Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 30
< December 29 | > |
---|

Contents
- 1 December 30
- 1.1 Can't be Arsed
- 1.2 Jeffrey Adelman
- 1.3 IWTNC
- 1.4 Stephen Humby
- 1.5 Compiano
- 1.6 Wolfbagging
- 1.7 List of terrorists
- 1.8 List of Sesame Street Monster characters
- 1.9 Half and half
- 1.10 OSBetaArchive
- 1.11 A001622
- 1.12 List of virgin births
- 1.13 Bloodfetish.com
- 1.14 On the Nature of War and Nature War
- 1.15 Adventures in the magic kingdom
- 1.16 Westmob
- 1.17 Six Moon Hill
- 1.18 SOJA - Soldiers of Jah Army
- 1.19 Dana French
- 1.20 Marcell Rodden
- 1.21 Steve Termath
- 1.22 Khurshid Marwat
- 1.23 Genta (corporation)
- 1.24 Netspend
- 1.25 Countdown's Worst Person in the World
- 1.26 Cyril Jeunechamp
- 1.27 Cyradon
- 1.28 All Too Flat
- 1.29 Doug Steele
- 1.30 Annette Radziszewski
- 1.31 Iran Industrial Consultants
- 1.32 Cyclists Combating Cancer
- 1.33 MileMaven.com
- 1.34 Cybster
- 1.35 Podcast 411
- 1.36 Cyberspies
- 1.37 ChurchTech
- 1.38 Kurt Tibbetts
- 1.39 The Shoebox Project
- 1.40 Anime Unleashed
- 1.41 Airdisaster.com
- 1.42 Home Rowing
- 1.43 Masamania
- 1.44 Template:Divizia A
- 1.45 William Malone
- 1.46 Angelika Wild
- 1.47 The Toast King
- 1.48 D-19
- 1.49 DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit
- 1.50 Trikepilot.com
- 1.51 Puppione
- 1.52 RPG History
- 1.53 Robotrippin
- 1.54 List of famous people with a fetish for shoes
- 1.55 Farris Hassan
- 1.56 Fire Cape
- 1.57 Can of Corn
- 1.58 Delrith
- 1.59 Snackbar
- 1.60 LX/LuelinX
- 1.61 Consolidated laboratory
- 1.62 Nathan Kazenwadel
- 1.63 Federal Mattress Company
- 1.64 Parlour talk
- 1.65 The Packet Sniffers
- 1.66 Premiere Production
- 1.67 The Viodre
- 1.68 IronDino
- 1.69 Kaplan
- 1.70 RED CORNER
- 1.71 Bermondsey & Canada Water League
- 1.72 Sodswick Pigeons F.C
- 1.73 Jesal Kansagra
- 1.74 Kansagra's scribe
- 1.75 Maharishi Wasu
- 1.76 Vishal Amin
- 1.77 Deborah McGuinness
- 1.78 Joygasm
- 1.79 All of these Prophecies
- 1.80 Difference between portal vein and systemic vein
- 1.81 Phylogeography
- 1.82 Poulton-Le-Fylde-Lancaster Railway Line
- 1.83 Jared Kaplan and the Red Sea Pedestrians
- 1.84 IT-allies
- 1.85 Democracy & Nature
- 1.86 List of famous Parkinson's disease patients
- 1.87 Unnatural act
- 1.88 Xybertek Systems
- 1.89 Haley Delgado
- 1.90 David Hall (athlete)
- 1.91 Soulwork
- 1.92 NStorms
- 1.93 Chevra
- 1.94 Beyond The Axis Of Truth
- 1.95 Juandy Tan
- 1.96 BAAG
- 1.97 Rambo Wig
- 1.98 Naprotechnology
- 1.99 List of Estonian architects
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna warrant a real entry --Dangherous 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as it stands. It may be expanded (articles often are after included in AfD) but at this point I don't see how. Ifnord 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as above, might be a wikitionary one Robdurbar 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy to Wiktionary, then delete this. -- The Anome 00:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary already has this covered, and covered better, in arse. Uncle G 00:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wiktionary already covering it better. --Quarl 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wiktionary can cover this in more depth and proper context. -- (aeropagitica) 01:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the immediately preceding discussion. Uncle G 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and no transwiki per Uncle G. Movementarian 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. novacatz 06:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Longhair 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cobra 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ambi 10:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Nick123 (t/c) 13:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sarah Ewart 13:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Roisterer 14:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dicdefcruft. Transwiki. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and no transwiki per Uncle G. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Delete per nom. Even although it is common in the UK. --Kilo-Lima 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -Fabhcún 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Give it the Arse. Reyk 21:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable lawyer. Vanity, author is subject. Google has 185 hits, 1st is the article, 2nd is unrelated artist on posters.com. Ifnord 00:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no more notable than many other lawyers Robdurbar 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable biography --Quarl 01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO's Google and Professor test. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to meet critera in WP:BIO. Movementarian 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable biography, per nom. Ajwebb 15:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged computer corporation. Zero Google hits for "IWTNC", except as a ticker symbol for an unrelated company, and a dead website http://www.iwtnc.com/. Zero inbound Wikipedia links to this page; zero external Web references found by Google to this page. Unverifiable. Delete -- The Anome 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable unverifiable company --Quarl 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:V. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Pboyd04 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verified. Movementarian 04:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:V and WP:CORP JFW | T@lk 14:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as vanispamcruftisement J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor actor. From speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 01:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Grange Hill, Football Hooligans and Pirates of the Carribean make him quite a notable actor, even if he played a bit part in the last two. Hedley 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand the page with biographical data. The spelling needs attention too. -- (aeropagitica) 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, stub, and expand. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just sorted it into stub category UK-actor-stubs. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Though he's been in some big movies, he seems to be little more than an extra in them. Technically, this article could be speedied for not asserting importance. Being an actor does not, in itself, make someone famous. Coffee 03:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. I have added some content, the rest of you can decide if he can stay or not. Movementarian 04:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Rob 09:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep80.177.152.156 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Have to agree with Coffee, when you look though his IMDb entry you'll find all bit parts and half of them are uncredited such as, "man in crowd". Ifnord 16:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Too minor: --Kilo-Lima 16:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sailor
- Soldier
- Crowd member
- Keep costs us little, and he is credited which is good enough for me. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep- has had one major-ish role. Reyk 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there are some roles of note --TimPope 13:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. Evil Eye 22:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't seem proper, it's innacurate ans somehow contains POV Clutcher 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and tidy. It's a real place. Jcuk 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as verifiable geographical place [1]. --Quarl 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. There is no reason for it not to have a page, if someone can provide NPOV historical data and context. -- (aeropagitica) 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. rodii 01:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, stub (I sorted it), and expand. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Dlyons493 Talk 03:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Ajwebb 15:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious sexual practice, precious little verification other than anecdote in chat boards and an entry in urbandictionary.com and this at sex-lexis.com. Delete unless a proper cite can be provided. -- The Anome 00:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If a citation can be provided, the term can be Merged with the anal sex article, there is no reason for it to be separate. -- (aeropagitica) 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If I try to verify this term on Google I will have to go to confession. Endomion 02:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, 0 results on google image search says it's not in wide use. (And per above.) - Bobet 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn --Pboyd04 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verified. Movementarian 04:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, we must stop adding unverified sexual practices to Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 07:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Whatever. --Kilo-Lima 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've restored the article's history for the moment; it's been deleted three times since the new logging system went in about a year ago, and at least three times prior to that. Besides a bunch of patent nonsense, there are two revisions that contain somewhat more substantial articles than the current. (Not, er, that I genuinely think this should be kept... but they're not quite so bad as the current version.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into anal sex, Gronky 13:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 00:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Potential for abuse; can never be 100% accurate or POV-free, prime vandal target page. Delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Terrorist is such a harsh term, they prefer "Members of the terror community". Endomion 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very POV. OBL may consider GWB a terrorist and GWB may consider OBL a terrorist. Both will deny the other accusation. Pepsidrinka 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; Criteria for inclusion is clear. Any deficiencies can be corrected. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautious Keep. Not only needs strict inclusion criteria, but each item will need to be sourced. I will make some recommendations on the Talk Page. Logophile 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I already see a problem on the list. Some of those listed are (at this time) only suspects. Logophile 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Talking about guys like these ain't pleasant. -- Eddie 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautious Keep per Logophile. It seems like an list that cries out "vandalise me". It will also always have an NPOV tag, even looking through it I was curious how Harry Truman fit into the terrorist list. Since these are not valid reasons to delete an article I recommend keeping and closely moitoring it for compliance with whatever criteria for inclusion are set. Movementarian 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No way this can ever be NPOV. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can only be a pov piece. --Snakes 06:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Pepsidrinka. -- Kjkolb 07:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep--Potential for abuse is not a reason for deletion just as potential for vandalism is not a reason for protection. There is amble precedent on wikipedia that although some people take issue with the word terrorist, a reputable encyclopedia can use it. I think a safe way of maintaining articles would be to only list people who have wikipedia articles about them which refer to them as terrorists. Reasonable people know that OBL is a terrorist and GWB isnt a terrorist. The article can begin with an accepted definition of terrorists. Deleting this article is not a productive way to express your displeasure with the war on terrorism. Savidan 07:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "terrorist" is such a subjective term. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pepsidrinka —Quarl 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No valid reason to delete. -- JJay 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why is the list inherently POV, when we have Category:Terrorists and its 25 sub-categories, all neatly organized by nationality at Category:Terrorists by nationality? Why is it any different from List of Dictators, List_of_guerrillas, or List_of_guerrilla_movements- the latter two including some of the same people as List of terrorists? The statement that the page is a vandalism target is untrue. I count five reversions in the last five months, or less than some school articles I monitor get reverted in a day. Also for those who use the GWB argument as a criteria for deletion, my personal feeling is that Bush Derangement Syndrome should be required reading for all editors and that GWB should be added by a bot to every list on the site including List of fictional Elvis impersonators. -- JJay 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's inherently POV. --Rob 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A civilian who lived in Iraq or Afganistan, who experienced US Air strikes may consider George W. Bush as a terrorist. Can he be included in this list ?--Soft coderTalk 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", the label is applied based on the POV of the authors or the country of residence of the authors. A list could be made of "List of those whom the US Government consider Terroists", but a generic one like this is just silly and inheritantly POV. - UnlimitedAccess 12:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete echoing a lot of the above. --Alf melmac 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not so much per the nomination (let's not let the vandals determine the content of this encyclopedia in any way!) but per the reasoning by User:UnlimitedAccess above. --JoanneB 13:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. Sceptre(Talk) 13:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for hopeless POV situation. The lengthy preamble does not adequately define the requirements for inclusion on such a serious list considering that every one of the five suggested criteria are highly subjective. If the requirement were redefined to be objective and verifiable, like, as UnlimitedAccess suggests, by qualifying the title with US Gov't-labeled, or self-proclaimed or convicted, I'd be thrilled to keep it. ×Meegs 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would add Bush into it. Tempting. __earth 13:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bush is a terrorist? Since when? And he would be prosecutred under the Patriot Act. --Kilo-Lima 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is being prosecuted under the Patriot Act a prerequisite for being a terrorist. Last I checked, a terrorist is someone who uses terror as a means of completing some goal, whether it be political or religious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "shock and awe" is a means of terrorizing people. Pepsidrinka 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Troll magnet de luxe. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - How can stating someone's name be POV? And subject to vandalism? Kilo-Lima 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - yes, we need to make sure that terrorists and only terrorists as defined by the majority of civilized people are on this list and not people who are responsible for giving millions of others a purple finger. I realize that terrorist can be subject to interpretation but to even contemplate comparing UBL to GWB is obscene.--Kalsermar 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "civilized people", again another POV term. A non "Civilised" culture often just means a non "Western Culture", certainly tribal Africans and Australian Aborigonies arent "civilised" to Westerners. So a list of Terrorists as defined by the majority of "civilized people" is just a list of people the West consider Terrorists. Lets cut the crap, this is not an innocent generic list of Terrorists, we all have a POV lets not be naive, this is a list of Terrorists as defined by Western Countries and in general the USA. - UnlimitedAccess 19:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You make that last statement sound like it is a bad thing. Why the obsession of many people to be so all inclusive and PC. This is an English language Encyclopedia and naturally it is centered on the anglophone world, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. That is inho not strange, unexpected or bad. Do you think an Iranian or Arabic encyclopedia states anything good about Ben-Gurion, or mentions him at all? Would a Soviet-era encyclopedia sing the praises of western style democracy or Winston Churchill? No, of course not. and neither do I expect them to. In the same manner, I think it is perfectly normal for the en: Wiki to be western centered.--Kalsermar 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to avoid a English POV for the English Wikipedia entirely is near impossible, but that does not mean it should not be attempted and fought dayly for. I did not mean to imply my last sentence is a bad thing. Articles can be ethnocentric and bias as long as they point that out, ie "List of Terroirst as considered by the US Government" etc... but a generic list of "Terrorists" is not useful unless it only contains those that are self admitted terrorists. "Would a Soviet-era encyclopedia sing the praises of western style democracy or Winston Churchill", I would hope not and nor should the English one either, no article in ANY wikipedia should sing the praise of anything or anyone. - UnlimitedAccess 06:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to describe a civilised person as "civilised" and POV, then what would you rather call them? --Kilo-Lima 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to avoid a English POV for the English Wikipedia entirely is near impossible, but that does not mean it should not be attempted and fought dayly for. I did not mean to imply my last sentence is a bad thing. Articles can be ethnocentric and bias as long as they point that out, ie "List of Terroirst as considered by the US Government" etc... but a generic list of "Terrorists" is not useful unless it only contains those that are self admitted terrorists. "Would a Soviet-era encyclopedia sing the praises of western style democracy or Winston Churchill", I would hope not and nor should the English one either, no article in ANY wikipedia should sing the praise of anything or anyone. - UnlimitedAccess 06:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You make that last statement sound like it is a bad thing. Why the obsession of many people to be so all inclusive and PC. This is an English language Encyclopedia and naturally it is centered on the anglophone world, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. That is inho not strange, unexpected or bad. Do you think an Iranian or Arabic encyclopedia states anything good about Ben-Gurion, or mentions him at all? Would a Soviet-era encyclopedia sing the praises of western style democracy or Winston Churchill? No, of course not. and neither do I expect them to. In the same manner, I think it is perfectly normal for the en: Wiki to be western centered.--Kalsermar 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inescapably POV - there's no meaningful, neutral way to define "terrorist." Compare to "list of stupid people" or "list of jerks." (ESkog)(Talk) 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Defining terrorist is very difficult. There is no solid definition. Remember that by some Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist at first. I'd wager a bet that many people don't think Mr. Mandela is a terrorist now. Just... delete. Deskana (talk page) 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - A tremendous amount of work has gone into maintaining this article, which was created on 8 March 2003. I refer to it constantly and would be disappointed to see it deleted. Admittedly, the word "terrorist" in the title is uncomfortable: Perhaps a better title--Lists of indivuals who have committed acts of political violence-- would solve the problem?--Professor Right 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Professor Right[reply]
- Delete as titled: terrorist is a prime example of a word to avoid and thisis prime vandal/POV warrior fodder. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I feel that citing the reason "this article is a prime target for being vandalised" for a delete is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Personally I think it should be deleted, but surely "Vandalism target" is not a valid reason? Deskana (talk page) 20:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also untrue. -- JJay 20:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- POV. Reyk 21:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please "always explain your reasoning," even just a short one. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - POV. This article is a prime target for being vandalised, but so is GWB. That's not a reason to delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Clearly a controversial topic like this requires sources for each and every person being accused as Terrorists. Let's acknowledge where those sources are coming from and not pretend a Terrorist to one country is the same in every other country. As Jimbo Jones says (and I paraphrase poorly) "When we write an article we dont write what *is* we write what people believe acknowledging those people." - UnlimitedAccess 07:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless each person on the list is specifically sourced to a third-party (such as an NGO or a news organization) and those not convicted or confessed of any terrorist crimes are moved to "List of accused terrorists." FCYTravis 07:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And then how will we ensure that it stays that way? It's unmaintainable... not that that is a deletion criterion, of course. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since it lacks a definition. Pages on "Europol-listed terrorists", or some thing like that would be valid, but not just "Terrorists", Gronky 13:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article makes it reasonably clear what a terrorist is. It needs to be verified, but thats a job for the proper warning template, not Deletion. Also suggest FCYTravis's suggestion above. Any POV is systemic to being a list of POVs.
