Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed User dSgaUUTyFy (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 8 June 2006 (Nominating Speed 3 for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Paolo Liberatore in topic June 8
< June 7 >

Purge server cache

June 8

Latest comment: 19 years ago263 comments104 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Last minute resistance

Neologism. Ryan Delaney talk 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per above, merge/redirect to Mystery method since it surved AfD. Someone shoudl go through and AfD a lot of these articles (one or two of them is arguably notable like Mystery but and community itself but thats about it). JoshuaZ 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Peacocking

Neologism. Ryan Delaney talk 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

*Keep NoPuzzleStranger 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.198 (talk • contribs) Striked out vote attributed to blocked sockpuppet account. Accurizer 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Indicator of interest

Neologism. Ryan Delaney talk 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Mystery Method. Richardcavell 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Indicator of disinterest

Neologism. Ryan Delaney talk 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Osman Nuri Topbas

The article has been a mess since October, without much improvement. I'm unconvinced that notability can be established. Indeed, I've little idea what's going on here. Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Additional comment to the closing admin: don't interpret my nomination as a desire for deletion; it seems notability can be established. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep As we are addressing the copyright problems, and some links to his work have been shown, have changed my vote accordingly. Inner Earth 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and expand) CoolCat's rewrite (thanks!), certainly delete the copyvio. Note that the subject is apparently notable enough to be translated into German, see [1]. Here's a link to the English translation of the same book at amazon. Kusma (討論) 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. If it's a subpage in your own userspace, you need not go to AfD with it (or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which would have been the more appropriate place). CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:JB82/WikiStress level

I just go tired of keeping this seperate from my main user page. JB82 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomachuck

    ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. As a result, ballot stuffing is pointless: there is no ballot to stuff.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


neologism, something made up in school one day. Originally nominated for speedy deletion and contested, but as it's not a candidate for speedy deletion I'm listing it here --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(injected comment) This user has only made 8 edits, all pertaining to this article, and is the creator of the article. Kevin_b_er 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a duplicate vote as of this comment. Kevin_b_er 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Reality TV happened - now everyone wants to be a star --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
On what grounds? --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi

Unverifiable. Not-notable. Probable copyright violation. Medtopic 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. It should be possible to extract a good article of about two paragraphs from this mess; drop the rest but not the whole article. - Andre Engels 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a straight paste out of here. strong Delete only because this is obvious self-promotion by his organization - webpage was updated yesterday, probably to release the copyright... I don't vote Keep on promotional materials, even if the subject may be notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Crz is correct that in cases where an article is a cut-and-paste hagiography (or even simply a promotional vehicle), delete is likely as appropriate as keep and cleanup even if the subject is likely notable, inasmuch as most of the text likely can't be used in any event. In the case that there is salvagable text here (much of the detail of course, is unencyclopedic), and if we're generally in accord with the proposition that the subject is notable, perhaps stubifying the article (e.g., as Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi is a scholar of Islamic history, author, and founder of the Islamic History and Research Council India.) and then allowing others to expand might be the best route to go. Alternatively, if deletion is agreed upon, it's likely best that the subject be added to WP:RA, in order that a bio may be crafted in the future. My thinking, I guess, parallels that of Lambiam, and, as he, I'm not certain what we ought to do... Joe 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.I dont know who created this page, i just wikified it a bit, after a search brought me to this page, as noted it is straight copy from the official website but it is not self-promotion as I partially help maintain that site and noone from our team created this page, it was me who added the non-copyright notice to avoid deletion. Dr Sharfi is one of the most respected and prominent scholars of Islam in Hyderabad and India and I think keeping this page will enable a better page over time.If Google search was possible in Urdu you will get hundreds of links about Dr.Sharfi. To satisfy those googlers

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 A1 nonsense as declared hoax.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mario and Luigi: Operation Rescue

Article is an admitted hoax, since it is about a non-existent game. At the mildest, it's original research. It's non-notable in any case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge with Gwen Stefani. The material in the article is already present in Stefani's bio, so a cheap redirect seems a good way to go. Joyous! | Talk 19:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingston James McGregor Rossdale

