed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs)
That's all fine and good, but message boards are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. Aplomado talk 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, he was a prominent and noteworthy webziner on Bodybuilding.com (forums aside) and was also featured in full-paged advertisements in major magazines. His advertisements were published. As such, he remains noteworthy to the hundreds of thousands in the Bodybuilding community and this alone merits his article. In fact, he maintains a commercial enterprise in spite of this all. 24.79.43.137 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree with allowing the recreation of the article if notability can be established, but in its current state it needs to be deleted. Aplomado talk 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dorman was notable enough to have full paged advertisements in major magazines Bodybuilding and entertainment and profit from a commercial enterprise for it. BodyBuilding.com alone has over 300,000 members. Most importantly, Louis Dorman was a prominent web-ziner in this community. [63]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. I completely agree with BoojiBoy- if we complete rewrote the article, this person wouldn't have nearly enough notability to pass WP:BIO. "Louis Dorman" gets only 595 total and 114 unique Google hits, and since all of them are from weightlifting sites, it's obvious he has no widespread importance. -- Kicking222 21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, Dorman was featured in full-paged advertisements in major magazines. He has forums of hundreds of thousands of people speaking about him. And he was a prominent web-ziner in the community. He is certainly noteworthy enough -- perhaps not to you, but certainly to many others. 24.79.43.137 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if he deceived an entire website and its forum it doesn't make him notable unless he's been in the news. There's no reference to news articles. It appears the users of the forum want to create this page to "Name and Shame" him. Sorry, but he needs to have done more than that to deserve an article here.--Andeh 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly merge with bodybuilding.com.--Andeh 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. The information presented is more relevant to BB.com than to the general public. -reyalp 70.180.85.95 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be merged, it must be completely re-written to conform with NPOV and cite sources more accurately.--Andeh 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is that? As per WP:BIO, Dorman has been featured in popular culture publications, and they have been listed above. In fact, the sheer notoriety and name-recognition in the bodybuilding community led to a substantial cult following. He was one of the most popular contributors on BB.com. The message board alone is in the top-100 on the internet. 24.79.43.137 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find sources more notable than just a forum to proove notability.--Andeh 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Here is a Louis Dorman advertisement/article from Flex Magazine, a major muscle magazine that you can pick up yourself. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_3_23/ai_n13653770 24.79.43.137 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) is this enough for qualification under WP:BIO? He has his own advertisements in magazines, his own commercial enterprise, his own (now defunct) cult following. What else? 24.79.43.137 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Dorman has been featured in fullpaged advertisements in major magazines. Here is one of his published advertisements from FLEX Magazine: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_3_23/ai_n13653770. 24.79.43.137 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but thats an advertisement. If it were a cover story, that might be different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keephe is a liar and a fraud, and people have the RIGHT to know hes a fraud before he makes more money on his fake transformation 69.158.182.57 22:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as vanity article and/or attack page ... why is this even on AFD? By the way, to the IP users joining us this evening, you may want to read the message above. This is not a vote and spamming the discussion without offering any reasons for a keep isn't going to change anything. Please see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines for guidelines on what constitutes a vanity article vs a notable individual on Wikipedia. BigDT 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I decided to go ahead and be WP:BOLD and tag it for a speedy. This is patently silly. WP is not a place to carry out message board debates. BigDT 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...What did I just see? Delete, per WP:NOT, and WP:BIO. Yanksox 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, everything presented in the wiki is true. It showed an original photo, it showed an altered photo, it said that Louis went to school for digital editing....it doesn't say *he* did it. It lets people make their own judgement, based on facts. As for not being relevant or important enough, that's crap. Fitness/health is a billion dollar industry and this guy was one of the most well respected 'success stories' ever. Countless people looked up to him; people have a right to know the truth. There is no reason for this not to be on wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.177.193 (talk • contribs) .
I agree. I've also provided links showing that he was published. FLEX wasn't the only magazine to feature him. He was also in an assortment of other ones... including non-fitness related mags like FHM and MAXIM. 24.79.43.137 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" He is noteable for anyone interested in the field, and I don't see any inaccuracies. Sumguy2
Again, agreed. Unfortunately for some here, anything Bodybuilding-related is obscure and not of great relevance. For the hundreds of thousands that are interested -- this is highly relevant material. Especially since I have provided evidence showing the use of his advertisements in major magazines. Dorman's doctoring will surely be the subject of discussion at fitness expos in the near future. 24.79.43.137 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is of such great relevance to the bodybuilding community, why aren't there any articles in such bodybuilding magazines about the controversy? Aplomado talk 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Watch this space. 24.79.43.137 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have three speedy tags and an AfD tag, this is getting out of hand. Personally, I think the AfD should run it's course, since "notability" is there and it's not a complete full frontal deprecation of the subject. Yanksox 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirFerg

[edit]

WP:WEB Non-notable website/podcast, 83 hits in Google excluding blogs. John Nagle 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No references even assert notability, let alone demonstrate it. "prod" was deleted by the article creator, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 81 of those hits are unique. The rest are because there's a reference to the thing in a blog's toolbar. --John Nagle 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goowy

[edit]

Just an advertisement, plain and simple. Might or might not be notable, but with content of that sort I'm not inclined to check thoroughly. Delete for needing total rewrite in any case. Deleted via PROD, now recreated. Sandstein 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but allow for recreation if completely rewritten The company is apparently rather notable. "Goowy Media" returns almost 20,000 Google hits (although only 254 are unique), and its web site has an Alexa rank of 13,453. Thus, I'd be fine with someonebody recreating this article if it was actually an article as opposed to a press release. But until that's done, I'm just going with "delete". -- Kicking222 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. I think this could be turned into an article due to its association with Mark Cuban, but as it stands it's just an ad. Aplomado talk 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert, and I'm not convinced the subject is notable even if the article were rewritten. Robin Johnson 10:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I will rewrite as an article and repost. Alex 9:35, 14 June 2006 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.225.76 (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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ink Compatible (album)

[edit]

Non-notable album per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A7) – Gurch 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle boys

[edit]

non-notable online movie group zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harquch.com

[edit]