--68.40.61.189 07:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above vote is actually mine, forgot to sign in -- Tznkai 07:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subjective. Neutralitytalk 05:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 'Terrorism' of one kind or other has been going on throughout history, but I see that Jomo Kenyatta, Nelson Mandela, and Daniel Ortega are not on the list. Imc 21:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- a POV nightmare; we could perhaps have multiple, attributed' lists of people officialy designated as terrorists by particular governments, with cites given, but not this. -- Karada 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The category page has clear and easily followed criteria for inclusion. Arguments that So-and-so don't appear on the list are arguments for putting So-and-so on the list, not for deleting it.Benami 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inaccurate and a severe POV issue that really can't be fixed. Stifle 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguous -- I say "keep" if names such as George W Bush (responsible for mass murdering of 100.000 Iraqi civilians) will be included. If not, i say "delete", because then this list only reflects the POV of men in power who have set the definition of what is supposed to be 'terrorism' and what not (always excluding their terrorising self). -- ActiveSelective 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- It is a well worked on and very long list, though. Under certain conditions, I could accept it even when it does not have the name of G W Bush on it: (1) When it is renamed to "list of individual terrorists" (terrorists operating alone or in small bands, independently of official powers), AND (2) when we start building a "list of state terrorists" (terrorists who have control over the official state power), including the name of... you can guess who. -- I am not trying to be funny. We do have a good article on State terrorism which includes actions of countries such as UK and USA, and official institutes such as the CIA. -- ActiveSelective 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this has much point, really. It's a list of the monster characters in Sesame Street. I'm pretty sure that List of Sesame Street characters is enough. This just seems unnecessary to me. Hedley 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the existing list of characters from the programme is sufficient. -- (aeropagitica) 01:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, list of all characters is sufficient. VegaDark 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Surpassed and made redundant by List of Sesame Street characters. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per below. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Sesame Street characters to discourage recreation. Movementarian 05:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Movementarian. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect monstercruft. JFW | T@lk 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm closing this as "redirect" even though the votes are 50/50. Redirects are cheap and maybe this will be avoid this cruft from being recreated. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content empty PoorLeno 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename This appears to pertain to two distinct food & drink commodities. The page should be a disambiguation point rather than an article. -- (aeropagitica) 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Black and Tan. The dairy product is never going to be more than a definition. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig short definition of the milk product and a link to Black and Tan --Pboyd04 02:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Add a disambiguation link at the top of the article to Black and Tan -- Kjkolb 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep expand and disambig Jcuk 09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and disambiguate. "Half and Half" is also a brand name from Nantucket Nectars for their half iced tea half lemonade concoction. You can call me Al 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and disambiguate per Aeverett. SoothingR 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clean up as above. I remember reading an American recipie that called for a half cup of "half and half". I thought to myself, 'Half of what and half of what?' Ifnord 16:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand - Needs major re-filling. If it was too short, it should have been nominated as a speedy. --Kilo-Lima 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig - There are actually more definitions for half and half, in fact, I originally thought that these definitions were dime a dozen. So just make a list and remove the fluff. PoorLeno 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Samuel J. Howard 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article appears to be a non-notable online posting forum "for collectors" with under 2,000 registered members (which, like all online forums, means far less active members) Fuhghettaboutit 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs to be expanded with a rationale for the existence of the group and details of their activities and archive. The link to the website should go in to an external links section. If none of this is appropriate, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; It seems to have
morefewer than 5000 users,butand I see no evidence of impact outside its community. Alexa rank of three million, no media attention. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From the statistics at bottom of page "We have 1,991 registered members." --Fuhghettaboutit 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. I misread the standards on Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Tom Harrison (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From the statistics at bottom of page "We have 1,991 registered members." --Fuhghettaboutit 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB --Pboyd04 02:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this?? Is this a real article?? Please delete. Georgia guy 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like gibberish to me. -Shane Lawrence 01:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not gibberish, though. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I meant to add that comment for another article in the list that is gibberish. Not sure where I mussed up. Sincerest apologies... -Shane Lawrence 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, upon looking at the history, I commented on the right article. So confused. I'm just going to be quiet now... -Shane Lawrence 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not gibberish, though. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an article about the decimal expansion of the golden ratio, using the serial number that is assigned to that particular numeric sequence in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences as the article's title for some unfathomable reason. It has been redirected to golden ratio once already. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But, no other similar re-direct exists. Georgia guy 01:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete don't redirect, no one is going to type that serial number in Wikipedia to find the entry on the golden ratio. Endomion 02:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I see no point in reproducing this at Wikipedia. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per poster above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above. Simply duplicates information already in Golden ratio. -- The Anome 02:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What the? Witty lama 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did some work. Hopefully it can be considered based on its content now and not the spurious comments made by the original author. 68.39.174.238 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to golden ratio -- MisterHand 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Golden Ratio. -- (aeropagitica) 08:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Golden ratio. —Quarl (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep makes sense to me.....if absolutely necessary merge and redirect I suppose Jcuk 09:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read golden ratio? Uncle G 10:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete don't redirect. Same reasons than for Endomion above - French Tourist 12:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with golden ratio, no redirect. JFW | T@lk 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an impossibility. An article merger implies a redirect. Uncle G 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What kind of user is going to type in A001622? None; if at all any. --Kilo-Lima 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (no merge). Uninteresting sequence, but the redirect is cheap and unlikely to be confused with anything else, and its presence reduces the risk of re-creation. (If necessary, lock the redirect.) --Trovatore 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Locking (protecting) the redirect, is not a good idea; one should protect pages sparingly. I am afraid that allowing such redirects in will open a can of worms. Redirects should be made only if they are useful I would argue, not to prevent people from creating silly-named articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even without the protection, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this redir. It doesn't mislead anyone (unlike if, say, I had left Black Mountain (California) (Diablo Range) as a redir after discovering there was a second Black Mountain in the Diablo Range), takes no noticeable server space, and I just don't see the scenario where people start putting in so many silly redirects that it becomes a problem. And I really do think one of the great functions of redirects is to preempt duplicate articles that authors may not have known were there. I'll allow that there is a countervailing issue if it's eventually decided that anons can't start new articles; the unprotected redir would allow an anon to recreate the article. --Trovatore 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects should be useful, that's how I see it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even without the protection, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this redir. It doesn't mislead anyone (unlike if, say, I had left Black Mountain (California) (Diablo Range) as a redir after discovering there was a second Black Mountain in the Diablo Range), takes no noticeable server space, and I just don't see the scenario where people start putting in so many silly redirects that it becomes a problem. And I really do think one of the great functions of redirects is to preempt duplicate articles that authors may not have known were there. I'll allow that there is a countervailing issue if it's eventually decided that anons can't start new articles; the unprotected redir would allow an anon to recreate the article. --Trovatore 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect- I was leaning towards delete but Trovatore makes some good points. Reyk 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Endomion. No-one is going to type this title in either to search or to recreate. —Blotwell 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete useless. PoorLeno 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, though I think that's a compromise. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nobody is going to type that in. I know redirects are cheap, but really... Stifle 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — JIP | Talk 09:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is filled with people who may or may not have existed in the first place. Mythological figures hardly deserve mention in a list such as this. Anakin Skywalker on this list is actually quite humorous. This should be deleted. A click to many of the people on the list makes no mention of any virgin birth. Pepsidrinka 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the list has been moved to the talk page.
- Delete as silly. Hedley 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep We have pages on lord xenu, so why not this?
- Delete per WP:V unverfiyable --Pboyd04 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article should not exist in its present form (a list of names without any citations). Therefore, I have removed all the unsourced entries (that is to say, all of them) from the article and placed them in Talk:List of virgin births. I have edited the introductory paragraph to read "This article is about virgin births of any figures other than Jesus, accompanied by a verifiable reference to a source describing them as such." I have added an explanation on the Talk page. Naturally, there is no requirement that any of these characters be proved actually to have been the result of virgin births. Verifiability does not mean the fact must be proven, it means the source must be verifiable. The reason I dislike lists is that they tend to attract lazy insertions of unchecked, unsourced, unverified entries based on what people think they remember reading, etc. If people are willing to put in the work of creating a list that conforms to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and source citations, I have no objection to it.