I happen to think the child is currently NN. Until the child does something inherently notable (other than being born), the info should just be included on the parents page's. Bachrach44 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment What could you possibly say about the kid outside of the fact of birth, that's already in the parents' articles? One of the Jolie-Pitt kids' article, before it was deleted, said that she reportedly "likes giraffes and coos when she sees one." With a newborn, you can't even come up with something that pointless. Fan1967 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gwen Stefani. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The kid also has a notable father, although less notable than the mother. Are there any potential issues involved in which bio you choose to redirect to? Everyking 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's mostly that Stefani is more famous than her husband. But if it's too hard to decide which parent to redirect to, I will support a delete instead. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The birth did get an awful lot of attention. I don't see how you can delete an article on someone so famous. Who cares that he's a newborn? Famous is famous. Everyking 05:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • But until the baby achieves something separately from his parents, substantially everything that would go in this article will also appear in the articles about either or both of his parents. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I've always considered notability to be assigned, not achieved. Everyking 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Nice, but utterly irrelevant, since it's not the kid who's gotten the attention, it's the event (the birth) -- and even THAT isn't all that notable, even to magazines like People or Hello!. --Calton | Talk 06:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Do you want to move it to Birth of Kingston Rossdale? And how many sources would I need to present to demonstrate notability here? At what point would you agree with me that he's notable? Everyking 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Do you want to move it to Birth of Kingston Rossdale? What part of "isn't all that notable, even to magazines like People or Hello!" did you manage to overlook? It wasn't all that long a clause, really.
                    • And how many sources would I need to present to demonstrate notability here? At what point would you agree with me that he's notable? Probably about the time you present a source demonstrating he's done something more notable than gurgling and pooping. Of course, if you have any sources for notable gurgling and/or notable pooping, I'll accept that, too. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • I don't have any sources about him doing anything notable, but I've already made the argument (as I always do in these cases—we had a fuss over Britney's baby, I think his was deleted, but JFK's prematurely deceased baby was kept) that notability is assigned and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accomplishments or actions. If people think the baby is notable—and that can be demonstrated by public interest manifested in the press—then he's notable regardless of anything else. I'm not interested in what this newborn has accomplished, but rather in how many people are aware that Gwen was pregnant and that she recently gave birth. And I think there's a pretty big number. Everyking 08:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                        • I've already made the argument...that notability is assigned and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accomplishments or actions. Which was, as I pointed out, irrelevant, but I guess you missed that, too.
                        • I'm not interested in what this newborn has accomplished, but rather in how many people are aware that Gwen was pregnant and that she recently gave birth. So this is the logical place for information on Gwen Stefani's pregnancy, as opposed to, say the actual article on Gwen Stefani? ("No... That's just what they'll be expecting us to do!") Besides, who's going to look this name up? The only articles it links from is from the parents's articles -- and if you're coming from there, you already know everything that's in -- or could be in -- the article. Meaning it's, well, worthless, unless you want to add in the information about the notable gurgling and/or notable pooping. Or maybe you could use this Los Angeles Times article as a model. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Peta 06:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gwen Stefani. A no doubter. -- GWO
  • Speedy delete not notable. Mr Stephen 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, CSD:A7. The information is already found in both parents articles. Notability in Wikipedia cannot be inherited. -- ReyBrujo 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point. I would argue it is not possible to compare a Countess with a singer's baby, not even if she is the Queen of Pop, because the Countess has a RL nobility title. :) -- ReyBrujo 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're going for notability, though, I'm sure that more people have heard about Gwen Stephani's baby than some random Countess in the Netherlands. That would be even more true if we were to talk about some other celebrity kids' pages that have been redirected, like Sean Preston Federline, or Suri Cruise. In both cases, the only "notable" thing the kids did was be born to really famous parents - exactly what qualifies the Countess. (Don't get me wrong - I'm in favour of deletion, I just don't see the point of indiscriminately collecting articles about non-notable members of the royalty.) Cheers! The Disco King 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that I like medieval titles that were left behind by most countries in the world, mind you. However, it is my belief that, by using the 100 year ahead test, there are more chances for a dutch to have heard about the Countess (as she may be included in history books due her affiliation with the Crown, minimun as it is) than the baby of a famous singer (which may very well discover an AIDS treatment in the future). I don't like nobility titles, but if determined countries still use them, it is because they believe in them (if not the people, the government). -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Anytime someone's article includes the phrase "nth in line to the throne" where n is in single digits, it's pretty guaranteed that person's entry gets kept, rightly or wrongly. Royalty is genuinely hereditary. Being a pop star isn't. Fan1967 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but also 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.) From what I understand, her only noteworthy event was the birth. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Upland rd