Non-notable website. Spam written in second person, even. TheProject 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Article needs better evidence of notability and could use a rewrite to de-brochureise it, but the consensus for Keep seems clear to me. Agree with Alphachimp's (et al) criticisms of the article as it is now, and if it isn't fixed in a few months, that's certainly reason to renominate, but the consensus is clear to me at this time. --++Lar: t/c 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel image editor

[edit]

Moving nomination from the CFD page. The original nomination is below - EurekaLott 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page describes a commercial software product and was probably set up by the developer itself --> misplaced advertising Naui 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This page was not setup by developer itself, he just made some corrections time to time. I think this software is not real commercial software.... 1) it's very cheap, 2) it's a wonder how it works on all those platforms and is more portable than Java. Also there are numerous articles about commercial packages including those from Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, Microsoft etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.106.132 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Article is not offensive or advertising. I guess it's interesting as well. Keep it in my opinion, as this page is linked from Bitmap graphics comparison article. ((unsigned|87.197.131.92}}
  • Delete This page reads and is formatted just like an advertisement. The screenshots and system requirements seal the deal. See WP:NOT. It might be helpful to compare this is a legit article, such as Windows XP --Alphachimp talk 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit The page is not pushy or derogatory of other products, and is perfectly comprable to Photoshop in listing features, supported OS's, and showing screenshots of the interface. I recommend adding a section listing the competitors, as has been done on the Photoshop page to prevent a possible bias. Xiliquiern 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, edit detail/POV - my fail on notability though. Ace of Risk 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; software seems to be pretty unique in its market. The article ought to be improved, though. Perle 18:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve as per Xiliquiern. Algebra 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Revolution

[edit]

This appears to be someone's small, personal company. I can find no proof of its notability, and indeed, no notability is asserted. Ashenai 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Consensus seems clear here, article is not merely a POV fork but does have information not in the main article. Nothing stopping the nom from proposing a merge later. Aside: I like how the cleanup tags make a neat stylistic pyramid... but maybe they're not all needed any more. --++Lar: t/c 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox

[edit]

A POV fork with more dispute tags than references. Cleanup, frankly, will probably never happen. Deltabeignet 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. The article needs massive cleanup but the artist seems notable, the later keep comments make the case quite cogently and one of the deletes changed their thinking... seems consensus for keep to me. --++Lar: t/c 04:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Criminal

[edit]

doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Rockero 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's really hard to tell if he meets WP:MUSIC, but from the limited amount of information that is floating around, it doesn't appear to be so. Yanksox 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Actually, he totally doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, I was just trying to find the notability of the record label and yeah... Yanksox 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. No evidence of notability. Game servers don't typically get WP articles. --++Lar: t/c 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunemaul

[edit]

Not notable... -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Story (album)

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable album by a non-notable band. --Danielrocks123 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus seems clear. No significant evidence of notability, use in media such as newspapers would be better than "small websites". Will userify on request. --++Lar: t/c 04:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuic

[edit]

Neologism. Author has repeatedly removed SD tags. Author has only one source for the word, and that source is a personal website. Feel free to speedy this article. I'm posting it here because the speedy tag has been removed several times. Rklawton 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original author has now also removed the AfD tag. I've restored it, but we'll want to keep an eye out. Since the author has been warned about this prior to removing the tag he/she has also been reported as a vandal. Rklawton 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: original author has repeatedly removed the AfD tag and just now replaced it with an award nomination tag. Author has been warned not to remove maintenance templates - and has now been reported as a vandal. I think this serves as clear evidence the intentions of this author, and it reflects on the merits of the article under consideration here. Rklawton 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford-Cambridge_Arc

[edit]

This page appears to be a promotion for an economic development scheme, rather than an explanation of a geographical term that is already in common use. I have lived in Cambridge since 1998 and I read the local newspapers and newsgroups, but while I am well aware of Oxford-Cambridge academic links and the term "Oxbridge" I have never heard mention of an "Oxford-Cambridge Arc". Benhutchings 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keeping. I'm taking "already realized I made a mistake" as a tacit request to withdraw the AFD. That, combined with two speedy keeps, is good enough for me. If he wants to renominate it, then so be it. --Golbez 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biruaca

[edit]

Delete. One, only Apure links to it. Two, judging by Google it's not a very noteworthy city. Three, I believe a red link would spur editors to create a stub or perhaps even an article more noteworthy than this one... With love, Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I should mention that most of the other cities in the Apure State have articles like this one. If this one "succeeds" the nomination (i e, gets deleted), I'll nominate those too. Otherwise, no point, aye? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • [EDIT conflict. Hey folks I wrote when you were writing. But you were faster in saving :-) Here my text again:] I am sorry for my harsh note. Jörn said it was his first AFD. I had some bad experience with AFD, and did not see it on enWP for a long time. Hope enWP stays this way. Jörn, sorry again to you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revogba

[edit]

Non-notable IRC channel advertisement —Aiden 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Richardcavell 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Richardcavell 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo industries

[edit]

Dingo Industries is a multi-national conglomerate is intended for global domination of whichever market it enters as well as to create profit for its owners. Isn't that pretty much the goal of every company? Too bad this one only gets three Google hits. Non-notable company, advertising. The "About" link on their official website links to this Wikipedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article should be protected against recreation. It's quite obvious that the company has no qualms about reposting this junk. -- Kicking222 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Aplomado talk 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice against recreation, as long as the editor is neither the subject nor a sockpuppet. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Norman

[edit]

Originally prodded for deletion, but the subject himself, User:Klnorman took it off. I suppose the question is whether he meets the professor test or not. I don't typically like to delete things, but because Kent took it off the delete list himself, I'd really like the community to look at this one. The reasons Ifnord added the proposed deletion tag were as follows:

"Non-notable. ~800 Google hits (First two entries are here and mirror site) and fails professor test. Also vanity... Ifnord 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Sparsefarce 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete He seems notable enough if you look at his real publication list. However, he's not soo notable as to grant a pass on Jimbo's "Don't create your own articles folks." Worse yet, he has continued to edit his own article. Deletion should not prejudice aginst recreation by another author. JeffBurdges 11:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trippa-tak

[edit]