- Those interested in keeping the article might begin by seeing which of our own articles on the already include a suitable citation that could be checked, then used in this article. The first couple I checked at random—Buddha, Prometheus—say nothing about a virgin birth, but Deganawidah does and it has a reference that checks out, so I'll do the first one. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- P. S. A separate issue, but if the list is kept it might not be a bad idea to move it to "List of virgin birth traditions". Or something like that. The existence of a virgin birth tradition is an easily demonstrated fact; the truth of an actual virgin birth is not. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and keep as List of virgin birth traditions as per comment above; that's an excellent idea, for that results in a verifiable list. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
or merge with List of virgins. -- JJay 03:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: a virgin is not the same thing as a virgin birth. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or merge with List of legends and myths...happy? -- JJay 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wasn't unhappy, just pointing it out as it seemed very odd. :-) Kjkolb 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or merge with List of legends and myths...happy? -- JJay 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a virgin is not the same thing as a virgin birth. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Pepsidrinka. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep this article could be potentially useful for people lookig for this similarity. Jesus, etc. Even if you dont believe that these people were actually born to virgin's, the phenomenon of virgin births in mythology and the bible is more than notable. Savidan 07:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One entry isn't going to cut it. --Apostrophe 12:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename as List of virgin birth traditions or, even better, Virgin birth traditions. The latter article could provide some background for the supposed phenomenon, and discuss what some allege are links between virgin birth stories around the world and the story of Jesus's birth. The list alone would be valuble, but it would be so much more encyclopedic in the context of a fleshed-out article. - squibix 13:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to virgin birth (now redirects here) and merge relevant content from elsewhere. It's obviously pertinent to various mythologies and analysing the overlap and difference would be a truly encyclopedic effort. JFW | T@lk 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Virgin birth per Jfdwolf. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless renamed to List of mythical virgin births or List of legendary virgin births. --Revolución (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, as JFW suggested, mythology is relevant, but rename to List of mythical virgin births, as per Revolución. --Fenice 07:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Liontamer 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Good topic, and hopefully someone will do a more scholarly treatment, e.g., along the lines of http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html Jacksonpe 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, Virgin Birth. or better it's parent article Reports of unusual religious childbirths--Samuel J. Howard 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename - definitely encyclopedic (but would be better if expanded and presented other than as a list). Adambisset 19:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for yet another website. WP:NOT. Delete -- The Anome 02:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB Alexa Rank = 1,098,011 Forum Members = 363 --Pboyd04 02:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising a non-notable web site. —Cleared as filed. 08:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable web site. Cobra 09:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:WEB JFW | T@lk 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable web site. Ajwebb 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Kilo-Lima 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Non-notable to you maybe, but this website's been around for ages. It's NOT advertising, *I* made this article not some random anon - and it's not my website. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. *drew 05:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maybe not advertising but not notable either. gren グレン 11:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, incomprehensible almost, author of the book (5 google hits) is author of the wikipage. - FrancisTyers 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom - FrancisTyers 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this person signs there name IN THE ARTICLE Savidan 08:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is a poorly-written advert. -- (aeropagitica) 08:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable books, vanity. I hope the quality of the subject books is higher than this article. —Quarl (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. JFW | T@lk 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - Article already exists elsewhere. Really, this should've been added to CSD, not here, but ah well. ;/ Hedley 02:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article already exists as Adventures in the Magic Kingdom Thief12 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 00:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be a nn gang no assertion of notability, but having never been to San Fransico I thought I would put this up for AfD instead of speedy Pboyd04 02:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there are a million street gangs in the naked city. Endomion 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Known gang in SF. -- JJay 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete non-notable and non-verifiable Savidan 08:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep they seem to have hit the headlines a few times Jcuk 10:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They've been mentioned in a recent press release. SoothingR 14:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn "residential community dwelling" I'm guessing its a apartment building or something seems nn Pboyd04 03:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing sticks out here to make it notable. Endomion 03:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the subject needs a more comprehensive entry to justify its inclusion. A discussion regarding construction methods and its architectural legacy - did it influence the design of other communities? - should be included, if it is notable. If not, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 08:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be lots of discussion about this development in the architectural world. Denni ☯ 05:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
another NN band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC --Bachrach44 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know what the nominator is talking about,
there are 104 google hits for the string "soldiers of jah's army"Endomion 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction - My initial search string was in error, but this is even better, there are 42,000 hits for "soldiers of jah army" Endomion 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm talking about the criteria that wikipedia has set forth for which bands are considered notable enough to get wiki pages, and which aren't. These guidelines are published at WP:MUSIC, and if you click on the link you'll see exactly what they are. Suffice it to say that 104 google hits does not meet these criteria, and SOJA is not even close to meeting the criteria. (not to mention that only 14 of those hits show up, meaning there are a lot of duplicates). -- Bachrach44 03:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt - band article inclusion should not solely be based on Google hits. PJM 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The pre-programmed one-hit wonder bread Britney crap they play on the FM dial these days is far less notable than this reggae band, but WP is set up to squash the reggae band. Go figure. Endomion 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, but to say Wiki is set up to "squash" anything just seems sophomoric. It's only a matter of following WP:NMG...which you can certainly dispute. If you feel strongly about this article being kept, you should go on to make a better case for it. PJM 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The pre-programmed one-hit wonder bread Britney crap they play on the FM dial these days is far less notable than this reggae band, but WP is set up to squash the reggae band. Go figure. Endomion 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, nn band. --Thephotoman 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7. Cobra 09:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Though the article ignores wikipedia:NPOV and is non-encyclopedic, it does make assertions of notability and should not be speedied. The band is all over Google, but has an empty listing at allmusic.com. Based on what I find, they don't satisfy WP:NMG. PJM 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep their Google hits are 41,900 [2]
And from the article itself:
- It received nominations for Album of the Year and Song of the Year (Nuclear Bomb) at the 2001 D.C. Reggae Awards and has now been nominated for Recording of the Year at the 2002 Wammies (Washington Area Music Association) awards show. --Revolución (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The actual number of unique Google hits is only 383. All the rest are "entries very similar to the 383 already displayed." Denni ☯ 05:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. why not let readers set their own notability threshold? -- Marvin147 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The readers can set their own notability threshold, but we must all remember that Wikipedia is not infinite and every subject is not verifiable, so the editors must be held to a higher standard. We can verify most of the information in George Washington, but if my buddy Doug starts an article about himself, most of that stuff is unverifiable. If every person in the world decided to start making articles about themselves and other people came in and vandalized it, how would vandal-fighters know what is right and what is wrong? Furthermore, how could we manage such an influx of traffic? There are good reasons for notability requirements, although it would be nice to have a grand database of everyone in the world, but the trouble is, nobody could possibly verify any of the information, nor do we have the room for it right now. JHMM13 (T | C) 10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WINI has no more to do with this than notability. There are a finite number of people on the planet, and in recorded history, whose information is verifiable. You play a dangerous game of censorship if you delete. Keep this article if the info is verifiable --Marvin147 10:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:WINI does have something to do with this, as I have stated above. We cannot verify everything that everyone has done, and I'd like to know where you get your information, because I don't think we've even got the exact number of people on the planet down, much less encyclopedic information about all of them. Furthermore, if something is changed on their article, how could we possibly know if it's true or false? There is censorship here, but Wikipedia is not a forum for ultimate free speech. We arrive at consensuses for guidelines and policies based on the limitations we have. Unfortunately, for the reasons I have stated above (none of which you addressed in your response), we simply cannot put everything into Wikipedia. Verifiability and quantity are two of the important things to keep in mind here. JHMM13 (T | C) 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WINI has no more to do with this than notability. There are a finite number of people on the planet, and in recorded history, whose information is verifiable. You play a dangerous game of censorship if you delete. Keep this article if the info is verifiable --Marvin147 10:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The readers can set their own notability threshold, but we must all remember that Wikipedia is not infinite and every subject is not verifiable, so the editors must be held to a higher standard. We can verify most of the information in George Washington, but if my buddy Doug starts an article about himself, most of that stuff is unverifiable. If every person in the world decided to start making articles about themselves and other people came in and vandalized it, how would vandal-fighters know what is right and what is wrong? Furthermore, how could we manage such an influx of traffic? There are good reasons for notability requirements, although it would be nice to have a grand database of everyone in the world, but the trouble is, nobody could possibly verify any of the information, nor do we have the room for it right now. JHMM13 (T | C) 10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. These guys show up on Allmusic.com, and 42,200 Google hits. They don't seem to meet too many of the WP:MUSIC guidelines, but check this fan site out. They seem to be pretty notable in the reggae community, even if not for a major record label. I suggest they be kept considering all of the above. I'm not going to be too adament about this keep, but I think they are just notable enough to warrant inclusion. JHMM13 (T | C) 10:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, currently no information is provided to suggest that this band meets WP:MUSIC. Stifle 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is about 4 months since there was a call for the importance of this article to be explained and nothing has happened. PatGallacher 03:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete quick google search turned up this tripod site seems to be this guys. probable vanity page. --Pboyd04 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity page. -- (aeropagitica) 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
void(0)
. JFW | T@lk 14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Delete and I'm closing this. That neither the article nor this AfD have attracted much attention is in itself an argument.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