Simply Non notable Adambiswanger1 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Fang Aili (talk · contribs) (Liberatore, 2006). 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Drew Ankne

Not notable, as per WP:NIO Xorkl000 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Merge doesn't require AFD. Petros471 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve Henifin

Non-notable game company musician. Kickstart70-T-C 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, which defaults to keep. Joyous! | Talk 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

Wow, I didn't know the person who wrote this "malicious" entry also wrote for Variety. [9] User:WCityMike I don't expect an apology to this "malicious" anon, for being proven completly, 100% wrong, because it is an unwritten rule on the internet never, ever admit you are wrong--even when it is so blatant as in this case. (Personal attack removed) Travb (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Did the user cite this? No. Therefore, was it unreferenced when created? Yes. Did the other articles nominated have any supporting evidence either? No. Did the user repeatedly remove AfD notices from the articles he or she was working on until an admin blocked them? Yes. In my opinion, no apology necessary for using the term "possible malicious motive," especially given Fan1967's research. And considering I've been around since August 2004 and have only recently begun working in AfD, I suspect your look at my contributions was done with a rather selective eye. — Mike • 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Did this anon write the Variety article[10] or the movie web article www.movieweb.com[11]? E-mail me and I will have you send me tickets when the movie comes out. Typically you ignore my central argument, about the Variety article, did the anon write this Variety article too. (Personal attack removed) How many articles will others have to find before you admit that this movie will come out, 6, 12, 20, 100? Answer: No matter how much evidence anyone provides, you will stick by your central argument that this article should be deleted. (Personal attack removed) Travb (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, cool down, Travb. There is no need to continue. Mike, if you are as veteran in Wikipedia as you mention, you will know when not to reply is better than doing so. -- ReyBrujo 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I want to apologize publicly to User:WCityMike I was wrong. I did not know that User:WCityMike has been an editor since August 2004. I am sure he has added a lot of actual content to Wikipedia, being an editor since August 2004. Again, my apologizes. I was completely 100% wrong.Travb (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your apology, sir, and thank you for it. — Mike • 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and unless Rob Lowe is planning to do the movie solo, they've got a lot of casting to do before they can even begin filming. Still a crystal ball. Fan1967 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, the article could stay as stub until more information about it is known. Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball states the event can be included if the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred and Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As far as it seems, the event is going to happen (and by now it should already be happening, which is my base for keeping). Also, note that If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented indicating events that have yet to begin can be included in Wikipedia, and the article is documented with an IMDB entry. -- ReyBrujo 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a well documented cast (like more than one person)? Is there a well documented shooting schedule? Without those things, I think there are serious problems with almost certain. Fan1967 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
For the matter of including the movie in Wikipedia, I base myself in one of the WP:NOT guidelines: supposing the movie had already been released, would it be a fair article? From what I know, it is the sequel of a notable movie (that has its own article at Wikipedia). We have the producers, director, screenwriter, main actor, distributor and estimated date of both shooting begin and display. Knowing Rob Lowe is starring it (just to point my neutrality, I have never heard about him until this AFD), and knowing that in out of 26 movies he acted (according to his article), 23 have articles, I believe this article could exist as a stub. That behaviour is common in the cvg environment in Wikipedia, like Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game). -- ReyBrujo 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem lies in your very first sentence. "Supposing the movie had already been released". It hasn't, and as cited a few times above, Wikipedia has very clear guidelines regarding including speculative articles. — Mike •  16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That sentence comes directly from the policy: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. -- ReyBrujo 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it also has to be "almost certain to take place". Until a film reaches theaters, that's almost an impossible criterion to meet. IMDB is very unreliable for things like that (Boondock Saints 2 comes to mind), and whether an article in Vogue constitutes "well-documented" speculation is certainly debatable. I'm not trying to change your vote (although, after this lengthy of a discussion, I don't think I'd call it a "weak" keep), just offering info. Kafziel 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has disputed the notability, if the movie existed. The question is whether there is enough evidence it actually will. And the next time somebody tries to claim Variety as a source, it would be nice if they could actually post a link to Variety instead of a rumor-mill site that says "Variety reports that". I find it puzzling I can't find any reference to the story at variety.com itself. Fan1967 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You mustn't have looked hard, as it's the #1 result when you search "Rob Lowe" on the site. It's being picked up elsewhere [12] [13] regardless, so I don't understand your protests. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can change it (as I did many times in the past) if it is probed this movie is a hoax (in example, the Variety source from which all these media sites did not exist) or there wasn't at least a confirmed actor, the director and distributor (like in X-Men 4). Note that these are my own thoughts based on the policy, and why I support this movie but not X-Men 4. The Variety article exists [14] and so far there are that minimun of elements _for me_ (including being the sequel of a movie that is considered notable in Wikipedia). If tomorrow this Lowe denies he will be starring the movie, I would change it to Weak Delete because it is just a step behind becoming Wikipedia worthy. The Weak qualifier in this case is not because I am unsure, but instead because, right now, it has the minimun elements for notability I require. -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also ...or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable... Having one actor on the IMDB page is not notable enough IMHO. Whispering 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, now read the crystal ball stuff closer. If things are verifiable - and this is - it can be kept. Is the event notable? Absolutely, it's a sequel to a major motion picture, and it stars Rob Lowe. Seems like it doesn't violate either of your reasons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to badger everyone that votes to delete this? Kind of poor form, isn't it? Kafziel 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a discussion. If pointing out faulty logic is badgering, then perhaps I will be. But when people cite policy as a reason for deletion, and cite it incorrectly, should they not be pointed out? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If they were clearly, obviously wrong, sure. But since your interpretation of that provision is only shared by about half of this page... well, it's up to you, I guess, but it just seems a little heavy-handed to me. Kafziel 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind being heavy handed. And it is kinda clearly wrong, the crystal-ballism section isn't exactly ambiguous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be based on facts. --JJay 00:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepDelete Aggressive mass crystalballism. I don't take to IMDB pages that are pre-production, which in IMDB terms are 'rumors'. IMDB != notable, as IMDB lists everything that appears in TV or movies, in the smallest degree. Ahh, vote change. Like the Variety link. Kevin_b_er 08:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Crystal ballism is for issues that cannot be verified. Variety, a well respected entertainment publication, verifies this quite clearly. How does this qualify as "mass crystalballism?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussing every Delete vote does nothing, and may annoy some. You had had your opportunity of establishing why it should be kept in your vote, there is no need to discuss every vote, especially if they are not Weak votes. -- ReyBrujo 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
We disagree. Certainly, if people are annoyed by someone pointing out their faulty citing of policy, people could be annoyed by faulty citing of policy in a deletion discussion, too. Discussing every delete vote (which, BTW, I have not done) does plenty - it notifies the closing party that there is a problem with the rationale given. AfD, being a discussion, almost requires it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The one who will close will read all the votes and determine which ones are correct. You have already explained why it should be kept. Letting an "I disagree" in most Delete votes (better?) does not add to the discussion. I assume good faith and think someone who votes have read all the previous votes and determined which one was correct (if any), and supported that. AFD is a discussion, yes, but in a discussion with friends you don't just shake your head and say "You are wrong." after hearing every opinion. Once you give all the arguments you can think of, it is better to sit down, take a breath, and watch the development of the discussion. Objecting everything only happens in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney :-) -- ReyBrujo 14:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, we disagree. Call me Phoenix, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my vote/opinion. Keep in mind this is the version I saw, and there was a string of articles that were all out of place sequels created by the same user. What would your first reaction be? Kevin_b_er 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I wish people would start writing articles on wikipedia instead of attempting to delete everyone else's. Travb (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete and, apparently, sheesh (?). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Speed 3

Meme about hypothetical sequel to Speed that has been joked about on two television shows. Not notable. tregoweth 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to say speedy delete to be funny, but I think weak Keep is more appropriate. Endomion 04:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_8&oldid=57459654"