Non notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC, almost eligible for speedy deletion if not for the mention of an "independant label" that Google doesn't know about [66] (edit:bit misleading, there's actually one valid link to myspace and 3 unrelated links), anyway, author removed the "notability" template I added, so I don't expect he would leave a {{db-bio}} tag either. Equendil Talk 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strensham services

[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, contains almost no useful information, not notable, wikipedia is not a travel guide... Richardcavell 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carron Clementina

[edit]

Non-notable - if giving money to worthy causes provides notability then my grandmother has an equal claim! BlueValour 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RoadChef

[edit]

Non-notable company, pulls up a few hundred hits on Google but none of them do more than mention the company in passing. Aplomado talk 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below. Aplomado talk 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cal dining

[edit]

As a rule, I don't think information about dining conditions or arrangements at any particular university are at all notable, and this article certainly doesn't assert notability in any way. Also, it's most likely original research, and it is certainly entirely unsourced. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the Nomination The article is now completely sourced and very different than the original one that was read at the time of the nomination. Please do take the time to actually read the article itself. It can be found at the link above. Presidank 06:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep "As a rule" something based upon your own opinions does not make that thing a rule. Also this article was just created and I have not had to the time to link the proper citations. Please be patient.
    • In addition, on the note of notability, there is already an article on the housing facilities at UC Berkeley, why should there not be an article on its vast and multifaceted dining facilties as well? This article is still a stub and I am sorry that I forgot to note it as such.
    • Please be patient as I also have other things I am currently working on, but I will make every effort to expand this stub to a detailed and well citied article. - Presidank 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Where. Sounds a bit crufty to me. Morgan Wick 01:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done my best for now to update and cite the article, more will follow soon. Please reconsider based on new version of article. Thanks. - Presidank 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reread it, and I don't think that changes my opinion on the matter. It's a well-written and informative article, don't get me wrong, I just don't think the subject matter is encyclopedic, unless this is something that university dining facilities are modeled after the world over or something. It's just where people eat. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, and I don't think it meets WP:CORP, either. I realize that the housing facilities have their own article as well, but I'm thinking of AfD'ing that one, too, pretty much for the same reasons I AfD'd this one (although I think that a long-standing living arrangement that stretches back fifty years is inherently a little more notable than dining arrangements). -- Captain Disdain 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not just an article on a place where people go to eat. This is an article about an organization which runs the dining facilities at UC Berkeley. They are a legitimate business that provides catering services to people outside of the UC as well. Also there has been press coverage about this company, which has been around just as long as the housing facilites, in fact they are under the same umbrella group, qualifying it for notability under WP:CORP. The exact lines read:
A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
  2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies.
  3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.
Clearly the company meets one of these. Presidank 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have two tiny little problem there: 1) Cal Dining is NOT a corporation, a company, or the least bit divisible from UC Berkeley; 2) You've copied and pasted passages from WP:CORP but haven't made the least attempt to connect them to the subject of this article, or explain how they apply, other than the hadwaving "clearly they apply". No, it's not clear. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Notability of Article Non-notable? Has anyone even looked at the article? Cal Dining created the first certified organic residential dining salad bar in the nation, paving the way for sustainability and setting the standard by which other campuses are soon to follow. How is that not as notable as something like an aritcle on a fictional World of Warcraft zone or something of the sort? Forgive me if I sound a bit annoyed at this judgment, but I have put effort into citing sources and writting the article within WP:NPOV. How can there be an article on the housing facilities at UC Berkeley and not one on its dining facilities? Please actually take the time to look over the article as it is thus far and take time to read the news sources.
Campus cruft? If this article is crufty, than I would have to say the same argument applies to articles pertaining to other esoteric communities such as the Starcraft and Warcraft universes. Why are there so many articles allowed for non-existant locations, but there cannot even be an article on an organization that actually exists in real life?
Please do comment, all input is apperciated. - Presidank 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a rule, I also pay no attention to arguments relying upon the hackneyed formula, "If [unimportant subject but utterly unrelated topic] has an article, so should [my unimportant subject]". We're not discussing other, unrelated articles, we're discussing this one.
  • The number of sources you use or the amount of work you do on an article is immaterial if the topic isn't worth a separate article to begin with. This level of detail is pointlessly trivial, and if incoming UC students need this level of information, that's the rightful province of the UC Campus Housing Office and their webpage. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this can potentially be very helpful for new UC Berkeley students. First of all, it is a good introduction to what Cal Berkeley represents. For example, potential students can see that our dining facilities serve only organic food. This reflects not only our emphasis on personal health, but also of the well-being of the environment and farmers. There are also many places to eat on campus that many students don't know about. For example, students most commonly eat at the dining halls or the Golden Bear Cafe, but there are other on campus locations such as Ramona's or Pat Brown's Grill that provide food. I have met many students that have never been to these locations and didn't even know about them. All in all, I believe that this article can be very useful for not only new/enrolled students to see what Berkeley has to offer, but offer an unbiased (something not written by the University) opinion. Also, it can be linked to from the Berkeley main site in order to show, more in-depth, the great facilities that are offered at this university other than the best education in the world. PavementIstRad 04:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edits[reply]
User's only edits are to this article.
  • Keep As a student of UC Berkeley, I can vouch that this article is very accurate. It would be very helpful to incoming freshmen, especially if it was linked to from the UC Berkeley page. msodrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.224.16.91 (talk • contribs) .
Comment by an IP, of which the user doesn't even have any edit history.
  • Keep This article is not only notable but provides valuable information. I found that this article partained to my own school and my own dining experiences and not just Cal dining alone. I was able to compare my experience with campus dining to the one offered on this campus. I feel this article embodies the very purpose of this page by illuminating a different perspective. Dangerkitten 06:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit.
  • Delete Put it into an article about UC. User's comming to say 'keep' are probably all students. If it can't provide encyclopedia to anyone but new students, why would it be in an encyclopedia? It sounds like something that should go on fliers around campus. Its not the content of the article, its the subject at hand. Kevin_b_er 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh and if I ever get the proper time, those World of warcraft articles will end up under the AfD magnifying glass. There's way too much misc data on video games and every minute detail of a TV show on wikipedia, but that's because there's an overwhelming number of editors who keep editing it. Kevin_b_er 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The overall arguments for deletion have been clearly addressed and refuted, and as a rule, I pay no attention to people that repeat their arguments. This article is of much importance, not only because it describes the possible dining situations at UC Berkeley, but also Cal Dining's contributions for the community.
Smaller locations are noted alongside the well-known dining halls, providing awareness of the possible eating options for this international school (information which I propose to be expanded). An incredibly high number of people (not just students) are on this campus a day, and knowledge of these restaurants will be helpful during their stay at Berkeley. Cal Dining's efforts towards organic foods and an environmentally friendly program are of particular significance at a time when people have finally begun to realize the importance of environmental-friendly practices. The article's inclusion of these efforts enlightens others on what can be done and serves as a model for any other similar facilities.