notability of the subject not established Hoodwink 03:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote, but this article could easily be moved to a list page if the consensus is to delete. CJCurrie 03:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - just an election candidate. No indication of notability. --GrantNeufeld 11:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Grant, you have no right to want to delete articles on others after defending your own article so profuthesly. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been supporting the general direction (which seems to be shifting of late) of not including articles on people whose notability comes from being a (not yet elected) candidate in an election. I have not cited my having been a candidate in an election as support for inclusion of the article on me. (Please note that I have not been pushing any political agenda in this, and have supported deleting many Green Party candidate articles - and the only candidate articles I've nominated for deletion have been Greens.) As to whether I have the "right" to support (or oppose) votes for deletion, I would think that I have the same right as any other active contributor to Wikipedia. --GrantNeufeld (contrib) 09:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Grant, you have no right to want to delete articles on others after defending your own article so profuthesly. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - it's a well written article about someone who has at least had involvement in notable events. I'm not familiar enough with the subject area to say for sure, but he might be of interest Robdurbar 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Robdurbar; appears to be a marginally notable local figure. --Muchness 20:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep from what I can tell, the CBC got their 2006 election information from this article.[3] Also, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada sent The Mirror this Wikipedia article to profile this candidate. To me that is good use and promotion of wikipedia, and good reason to keep this article and other articles like it. --Mista-X 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Marcell Rodden does not appear to have done anything to be worthy of having a Wiki definition - Dogmatic 23:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this [4] look like a notable filmography to you? (i.e. "Uncredited") Vulturell 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nomination. Vulturell 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you putting articles on AfD if you think they should be speedied? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete nn bio. --Pboyd04 03:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete professional movie extra. Endomion 03:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I reckon being listed on IMDb is sufficient to beat A7, but a largely-uncredited "professional movie extra" (as Endomion succinctly put it) isn't really notable enough for an encyclopaedic article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm... you do realize that every single actor who has ever been billed in movie credits is listed on the IMDB? Even that guy working in Pizza Hut down your block who had one line in Mean Girls? Vulturell 04:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, sort of. I'm sure IMDb isn't as complete as it would like to be; but quibbling aside, yes, I do appreciate this, and I appreciated it before I expressed my opinion. Presumably User:Deathphoenix does, too. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree this doesn't qualify for a speedy, but his filmography is definitely not terribly impressive (FYI, I'm removing the speedy tag to clear the CSD category). --Deathphoenix 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This actor does not appear to be noteworthy. -- (aeropagitica) 08:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just an extra in some big movies. Doesn't establish notability. Cobra 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Even although he is totally minor. --Kilo-Lima 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but the IMDb link is a good enough claim of notability for me. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep a credited role is listed, which is good enough for me. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I gather he is a civil servant that likes to writes poetry. I would argue that doesn't rate a page. However I could be wrong.--Looper5920 02:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete So many notable civil/public servants in Pakistan have literary contributions viz Qudratullah Shahab, Brig. Sadiq Salik, Daud Kamal etc. I dont see any harm if one is a civil servant and writes poetry. In Pakistan being a part of the Civil Services is considered as a matter of honor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigar (talk • contribs)
- Keep - Categorise the page appropriately and modify the entry to place the poet in context with Pakistani literature, if notable. If not, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 09:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The original author and an an IP address have removed the Afd tag in the articles brief history. I can find no confirmation of the book of poetry or of its author. Dlyons493 Talk 09:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per aeropagitica Jcuk 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article contains claims of notability, but they are not backed up by any evidence. I vote Delete unless proofs are provided. - Liberatore(T) 14:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and probable vanity. Ifnord 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded some of the images of his book that I currently have. I wish I had his Urdu book otherwise I would have also uploaded those images as well. All editors are requested to please appreciate the fact that it was a pioneering effort by a Pathan to write poetry in a language which was neither his mother tongue nor national dialect. This book may have gone unnoticed at that time, probably because of the reason that nobody cares for English poets in Pakistan and especially from a conservative place like NWFP. However, there were book reviews about this book in leading English Newspapers of Pakistan viz. “The Frontier Post” and “Pakistan Observer” at that time (I don’t have copies of those reviews but everybody is welcome to contact those two Newspapers and check their archives of late 1993). Even still if editors consider that this entry may be deleted then they are welcome to do so but then someone's genuine effort might go unnoticed. I may plead that it may be Kept.
- Weak keep if cleaned up. Appears to be at least notable within field in area - systemic bias, blah blah. FCYTravis 07:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We probably need to remove the samples of his poetry as copyvio, though. -Colin Kimbrell 17:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (and note that the third image above suggests that 1000 copies were printed. Even if we assume that every single one was sold, that isn't much.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that too, but I don't know that a thousand-copy first printing isn't notable for the context (i.e. a foreign-language poetry collection published in Pakistan). It feels like it might be kind of a specialty market. -Colin Kimbrell 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional, doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Had to move this because there's another article from last May with the same name (not the same one, it seems). Daniel Case 03:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn when they invent the cancer drug that the FDA accepts then they can get an article. --Pboyd04 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The company doesn't appear to be notable. This reads as poorly-written promotion. -- (aeropagitica) 09:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Aeropagitica -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad for nn company Alexa Rank for netspend.com: 37,216 Pboyd04 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:CORP. Daniel Case 04:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page just lists a seemingly one-time only subject from a tv news show. Is this really necessary for a separate article? ErikNY 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as written the article doesn't even make sense --Pboyd04 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete utter nonsense -- Nessuno834 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, remark already mentioned at John Gibson (media host). Gazpacho 05:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This is a segment on the show. Doesn't require its own article, but redirecting may discourage recreation. Movementarian 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The content is nonsense and the page only refers to part of a programme that already has its own entry. -- (aeropagitica) 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nonsense -- SGBailey 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't seem to have a complete sentence, and not very notable in any case doktorb | words 11:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup It is a regular segment on Countdown. Just need some work and expanding. --D-Day 12:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Weird. --Kilo-Lima 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if someone wants to read this, let them go to Countdown. If absolutely necessary, a brief mention can be placed in Countdown with Keith Olbermann. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Revolución (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and then redirect this cruft to avoid recreation. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Countdown with Keith Olbermann Obli (Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real value to the wikipedian audience with this as a unique entry Phantasmo 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Obli. Stifle 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep; nomination withdrawn by "keep" vote, no delete votes cast. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the French wiki Tagishsimon (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or translate if you will. --Tagishsimon (talk)- Translated. Daniel Case 04:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional page for a non notable book/game Tagishsimon (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my nomination --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Delete" advertising. Madman 06:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertising -- SGBailey 09:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Here's a little taste of Wikipedia. --Kilo-Lima 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertising. *drew 05:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non significant website. Page apparently written by owners of website. It's Vanity. Witty lama 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB Alexa Traffic Rank for alltooflat.com: 66,236 --Pboyd04 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity. -- (aeropagitica) 09:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, vanity -- SGBailey 09:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Woah! Delete. --Kilo-Lima 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete article meets definition of vanispamcruftisement J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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] 06:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn business owner Pboyd04 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Owned and operated The Hungry Duck, a legendary Moscow bar. Daniel Case 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The bar might be notable but is the owner? --Pboyd04 05:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article can be kept and expanded, then we can see. Daniel Case 05:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The bar might be notable but is the owner? --Pboyd04 05:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Daniel. Cobra 09:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Merge any content not already there into the Hungry Duck) -- SGBailey 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article is expanded, explaining reasons for notability, I'll reconsider.Weak Keep for the rewrite - good save Jcuk Dlyons493 Talk 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Have expanded to the best of my ability. Opening the first Hard Rock Cafe in Moscow seems notable to me. Jcuk 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. - Liberatore(T) 13:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Incorporte any useful info into Hungry Duck, per SGBailey. Also, a mention of the Moscow opening in Hard Rock Cafe, might be appropriate. PJM 14:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Even with rewrite. Ifnord 16:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - doesn't seem notable from the article content. I agree with the above suggestions to put the relevant content in the related articles. --GrantNeufeld 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Non-notable, all history looks like a bad joke. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a joke. Only put it here instead of speedying it on the off chance I'm missing something. Daniel Case 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Joke page--Looper5920 04:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn bio (if not a joke) google search reveals only a person at "Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois (IL)" with that name --Pboyd04 04:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're missing something. I wrote the article and it is quite true, unfortunately it was edited to contain various absurdities (e.g. Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize, engagement, etc.) The think tank, sociological ties, and Xiu Xiu are very real (though moderately obscure outside a very select group).
- Maybe, but you didn't even bother to sign this comment. And truth alone does not establish notability. Daniel Case 04:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note improvements.
- Simple edits are not necessarily improvements. I see nothing new that would establish notability. Daniel Case 04:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i cant offer much to this but when i was studying at the University of Gdansk (Uniwersytet Gdański) i remember reading a study in the Polski Dziennik Sociologiczny that cited the work of aneta radziszewski... maybe the same person? i tried googling it but i dont think the journal is online.