Incoming UC students will undoubtedly find this information helpful, as well as tourists, parents, professors, international dignitaries, and the like. Information about Cal Dining serves a world-wide audience and an article is very much needed to carry this information to readers.
The motivating factor for one disagreeing member is to mop "up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." This article is accurate, concise, and far from extreme. It is difficult to imagine why people would have a problem with such articles. Apook 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to his user page and this AfD.[reply]
  • The overall arguments for deletion have been clearly addressed and refuted Ah, that old stand-by, the unilateral declaration of victory. Uh, no.
  • An incredibly high number of people (not just students) are on this campus a day, and knowledge of these restaurants will be helpful during their stay at Berkeley. That's what those nice maps around campus are for. That what this nice website -- http://caldining.berkeley.edu/ -- is for. That's what turning to your hosts, fellow students, or someone walking by and saying, "Say, where can I get a bagel around here?" is for. Wikipedia? Not so much.
  • Cal Dining's efforts towards organic foods and an environmentally friendly program are of particular significance at a time when people have finally begun to realize the importance of environmental-friendly practices. Dude, Cal Dining isn't unique in that regard. Cal Dining isn't unique in Berkeley in that regard. Cal Dining isn't unique among schools in Berkeley in that regard (just ask Alice Waters).
  • The motivating factor for one disagreeing member is to mop "up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." More irrelevancies -- I haven't brought any of those things up. When it comes to dishonesty, for example, I tend to think of things like sockpuppetry, when one person creates multiple accounts to give the illusion of mass support -- accounts that invariably have only a few edits and identical prose/rhetorical styles. When it comes to fanaticism, I tend to think of editors tendentiously wikilawyering, pushing for views or opinions that extremely narrow or of interest only to a tiny minority. When it comes to incompetence, I think of those that try all of the above despite that fact it's been tried -- many times daily, it seems -- with limited success. But I didn't bring them up, and surely none of those things apply here?
  • This article is accurate, concise, and far from extreme. Well, at least it's not obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple -- qualities just as applicable to the actual issue at hand; that is, whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia in the first place.
  • It is difficult to imagine why people would have a problem with such articles. I'm not sure why you have difficulty imagining what people have told you directly, but we all have our crosses to bear, I guess.
  • If you want to contribute, contribute where Wikipedia is lacking, not what it doesn't need more of. UC Berkeley has one of the largest academic libraries in the United States, as I recall: use that to fill in the gaps in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hetar, your comment provides no arguments and mocks my sincerity. Refute my evidence for its notability and your post will finally be respected. What is your definition of cruft? To start, I suggest you re-examine your World of Warcraft articles. Kevin_b_er might help you as well. Apook 07:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that I and other users need to re-examine "our" WoW articles is nothing more than a personal attack. Please comment on the content of this article, and not on my or other users' associations or interests. For more information on the word cruft, please see WP:CRUFT. --Hetar 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hetar I think you missed the point of Apook's message entirely, his main point was not to attack your WoW articles, I myself play WoW. I beleive the point he was trying to make is to bring some sort of actual argument that refutes his notability statment, rather than just write everything off as cruft and dance around his argument by picking at things on the sidebar. Presidank 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is already stuff on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be there is not an argument for adding more stuff that probably shouldn't be there. Whether there are ten or twenty or twenty thousand worthless WoW articles is immaterial and bringing it up in this discussion does not in any way establish notability for this article. -- Captain Disdain 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate isn't about the accuracy of the article -- even if it were inaccurate, the task at hand would be copyediting, not deletion. I do question, however, the notability of this subject -- it reads like a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not. This content might be more welcome at Wikitravel, but for the time being, I'm not entirely convinced of its relevance to an encyclopedia. That said, I'm undecided as of yet. Is there a precedent, here, or is this new ground? Luna Santin 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of no interest to anyone outside UC Berkeley, and presumably available to them elsewhere. This is not an encylclopedic subject. Robin Johnson 10:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • i currently reside outside of UC berkeley and i found interest in this article and this information is not available to me else where 67.119.124.137 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm Cal grad (Go Bears!) and even WORKED for Cal Dining (washing dishes at the dining room at the Unit 1 or Unit 3 dorms (I could never tell the goddamned things apart), and I find not only no interest, I find no REASON for this article to be here. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Hetar, I did not intend to personally attack you. I hope you can accept my apology if you feel that way.
The debate about cruft is clearly a subjective one. My questioning of your World of Warcraft articles brings to light what you think cruft is. If you feel WoW articles are not cruft but this Cal Dining one is, please argue why. This current discussion pertains to the Cal Dining article only, but I believe that if anyone's definition of cruft is biased, his or her crufty argument against the article should be disregarded.
I followed your WP:CRUFT link, and it states that fancruft "can be a contributing factor in [an article's] deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." This brings to me wonder why we are even debating this point. It also states that "Non-canon fanfiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopaedic." To me, articles for WoW are certainly fanfiction, and I feel that your arguments against this article are hypocritical. Again, this is not an attack against you but against your minimalist arguments.
The question now is whether this article is an encyclopaedic subject. One previous post feels that this argument reads like a travel guide, but I disagree. Following the "Wikipedia is not" link provided in that post, it states that "An article on Paris should mention landmarks." Although a dining hall at Cal certainly does not compare to Paris' Eiffel Tower, the dining program is an intricate and important part of any post-secondary school. In a liberal sense, the article discusses some of the landmarks at Cal. There has been a precedent set by the article on Cal student housing, as well as the Virginia Tech article, which includes information on its dining halls.
I strongly disagree with the most recent post, which argues that the article is of no interest to anyone outside UC Berkeley. Please read the first post I made (06:56, 14 June 2006 UTC). If tourists, parents, company recruiters/representatives, and international dignitaries aren't considered people outside of UC Berkeley, then I truly don't know who are. Instead of assuming that this information is available to "them" elsewhere, find it. The information offered in the article is more comprehensive than it is anywhere else. Apook 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the dining program is an intricate and important part of any post-secondary school. I've eaten at Cal Dining facilities: No. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't really care at all whether the information is available to people elsewhere. I'm also rather uninterested in precedents; Wikipedia has its share of bad or unnecessary or otherwise unfortunate articles, WoW themed and otherwise. None of them have any bearing here. Furthermore, Apook, I must respectfully point out that I am not convinced that you're not a sockpuppet. Even if you are not, I must also point out that with the exception of a single edit on Monta Vista High School, you have never contributed to Wikipedia except twice on your own user page, and on this discussion. This, particularly when combined with your comments, leads me to believe that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's goals or policies and as such I will take your arguments with a grain of salt. I realize that you feel that this article should stay, but this far your arguments for that have mostly ignored any arguments against its inclusion and have been based on inconsequential and irrelevant straw men, such as whether WoW articles are fan fiction or whether landmarks in capital cities are somehow comparable to landmarks in universities. And yes, I'm sure that WP:CRUFT says many things, but WP:CRUFT is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. In any case, consensus will settle this issue in the end, not armchair lawyering or arguments about the wording of specific rules. I think you can very clearly see where the consensus is heading right now. If you want to change that, I suggest that instead of arguing here, you work on the article to establish notability -- if you can -- because that will most likely sway us. Building straw men here will not. -- Captain Disdain 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Whether On Your Feet should be merged into Spoken (band) is a debate that can be made outside of this AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken (band)

[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Also their non-notable record On Your Feet Nv8200p talk 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. I hope this doesn't discourage the new users from contributing to Wikipedia, but please note that AfDs are not about counting votes, it's about forming consensus among Wikipedia editors. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more room in hell

[edit]

Video game mod that hasn't even been released yet, thus I don't think it could have achieved any sort of notability standard. Delete. Wickethewok 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The mod has been in development for a long time and has since garnered the respect of many of the other zombe modifications as well as the rather large communities of the major half-life 2 news sites, added with the mention in pcgamer and the rather large community with a equally large post count I doubt the comment on notability and lack thereof was founded on anything other than blind generalizations. --MindlessDrone 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has only edited this AfD debate and its associated talk page. Name is same as a member of NMRiH forums. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, Morgan, I dont mean to be rude, but what does how active a user is matter into anything? Just because I'm not all that active doesn't mean I dont figure into the discussion at hand. Same with StukaAce and MindlessDrone, just because they don't spend all their time on Wikipedia doesn't mean their voices don't matter.--IU2002 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't blame me, it's just that Wikipedians tend to be more suspicious of less-active-in-main-namespace users and especially users seemingly created solely to contribute to an AfD. You seem to be less suspicious than the rest, especially MindlessDrone. (Our name for "mindless drones" on Wikipedia is sockpuppet. That's the main reason we're so suspicious.) Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I assure you I'm not some kind of a roving bot. I'm one of three major moderators on the No More Room in Hell forum. I also understand your concern of the given situation, but I hope you can also understand our desire to keep the page alive. But to lighten the mood, sweet, a sock puppet. Maybe now I can get a job on Sesame Street like I always wanted :> --MindlessDrone 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say keep your mom, other unfinished modifications have a page and this one is well made and formatted --Reaperman (usurped) 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per PC Gamer ref and precedent I'm about to mention. Iron Grip was nominated for deletion and kept; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Grip. Neotokyo may be an official mod. Zombie Master looks non-notable and I will nominate it for deletion pronto. Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A simple look at the forums will show how notable this modification truly is. Neotokyo is just another mod, there is nothing "official" about a modification unless it is purchased by the makers of the actual game. Just because a mod has a slick finish doesn't mean it is "official." --StukaAce 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not listing it for deletion because it's an article of much better quality than either of the other two. Others may disagree. Morgan Wick 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, but doesn't that go against the policy of: No release = not enough notability? Neotokyo has never been afd'd, but it seems every single other unreleased mod has. --StukaAce 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am leaving this debate in the hands of others. I'm done. I voted neutral. I know it looks like I'm opposing the article, but I just saw how similar the three keep votes from you, Drone, and IU2002 were and it set off my sockometer. Morgan Wick 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's alright Morgan, I understand the position you're coming from. You were just trying to kill off would-be abusers of wikipedia and its assetts. I would do the same if it happened on our forum. --MindlessDrone 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iron Grip's AfD was actually no consensus, and most keep votes actually wanted to merge it with a list of Half-Life 2 mods. Per WP:SOFTWARE, only claims to notability are PC Gamer ref (whether or not it's "trivial" is questionable) and player numbers for a game that's not out yet (forum numbers are worth considering, but what are the standards for a mod?). I get the impression that WP:SOFTWARE does not include reputation in the HL2 mod community. Very very weak delete. Morgan Wick 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should stop trusting impressions and actually become a member of the community. How can a person from outside the HL2 news feed possibly understand how popular or not a mod is, and pass judgement properly? I don't know how many mods can claim over 100,000 posts over a period of three years, many mods cannot even claim to have lasted three years. No More Room in Hell is the first of many HL2 zombie modifications, has been published in a noted gaming magazine, and needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. --StukaAce 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, the only sources I consulted for the above ref were the image you linked to (I can't imagine it would have gone much, or any, longer than what was in the image) and WP:SOFTWARE. Second, so far the only person defending this article that hasn't started posting in the past day is IU2002. You seem to be conferring a lot of notability on a mod that hasn't even been released yet. I did not claim that this was not unpopular, only that I didn't know how popular it had to be and that I didn't know if certain standards of popularity mattered at all. Morgan Wick 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it matter that IU2002 is the only member that hasn't started posting in the past day? Shouldn't you treat all newcomers and their ideas with respect? Is it not a policy? Noob cannon lol 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - While it is policy to treat with newcomes with respect (as all editors here have), more weight is traditionally given to arguments from editors who are more experienced. This cuts down on any sort of "ballot stuffing" and the like. Wickethewok 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry." The notice at the top says this is not a vote and it does not matter how many people vote for keep or delete- it matters more about the quality of arguments on both sides.Noob cannon lol 15:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. However, the quality and opinions expressed by experienced users tend to be given more credibility. Just trying to describe to how quality of arguments is judged.Wickethewok 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By what you say, it seems it's obviously not judged by a hardcoded policy, just by people who have been around wikipedia longer then the newcomer has. I understand what you're thinking and that it's human nature to assume that those more experienced are more credible then those that are new, but it is conflicting to have a policy saying to treat all newcomers with respect and to consider their ideas while the members of wikipedia judge more on the basis of join date or edit count.Noob cannon lol 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a game guide? what about this link which is devoted to games under development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_and_video_games_under_development --Reaperman (usurped) 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh (Was accidently deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 June 2006 - was readded by StukaAce