- Delete. Non-notable biography. No Guru 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no reasonable claim to notability is made. -- Kjkolb 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn academic. Can the author cite papers published in peer-reviewed journals of note or place her in context with her academic discipline? -- (aeropagitica) 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not-notable or hoax -- SGBailey 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Note the article has been vandalised - but all versions of it appear non-notable to me. Dlyons493 Talk 09:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as poor joke, hoax, attack page, etc. Ifnord 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:68.39.174.238 began the process of nominating this article for deletion, but as an anonymous user was unable to complete the process. No vote yet on my part. --Metropolitan90 05:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Spam, doesn't google. -- 9cds(talk) 10:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only Google refs appear to be wikipedia and its clones -- SGBailey 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --JeremyStein 19:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence it deserves an article. --TexasDex 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Josh Somerhalder. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promptional use of wikipedia for NN group Tagishsimon (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Advertising nn charity. -- (aeropagitica) 09:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- SGBailey 10:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per aeropagitica. Stifle 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB Alexa Rank for milemaven.com: 458,667 Pboyd04 04:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; if A7 only included websites.. SoothingR 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ad. JFW | T@lk 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Kilo-Lima 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the fact that I'm a frequent flyer, this site doesn't seem to meet the bar. FCYTravis 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN. Wikipedia as promo Tagishsimon (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO --Pboyd04 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, A7. Daniel Case 04:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Kilo-Lima 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rating of 141,254. Text is promotional. Daniel Case 04:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:WEB --Pboyd04 04:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spam; fails WP:WEB. --Idont Havaname 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:WEB ComputerJoe 10:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Kilo-Lima 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN website using wikipedia for promo Tagishsimon (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no traffic data on Alexa fow website, no media attention, nn. --Pboyd04 04:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all reasons above. Daniel Case 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete poorly-written promotional material. -- (aeropagitica) 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to qualify as spam. Vary | Talk 04:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn group. --Pboyd04 05:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advert --JeremyStein 19:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advert. Stifle 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic KSnortum 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Appears to be a prominent politician from the Cayman islands. The Cia World factbook lists Kurt Tibbetts as head of government: Leader of Government Business Kurt TIBBETTS (since 18 May 2005) http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cj.html. Also shows up prominently in Google searches. No Guru 05:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per No Guru. Snurks T C 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable and verifiable. -- MisterHand 07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I reworded it a bit to make it clearer that he is the head of the country. -- Kjkolb 07:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -= SGBailey 10:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, head of government. Punkmorten 21:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected.--KSnortum 07:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Live journal based Harry Potter slash Fanfic. Fanfic is not usually considered notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Vary | Talk 05:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn fan fiction. --Pboyd04 05:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Movementarian 15:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not appear to be notable. Stifle 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 --Ichiro 07:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is nothing but an advertizement; it has nominal cultural or knowledge value. Further, several users have undertaken to update which anime series are currently running on Anime Unleashed and which have been cancelled. This makes the article more in the nature of a "program guide" than an encyclopedia article. I can see no way this article could edited or improved to make it encyclopedic GestaltG 05:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of anime is probably excessive, but the subject is notable. Keep. --Apostrophe 12:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in what way. I believe that the reader should be able to determine how or why the subject of the article is notable in the first paragraph. Of all of the television shows out there, that come and go, year after year, on over two hundred cable channels, how is this show notable? Perhaps if the article could be modified/edited? Also, I noted that it's still called a stub, but as you indicated, 3/4 of the article is nothing but a list of shows. What is the redeeming value in a list of shows on Anime Unleashed, from an encyclopedic view? GestaltG 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable because outside of Cartoon Network's Toonami and Adult Swim block Anime's usually arn't featured on western Television, therefore a show that broadcast not only one but sever anime series is indeed notable. Deathawk 19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep even though I dislike G4 (TechTV forever!), Anime Unleashed is a good segment of their programming lineup. I too agree that it needs to be cleaned a little J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we mark it for cleanup then? It's not really a stub and it's not really an article. Take out the list of anime programs and it's a stub again. But see, now in this discussion, we have had to finally state a reason why this is a notable enough subject for an entry; and that reason really has little to do with Anime Unleashed (which one might view as the cold medicine rather than the cold; does one talk about colds by talking about a cold medicine?). Any way in which this stub might then be expanded into an article will likely involve subjects outside of Anime Unleashed, for example, an article on anime in western culture. See, this is what I have been saying? Maybe it should be merged instead with any articles on Adult Swim and Toonami? GestaltG 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't we create a page called Animes which have been broadcast on Anime Unleashed or if that won't suffice how about a category, these suggetions would be easy to implement plus we wouldn't have to mark it for cleanup.(as process could be done fairly easily) Deathawk 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a page as you suggest would then be again, nothing but a list or program guide, and not an article. It then would be marked for deletion and we would be back here again. GestaltG 19:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At most it deserves a mention about anime in Western culture, as said above. So far it's a TV guide and clearly not encyclopedic. Deathawk says that this is "Notable because outside of XX and YY Anime's usually arn't featured on western Television". Maybe you meant U.S. television, which is a much, much more restricted field. In Latin America anime has been very popular for more than a while. Argentina had a local channel with a popular anime block years before CN's Toonami and Locomotion (now Sony's Animax) came into the scene. I may be nostalgic about those early days of anime here, but I'd never even dream of creating an article about that in Wikipedia, though a well-researched article on the penetration of Japanese culture (anime, J-pop, etc.) in the West would be perfectly OK. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This website is life for many people, and the description is factual David Hilditch 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable website - wikipedia as promotional tool Tagishsimon (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Delete Forum members:2,311 Alexa Rating:53,258 doesn't meet 2 out of 3 on WP:WEB --Pboyd04 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional. Daniel Case 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - http://www.avitop.com/aviation/avitop.asp - ranks no.4 for aviation sites. airliners.net has similar entry. POV seems to have been edited. Notable site Roddy69
- Keep top rated site user:210.211.217.182
- Delete, as per nom. (Note that Roddy69 also created Parlour talk and Parlour talker) -- 9cds(talk) 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- SGBailey 10:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per roddy Sceptre(Talk) 13:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pboyd04. *drew 05:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep If cleaned up and de-cruftified. Fairly popular site. FCYTravis 07:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to be notable within the field of aviation, perhaps wider. Evil Eye 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn neologism. Google search mainly shows home rowing machines Pboyd04 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AED 06:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete certain doesn't deserve its own article. --JeremyStein 19:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename More commonly known and searched as "home rowed" in past tense. -- Anonymous 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JeremyStein. Stifle 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologicruft. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN blog. Sounds funny but is that a reason to put it on Wikipedia? Daniel Case 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Alexa Rank:173,822 seems nn. --Pboyd04 05:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AED 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:WEB ComputerJoe 10:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it's not notable enough, though I've come across his blog before. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 12:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; 188,000 Google hits is NN?Delete - Rudykog 10:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits can be easily inflated, you'll get tens or hundreds of thousands of hits if you Google up some Wikipedians' usernames. If anybody can find this blog mentioned in the news, either Western or Japanese ones, or find a source that says the blog played a significant part in a country's blogosphere, only then I'll only consider it to be notable. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any; revised. - Rudykog 10:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Inappropriately listed here, moved to TfD. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs) 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a template, not an article. I'm going to start a WP:TfD request for this based on this nomination. --Idont Havaname 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally! -Kilo-Lima 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 with Copyvio-free Revisions
Blatant copyvio. [5]. Was speedied, but creating editor removed the tag, saying he found the text on a government web site, not a commercial content provider. Doing formal AFD thing instead. This link and the government site both include an "All Rights Reserved" copyright statement. -- Vary | Talk 05:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete from the government site "Material on this website is subject to Crown copyright protection administered through the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (P O Box 5364, Wellington, New Zealand) unless otherwise indicated. New Zealand and international copyright laws protect third party copyright material on this site. Authorisation to reproduce such material should be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. Unauthorised reproduction, duplication, transmission or commercial use of such copyright materials may result in prosecution." --Pboyd04 05:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been severely dited to reflect the community service to the DIstrict I represent (Stratford, Taranaki), and away from the war record which forms part of the New Zealand history. —the preceding unsigned comment is by MichaelFreeman (talk • contribs)