  • Delete It's just not that notable. GassyGuy 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are very many Half Life 2 mods presently with their own page on Wikipedia. This comment can be read either way from what I see, though I don't feel qualified to suggest an action. Jammo (SM247) 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it has been released, at least.--Andeh 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Popular to those that develop mods and follow the scene, but unheard of outside. Non-notable, at least until release. --Angry Lawyer 07:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment' As per Xiliquem on the AFD:NeoTokyo debate, just because something is unknown outside of its core following (in this case, players who are into modifications of already existing games) does not mean that the subject should be non-notable, as editors are going to have different tastes, and would consider different pages Non-Notable and worthy of an AFD. As someone who has spent sometime covering the gaming modification scene off and on for the past almost two years now, the modification scene is getting to a point where the makers of the mods are quickly becoming the next generation of game designers, and the modifications only differ with actual games on a price point and the fact that unlike most retail titles, the mods work on an almost beta testing status once they go public. Is the subject non-notable to me? Not by a longshot. Is it non-notable to the nominator? Yes, ,but in my opinoun there may be some articles on some topics that I would find non-notable that likewise appeal towards the taste of the nominator of this AfD. Is it non-notable to others? Well, that depends on one's taste. The facts have been established that the subject has been featured at least once in PC Gamer, which is one of, if not THE, top magazines in the United States covering the PC Gaming industry and I would consider a respected technical magazine on the issue, thusly in this editors' eyes satisfying WP:Software, as well as anywhere from 14,200 to over 20,000 Google hits depending on the search terms, which in my eyes passes the Google test. Furthermore, even IF the subject truly is non-notable, its not like the subject is taking up valuable space on Wikipedia, its not going to harm a darn thing if heavenforbid a page with information on an unreleased modification was allowed to stand, just like its not going to hurt for some other page pertaining towards a niche audience to remain standing. --IU2002 05:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but it's a fan-made mod. I would say that only mods that are commercially-released could be said to automatically attain notability by their release. Fan-made mods need to earn their notability, otherwise the place would be clogged up with every single one ever made. Since this mod hasn't even been released, and that there therefore exists nothing to tell us how many people have downloaded/played it, how can it assert notability? Come back if it becomes an insanely popular mod... but at the moment the article verges on both advertising and crystal ballism. Seb Patrick 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This mod has a right to exist here as much as any other mod. Whether it's been released or not. For the record, the mod is coming close to it's release. Evansmp 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I visit many forums and hang out with nerds of all shapes and sizes, and this is the first time I've ever seen the term "sock puppet" used in that way. It seems to be exclusive to Wikipedia and yet, for some strange reason, it has it's own page. What's so "notable" about an inside joke? For that matter, why is there a page about Ugoff from the Burger King commercials? Three years from now no one will remember him, nor will they care. You all seem to be under the impression that this is a legitimate encyclopedia, when the reality is that it's a haven for external links and disposable pop culture references. I guess the reason we're all new is because we didn't feel passionate enough about a subject to edit it. Are we all supposed to correct 50 minor grammatical errors to be accepted into your elitist encyclopedia society? What a joke. Ouij 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Will keep-voters please read Notability and What Wikipedia is Not. Robin Johnson 10:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be wiser to ask everyone participating in this discussion to read Notability and What Wikipedia is Not, Mr. Johnson. The NMRIH project exists and is verified by at least one external source. This voids the claim of not being notable. Wikipedia articles are not legitimated by hitting a made up number of people knowing about the subject of the article, as this would be against the idea of having a wikipedia. Also popularity of the subject is not a concern, either, otherwise articles like ["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide"] would have to be deleted due to being "unpopular" and "politically incorrect". The accusation of advertisement is not applicable for wikipedia entries in general, as wikipedia articles require the user to actually inquire about the subject. The only way to use an article as advertisement is to bias it in favor of the subject and then link to it externally. Being a freely available product instead of a commercial one does not make a subject inferior to others and does not prevent it to have it's own wikipedia article. The only difference of information value presented in this article caused by an release would be to change it from "has been attempted" to "has been done", the innovation value would be very similar. My main issue with this article is the estimated release date, as that is speculation, although it is not enough to justify a deletion of the whole article and may be considered custom for modifications in general. IMO the page is well structured and rather unbiased and anyone looking for informations about game modifications will find suitable information about the project. I'd like to see similar information on other modifications in their respective articles, as I doubt that this would cause damage to wikipedia's structure or credibility. -- Anapher 11:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because there are roughly three quadrillion unreleased game mods out there, and notability through release, favourable reviews and media attention should be a requirement for a Wikipedia article. Like, erm, my own MINERVA! Ahem. But the content need not be lost - stick it on the Valve Developer Community wiki for now... HiddenInPlainSight 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome - To Wikipedia: Noob cannon, StukaAce, MindlessDrone, Reaperman, Ouji, Anapher. Enjoy your time here guys, and I hope this doesn't deter you guys from making contributions to Wikipedia in the future. Wickethewok 12:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont understand why this has to be a big fight, this wiki page provides information about a videogame in development for those seeking it, it is one of the biggest and most well known in the half life two community, and has been featured i at least two video game magazines. To be honest this whole experiance has left something of a bad taste in my mouth about the wiki community in general, should i be afraid to post something because the wiki ghestapo decend upon my carefully made and formatted page and wipe it from existance because they nave never heard of it, and it is therefor not notible?... --Reaperman (usurped) 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd have to say keep. Although I was directed from a forum is it not enough that the community behind the mod makes it notable. A mention in a well known publication is notable. I understand the reasons but if this mod is removed all others that are unfished would need to be removed too without biased. That would be pointless so keep it. Pillsy 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webpage hosting company. If the modmakers want a place to host information about their mod, there is a place called the 'internet' they can use. Also, there is never any guarantee of a mod ever being released, so this mod could simply drop off the face of the earth. If the mod is actually -released-, then perhaps it might be notable enough for Wikipedia, but unless someone on the mod team is famous, definitely delete this article. Moleculor 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fan game mod... absolutely not notable for Wikipedia article, and unless something truly extraordinary happens, it never will be. per Bwithh. - Motor (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only thing reason people are throwing out that this should be deleted is because the mod is not released and as such does not have notability.