- Comment I do see that you've edited the article substantially, Michael, but unfortunately, most of what remains is still taken word-for-word from Mr. Malone's Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry. Anything submitted to wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. In order for you to be able to release content under the GFDL, it has to be in your own words. -- Vary | Talk 06:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have rewritten the articel as a stub and removed the copyrighted content. Movementarian 06:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing this up, I restored the AFD tag to the page since it shouldn't be removed until this AFD is closed. Triona 06:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Movementarian's excellent rewrite. Do we still need to get the edits with the copyrighted text deleted, or are we done here? -- Vary | Talk 06:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Withdraw from AFD Copyright issue seems to be satisfactorily resolved by Movementarian's rewrite. Does someone want to make the revisions that are copyvio go away? Triona 06:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Edited: Based on the issue making this article eligible for deletion having been resolved, I believe this should be withdrawn from the AFD process. Triona 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that is unnecessary, replacing the content is sufficient. Copyvios are only removed from the history if someone complains and it must be done by a developer. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rewrite fine ComputerJoe 10:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After research, the subject is hardly notable. She has starred in a total of 16 titles, and a Google search only provides 787 hits. Is not listed in either the IAFD or IMDB databases. Therefore, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems nn. Do we have criteria for porn stars? --Pboyd04 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, if she made a few more movies or was famous for some reason (cult figure, HIV positive, media mentions), I would keep. -- Kjkolb 07:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. PJM 12:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per Kjkolb. Stifle 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mindmatrix 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn webcomic character 736 google hits Pboyd04 05:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge with Weebl and Bob Poorly written, not-notable enough. I suggest a merge. ComputerJoe 10:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable. Stifle 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot verify any fact in the article. not in IMDB, not in Google. Odd. Tagishsimon (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Delete per nom. AED 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if IMDB adds it then we can re add it. --Pboyd04 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, unverifiable. --Muchness 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional page, single edit, cut & pasted text, non notable Tagishsimon (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Delete per nom. AED 06:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 15:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the toolkit is actual product, quite advanced and would deserve something better. Pavel Vozenilek 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 10:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do that, get it approved by consensus, then get the article back. For now, the notability filter is what we have. I'm closing this... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, pure & simple. The owner, Simon Forman, does not seem to be notable in the least. The site is 1,807,740 in Alexa ranking. Madman 06:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AED 06:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- advert. - Longhair 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 10:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clear ad - website URL linked to as first word of article, and more... --Petros471 11:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB forum members 89 no known media attention. --Pboyd04 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per everything listed above J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 07:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This historical figure does not exist. Try searching for Puppione in relation to Hawaii and exploration and nothing comes up except for some contemporary Puppiones living in Hawaii. The article is entirely fraudulent. Quantum73 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax, unless any verification can be found. I get no google hits for "Roger Abhrams Johnson" or coincidences of Puppione and "kumu hula". The page was erased and replaced with this a few days ago, but I haven't been able to verify the existence of that play either (though the play should have a page before its character anyway). ×Meegs 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that the change-of-topic edit was made by the same IP, User:198.148.166.5 (contribs), as the one who tagged it AFD. Was that you, Quantum73? If so, are you still interested in making an article about the character in the play, or was that just a different method for clearing this apparent hoax? ×Meegs 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonsense --JeremyStein 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems Wikipedia needs a kumu hula [6] page. I've studied hula and I have heard of the Ucello. This seems relevant to me, and could do with more research. Skrew ball 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Good idea Skrew, but the article Puppione itself is still a hoax. The missionaries came to Hawaii in 1820, and the article claims that this "Puppione" came in a voyage in 1859, which was far after any missionary ships were still arriving. I also can't find any Google results at all relating Puppione to Milan, exploration, Hawaii, or hula. I also can't find any information relating to hula and Ucello, so if someone would create that page that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum73 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, and History of role-playing already exists. Snurks T C 06:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to History of role-playing games. There is nothing here worth salvaging. -- MisterHand 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to History of role-playing games (to prevent a double re-direct). --Petros471 11:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Petros471. --Pboyd04 15:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. --Muchness 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 --Ichiro 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable drug slang. Arm 07:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Transwiki 3k Google hits, I suggest perhaps for it to be moved to Wikidictionary? ComputerJoe 10:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary doesn't want this. It isn't a dictionary article about the word robotrippin. Indeed, it says nothing about the word at all. This is an encyclopaedia article about the non-medical use of dextromethorphan, that simply uses a slang word for its title. Our existing article covers this far better. Redirect. Uncle G 23:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deletekarmafist 11:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy for being patent nonsense, which it isn't, but it's ridiculous listcruft that has only one person on the list (you get 10 points if you can guess who it is before reading the article). howcheng {chat} 07:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's stupid. --Snakes 07:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Wikipedians who think this article should be deleted: Snurks T C 07:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though I didn't get the name but am slapping my own forehead for not getting such an obvious one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pointless and harldy verifiable. Cobra 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V, unless we can somehow get a qualified psychologist's analysis on thousands of famous people to simply see if they have a shoe fetish. --Apostrophe 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. useless. __earth 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete listcruft. --Pboyd04 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but send this edit to BJAODN. David | Talk 15:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonsense. Ajwebb 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Funny on the other hand! --Kilo-Lima 16:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete useless listcruft --Revolución (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So ... what do I do with my 10 points? Uncle G 03:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 overwhelming keep NSLE (T+C+CVU) 09:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All anonymous IPs and new users are reminded that while their comments will be taken into account, the closing admin may choose to ignore your vote. New votes to the bottom please.
- For clarity, discounted votes have been striken. All comments were taken into account. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 09:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this junior deserve an article? CG 07:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely keep! Who has the balls to go to iraq just for a school essay? I think this boy deserves great respect. I also appreciate the fact that he had the desire to get Information first hand and not from some manipulating media in the USA. Manu from Germany.Keep - Personal judgments about the boy or his actions are irrelevant. It's verifiable, substantially covered news, and entirely the sort of thing that someone might look for in Wikipedia sometime in the future.Delete - One major item I can't believe everyone is missing. Go back and view the video where his Mom is interviewed and the background video shows the mom in his room. In the background on a dresser, you will see an American Flag AND a Confederate Flag. With the folklore status this kid is getting, isn't anyone going to inquire as to why he would have this kind of offensive material in his room? I cannot believe no one has picked up on this? Am I missing something? This is a big deal. I don't think he deserves any credit. Brad in Seattle.- So, we should delete the Robert E. Lee article as well? Nelson Ricardo 23:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This boy has more courage than half the people there are articles about on this website. keep. - radi0head 04:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - It's been covered by major news sources, and it's a unique news story. Besides that, idiocy as monumental as Hassan's should be enshrined so that others learn what not to do. - JesseG 01:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's an interesting story that is verifiable and has been covered by major news outlets. -- MisterHand 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- verifiable article. - Longhair 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete verifiable but not notable. even the news stories about it did not cover it as a news piece. Most of the content their reeks of vanity Savidan 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Might have been interesting if he had at least stayed in Iraq a bit longer, actually doing some "immersion journalism", but the only thing he apparently wrote – judging from the quotes in the CNN article – seems rather immature. u p p l a n d 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since it's a developing story, or at least merge a bit to Pine Crest School. -- JJay 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as per aboveJcuk 10:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Does this junior deserve an an [sic] article?" Absolutely. How many 16 year olds travel thousands of miles unaccompanied into a war zone for a class essay? Unique story and verifiable. And absolutely do not merge into Pine Crest School. Cburnett 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Took some big balls to go over there. The fact that he made it that far is impressive. --Kross | Talk 14:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. This story is on the front page of many newspapers today. -- MisterHand 15:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP very news worthy and shows the courage and determination of American born of Iraqi heritage serving a good purpose in current affairs. Bnguyen 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep obviously. KI 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Keep'", verifiable, notable. zellin t / c 18:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very newsworthy, verifiable. Arbiteroftruth 19:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! It is considered vandalism to remove AfD notices from pages arbitrarily, but I really wouldn't blame anyone who did it on this article. It is on CNN.com as of now, and although not a real serious story it is definitely notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. NicAgent 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After all, this is a true story, and who knows what might become of this kid in the future. This does not seem to be controversial. Professor water 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Verifiable, informative, and quite amusing as well. --Bletch 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE KEEP!!!! - If I took an interest in Anime earlier in life, particularly 7th Grade, I would've attempted to run away to Japan, more or less like how Farris ran away to Iraq. It shows what might've happened to me on the way, or something like that. (minus the violence, as Japan is a much more peaceful country. But bad things would've happened to me nonetheless.) --Shultz 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or, at best, merge with Pine Crest School per JJay. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. This would be appropriate on Wikinews but it's not yet appropriate for Wikipedia. This may be a brave kid who took great risks to do something very important, or he may be an incredibly stupid kid who risked his life to do something pointless. We just don't yet know which it is, and if it turns out to be the latter, it would not reflect well on Wikipedia. Tim Pierce 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. To echo the valid points already mentioned. Themarcuscreature