no·ta·bil·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "notability" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-bl-t) n. pl. no·ta·bil·i·ties 

  1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice.
  2. A prominent or notable person.

This modification is eminent in the modding community, never dropping below fifth on the top 100 half life 2 mods list on moddb. There have also been two magazine articles that found the mod to be worthy of notice. If you have a problem with the mod being free and not a commercial production, then maybe you can understand that it was included in publications that are sold commercially. This mod is very prominent even without being released, which is saying something don't you think? The fact that NMRIH can attain so much publicity and support without even being released yet shows how notable the soon to be released game is. I don't know why people have it out for this article, but there are literally thousands of other articles that are less notable than this. -Bizarro1

    • User's only two edits are this comment and signing it. Admitted user of forums below. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have such a problem with people responding to this article as their first act on Wikipedia, then maybe you should visit No More Room In Hell. Here, you will be able to verify that each user who has just recently created an account and posted here is in fact a separate person. Just in case you want to know, my account here is Bizarro, not Bizarro1. Most of the people who have posted here have several hundred posts on the forums. -Bizarro1
        • Please read the {{afdanons}} note at the top. Deletion debates are intended to elicit the opinions of established Wikipedia editors, not people who vote solely to save their favorite game without making any other contribution to Wikipedia (and who tend to misunderstand Wikipedia policy). In fact, I've now tagged everyone I have reason to believe is coming here from the forums, so admins know who was asked to flood this debate with keep votes knowing nothing about Wikipedia. Morgan Wick 02:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You should also read it more clearly. Deletion debates are not limited to established Wikipedia editors. The conclusion of the debate is reached by the consensus of a whole determined by the administrator. The consensus depends on the quality of arguments no matter the edit count or join date, not how many people vote for keep/delete. Point me to the policy that says that the argument brought by an experienced editor should always be considered more highly than someone who has contributed much less. Don't give me any of that "tend to" crap. Could you just please just stop trying to esteem the the argument of a newcomer to the level of a vandal? Noob cannon lol 03:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you have any intention of contributing to Wikipedia beyond this debate? Other than this AfD debate, the (related) Neotokyo AfD debate, and listing Resident Evil:Twilight for deletion (for similar reasons to the other two, possibly as a WP:POINT even if it does deserve to be deleted), and creating your own user page, you haven't done a thing. Wikipedia welcomes newcomers and invites them to contribute to our encyclopedia, and I would love for you to become a highly regarded member of our community, but the only main namespace article you've actually contributed to is the one that's the only reason you're contributing in the first place. Surely you have things to contribute to Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike, or even Doom (video game), or maybe you have some other interest you can contribute to? Morgan Wick 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's important to note that Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Red Orchestra, and many other "notable" mods were all free at one time. Ouij 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's also important to note that Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Red Orchestra, and many other "notable" mods all released something playable. When No More Room In Hell has released its first public version and is toasted as the cream of the HL2 modding world, then a Wikipedia article will be justified. Because otherwise, it's just another work-in-progress game mod, and there are untold millions of those... --HiddenInPlainSight 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yet few of these "untold millions" have survived three years, been published, are higher on the Mod Database then many released mods, has 2,000 members and 100,000 posts.Again, Neotokyo exists as an example. This modification has never once been slapped with an AFD, it has also never been released. Why don't the same rules apply here? Well then, it seems Neotokyo has also been nailed with an Afd. --StukaAce 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have moved the page to the Valve Developer Community wiki as per request. If deleted, page will be resubmitted to the main Wikipedia site upon the mods first public release. --StukaAce 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those stating no notability, please note that a Google search of "No more room in hell" mod came back with over 20,000 hits, of which a majority of hits surveyed are in reference to the subject at hand. --IU2002 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor - if this can ever get to the status of team fortress than it would merit an article, but not until then. --Hetar 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, because the only time anyone should ever be able to find out about something is if they already know about it. -Bizarro1
  • Delete per Motor and because WP:NOT a crystal ball. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe when it is released, but even then, just not notable enough.--Auger Martel 11:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NN and WP:NOT. Once it is relevant, then it should have an article. This looks like a load of advertising. --Alphachimp talk 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can "Non notable" be used as a reason for deletion when it has been said multiple times that the mod has an article in PC Gamer, which meets Wiki's notability guidelines?--StukaAce 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure, go ahead and delete this Wiki, but if you do, how about we delete every wiki that has been made to cover a movie, a book, a mod, or any thing else that has work put into it and is not yet released. And if your are so hellbent on deleting things that you "don't cover", why don't we go ahead and delete EVERY wiki just to keep everyone happy? . The developers are well aware of this wiki, and have voiced no concern at it being here. EvanJO 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, yes, I'm from the forum, same name. I'm currently not very active in the forum, and instead stay in the IRC channel for the mod. Also, I've only made a few minor edits to Wikipedia outside this article. That shouldn't matter, really, and I'm getting it out of the way first. I'll try to repeat as little as possible, but this modification has achieved notability in a Subscription Magazine distributed to a very large audience, and is one of the top Half-Life 2 mods on Mod DB. At the time of this comment it is #3 on the list, with more "Unique Hits Total" (14,818) than even Gmod. That's almost 15,000 unique hits from a single webpage. It has been interviewed by an internet radio station and featured in a magazine, for being notable. It is respected and lauded by those both within and out of the internet community of zombie modifications and Half-Life 2 modifications in general. I vote keep for this article because many of the arguments against are biased or irrelevant due to the circumstance in that this mod is due to release soon, anyhow. The prediction that is being termed under Crystal Ball is a statement by the team mebers themselves. Though the general lack of media as opposed to other modifications may seem to work against my point, the team has been incredibly tight-lipped about the modification, hiding the overwhelming majority of their work from the public. Taking the released media as a sign of the mod in general would be like looking at a drop of rain and claiming that there is no such thing as a flood. As for my statement that the arguments against this page are biased, other mods mentioned earlier in this discussion were only paid attention to during this discussion. They were allowed to sit unviewed until brought up as 'evidence', and only then were they properly brought to debate. It seems that too many of those voting Delete are skipping over the discussion and going straight for the kill, as that is what seems to be the opinion of the other Wikipedia regulars. This argument is undoubtedly biased on both sides, but there are valid arguments within that bias. The only way that this article could serve as an advertisement is if it was featured on the main page, and even then I use the term advertisement very lightly. The intention of this article is to inform those who wish to be informed, the same as Wikipedia itself. --RelicLord 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User is self admitted member of the Forums --StukaAce 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one edit not on this article, but a month ago and on an unrelated topic (and so far as I know, constructive). Morgan Wick 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't oppose that information being known, Morgan, but why would it matter? If we are all here to debate whether or not an article should be removed, and are basing this argument on Wikipedia standards, what difference does it make that someone is new? It seems that you are trying to belittle the opinions of those against you by bringing up background information. You have not told the background of those who say Delete, only those who say Keep. We are all stating opinions and facts to support our respective sides on the issue. I would appreciate it if the debate could be taken at value, and above a personal level. Are my words denounced by the sole fact that I am writing them? What person, only knowing of me through this page, can properly judge me? Categorizing me only through an opinion is prejudice, and nothing more. --RelicLord 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just briefly had a look over this discussion after just being informed of its existance only minutes ago. I am the project manager for No More Room in Hell. Theres just a few points I would like to make in defense of keeping this article on wikipedia. First off, this project is very notable having been mentioned in PC Gamer (US) and PC Format (UK). Both magazines are highly respected in the field of PC Gaming and mod development news. Another reason, as mentioned before, is that this project is usually in the top 5 of the ModDB Top 100 mods. We have a highly dedicated fanbase as well as a thriving community. What would be the point of deleting this wiki entry? Does this entry harm anyone? Does it hurt anything? No, it doesn't. As for the arguement about it being advertising, that is rediculous. In order to find this you would have to actually search for it (to the best of my knowledge). This entry to me seems completely legitimate and should be kept. Thanks. --Cs42886
  • Comment (Because I always stick my nose in). Out of curiosity, what is everyone's beef with just deleting it, and then recreating it upon a successful release? With everyone seeming to expect an imminent release, it's not like you'll have to wait long. Minimum effort, minimum fuss - everyone's happy. Unless, of course, you don't think it'll be successful. --Angry Lawyer 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People search Wikipedia for information. If someone wants quick information, they usually consult Wikipedia. The article exists to inform others of the mods existence, and can be updated with newer information quicker then a normal webpage, as the webmaster may be on break or something similar.--StukaAce 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Wikipedia is not supposed to be free web-hosting; all that publicly exists of the mod so far are screenshots and other media, some text and a promise that something playable will get released one day; also, if the mod creators have a website that's difficult to update, then that's their problem. And they shouldn't really be significantly editing a Wikipedia article about themselves, anyhow. --HiddenInPlainSight 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Only editing of the article done by developers was removing redunancy under developers. The rest of editing has been done by forum moderators and fans, most of whom (if not all) do not have proper access to the website in order to update it.--IU2002 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisment for a unreleased game mod, keep to planethalflife.com please --Zandarx talk 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete for reasons clearly stated in nomination. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No other mod in PC Gamer screenshot has an article. Therefore using it to establish notability is questionable. I have already stated that whether it is not a trivial mention, per WP:SOFTWARE, is something that could be debated, and that is the main claim to notability for this article. Morgan Wick 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasban e Islam

[edit]

Non-notable movement. No Google hits. Has remained a stub since creation on 29 April. —Aiden 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

This relisting has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism as they seem likely to be in good position to evaluate. GRBerry 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor 15

[edit]

Survivor 15 is not even guarranteed to happen. It hasn't been announced and applications aren't up yet. Unlike Survivor 14, which is definatly happening since there are applications for it on Survivor application page on CBS.com, Survivor 15 may not happen, which is why I'm proposing this page for deletion. The entire page is one sentence: CBS Has Ordered Survivor 15, It Should Premiere In Fall 2007. I would not even put an expand tag because it hasn't been ordered, so it's wrong info, and "it should" sounds like the person that put it in really wasn't sure. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball If there is a Surivor 15, I will re-create the page with the basic info that you find out from the application form on CBS.com. To see what the basic info is look at Survivor 14, which I created. All info is from the application form. TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for television, movies, and everything else under the sun change VERY quickly. Nothing can be taken for granted. Yanksox 05:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two more seasons would be 13 (Cook Islands) and 14
Actually the article used to say 3 more seasons, but after the 13th was filmed, they changed it to two... Thankyoubaby 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this temporary redirect would work. It would bring people to the Survivor page and then they would be looking all over for some mention of the 15th Survivor, only to find out they have wasted their time and there is no info about it on the page.
I am just as happy with delete.--blue520 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. —Whouk (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Thompkins

[edit]

NN actor. Has appeared in minor roles in a variety of TV shows and movies. Fails WP:BIO. Little biographical information is available. What information is available (birth and death dates) is disputed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_13&oldid=1081096108"