- Keep. A real-life Ferris Bueller story. The Dad is proud, the Mom is mad, and Farris is grounded until peace breaks out in Iraq. Plus the journalism teacher gets an object lesson in the impressionability of his kids. --Ancheta Wis 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This brave young American has gained a large amount of notability. -- OldRight 23:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete! Are you people kidding?! We will never hear anything about this kid again. His 15 minutes of fame are over. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we delete every article on anyone you've never heard of? Nelson Ricardo 23:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say I never heard of this kid? I read about him on the day the news broke. That doesn't make him notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we delete every article on anyone you've never heard of? Nelson Ricardo 23:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Let him do something with his life first. Then maybe... Atrian 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! He might have been a complete, immature idiot to run off to a war zone as an unattended minor, but it was still very brave and gutsy and definitely memorable. I'm not going to forget this one...and omg have you guys seen the interview with his mother? She was so mellow you'd have thought she was on xanax.- Keep As a fellow 16 year old journalist, I believe that Mr. Hassan was stupid, but if the local 11pm newscast, CNN and Wikinews are covering and not to mention the fact that he was somehow able to enter a country which is currently engaged and war and not only survive with the way he acted, then he is damn well sure, notable. --Saint-Paddy 04:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This kid's has been on every newscast I've seen today. I'm actually getting sick of hearing about him. Hence he's notable. After all, the Category:Kidnappings is full of people whose sole claim to fame is disappearing. (Side note, not related to my vote: He's a total idiot, but something tells me he's just crazy enough that we may hear from him again someday.) OCNative 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He's been all over the news, and surely that makes him notable. Denelson83 06:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We've kept less. --King of All the Franks 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course! Neutralitytalk 06:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for several reasons mentioned above. Lawyer2b 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DELETE!!! DELETE!!! DELETE!!!! If this article stays than I too will be on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to let you know if I travel to Europe. And if I travel to the Mid East maybe I'll get a picture on my article too. Delete! What an embarrassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.21.94 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 31 December 2005- Keep. We have articles on Mary Ann Vecchio and the Tank Man... – ugen64 22:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? The article is newsworthy, as are his exploits. This boy made it onto the BBC World News. He may be stupid, but he's admirable and inspirational. I was very surprised to see this article listed for deletion when I looked him up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.106.19 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 December 2005- Keep. The nominator did not even provide a reason for deletion. Nelson Ricardo 23:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure they did: Hassan is a junior. No doubt the nominator is a senior, and therefore, like, totally more mature. -- MisterHand 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- MisterHand, like, you mean after, like, high school the totally most important identifying characteristic about a person is not their "year"? Lawyer2b 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure they did: Hassan is a junior. No doubt the nominator is a senior, and therefore, like, totally more mature. -- MisterHand 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per many of the other keep votes. Of course, I expected an article on this to land on AfD for some reason, but this should stay. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the story has been subject to extensive coverage throughout the world. This is exactly the sort of function which is so important to Wikipedia: documenting very timely information which could not be found in a print or traditional encyclopedia. BehroozZ 06:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Greasysteve13 12:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable and unique enough to warrant inclusion, though I must say I'm rather disappointed by the amount of people who think young Mr. Hassan is "brave" or a "hero". The people who are aware of the risks and go anyway (soldiers, aid workers, journalists, medics, etc.) ARE brave. Farris Hassan is just an irresponsibly naïve child.--RicardoC 22:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this entry had good and thorough information. Sure, Farris was quite naive to go to iraq in the way he did, but he's an idealist and that could take him into doing some good work in his lifetime. of course, I would be grounding him for the rest of his high school career if I were his parents, but regardless! Keep this entry.DELETE - the bulk of this article is an essay written by Hassan that is pretty emotive and pointless. The story can be found on WikiNews. It is not a historically significant event.- Strong keep, per all the arguments in the keep votes above. Academic Challenger 06:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- as stated in the keep comments above, it is a widely covered current event.
--24.20.77.128 07:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a memorable news item (seriously, his name one of the few I can recall that doesn't belong to a US Senator) AdamantlyMike 07:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with Tim Pierce that at best this should be merged with his school article. Just because this is on the front page doesn't mean it's notable enougg for a permanent article in an encyclopedia. On the fornt page of the 12/31/05 Wash Post is an article advising people not to use the "Just 2 beers, officer" line, and the evening news is riddled with stuff we wouldn't even dream of putting in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, giving this kid notoreity is only going to encourage other teens to do the same, and although he was brave, this behavior should not be encouraged, hence the current US State departent policy of advising civilians to not go to Iraq. To date, 40 civies have been kidnapped, 10 were killed and 15 are unaccounted for. Shaggorama 10:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree that Hassan's decision to go to Iraq was probably not the brightest, I believe he deserves his own article to show the world his inspiring story: how much the plight of the Iraqi people mean to him. In the face of the American "shock and awe" approach to foreign policy, we the American people need to show resolve to help. This story is such an example and has inspired me, a teen who has led a life similar to Hassan's. I haven't been able to find a blog on the subject: someone should really stop his parents from punishing him. Maybe his decision was risky and immature, but very commendable in its daring.Keep - If Wikipedia thinks an article about Cardassian military ranks is worthy of an entry, than this certainly is.- Keep and take out most of his direct quotes, leave one or two Sethie 20:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- Even my 88 year old mother wants to meet this kid. If she's noticed, he's notable. The article doesn't seem to meet any of the deletion criteria as far asI can tell. Seattilina.DELETE - Plain garbage, propaganda, too many holes. Too much innuendo, half-truths, outright lies. It diminishes the quality and reputation of Wikipedia.- Comment On one hand, this is an important story and has been for a week, and it would be an essential part of making Wikipedia a "time capsule" of our era's news/culture - part of the reason the Internet is so useful. It's a tale of the manifestation of the confusion created by government, media, and history, and how one student chooses to deal with it. On the other hand, the article is about a minor (privacy/legal issues - that's the one potential flaw I see), is subject to change very quickly, and needs edits. Dotcom703489 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable. Dave 03:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Do we really want to support actions like this as a way to get a wiki article? Vegaswikian 04:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt Hassan's actions were motivated by the desire to get an article in Wikipedia. -- MisterHand 04:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, please. (sorry, misunderstood something about the Wiki guidelines)
- Keep, current event and newsworthy. Euphrosyne 08:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 TzHaar Fight Cave, somewhat surreally. The Land 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is describing a single item in a single MMORPG. I don't know how else to describe it's lack of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Runescapecruft. —Cryptic (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We're getting a lot of these of late ... we need some notability policy on this. Daniel Case 07:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I could probably point to a lot more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There's an article called TzHaar Fight Cave which features a lot about this cape already. Merge with that. J.J.Sagnella 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above and cleanup the resulting messy page. -- (aeropagitica) 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteMerge with TzHaar Fight Cave and TzTok-Jad articles to create one article about different parts of one area in RuneScape. Create sections in the article for each subject - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to TzHaar Fight Cave, since it appears to have already been merged into that page. -Colin Kimbrell 17:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - combine it with the TzHaar Fight Cave and TzTok-Jad articles. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Shadowdancer (talk • contribs) UTC 19:51, 1 January 2006(Sorry for forgetting to sign - Mike 02:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Merge - combine it with above mentioned articles and also add more information - I would do, but I am unsure as to where to put it - Seems pointless putting it on a to be deleted page. Philipwhiuk 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A song by Heroin Jake and the Crack Addicts (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable song from a non-notable band. -- MisterHand 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. PJM 12:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if the band wasn't notable their song probably isn't either. --Pboyd04 15:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete due to focus of the article. If article was focused more on the use of can of corn as a baseball colloquialism, I may consider. Phantasmo 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Runescape quests
This article is regarding a single NPC in a single MMORPG, which I don't consider particularly notable and can easily be merged into the quests article. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I know a lot on wikipedia's articles on runescape and wikipedia just recently deleted a page named elvarg, a monster (dragon) with much more credibility and notablility than Delrith. Quite simply, if elvarg can go, this will go very soon. J.J.Sagnella
- Redirect to Runescape quests. Cobra 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge with Runescape quests ComputerJoe 10:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Land 19:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can never really be more than a dictionary article Pogoman 08:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna go for a keep here.. it could be built on to be a decent article... -- 9cds(talk) 10:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand per 9cds ComputerJoe 10:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dictionary definition. Tim Pierce 22:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a dab like article. There are several ways that a snackbar is used. If kept the article should be moved to Snack bar. Vegaswikian 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move per Vegaswikian. Stifle 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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: relist for low number of votes. The Land 19:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forum software for LUElinks (AfD discussion) (which is protected from re-creation, thus the blue link). —Cryptic (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete As a LUEser, I don't think LL should be protected from recreation, but, as it is, I'll vote for delete Sceptre(Talk) 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – my LX software has basically no ties with LUElinks anymore. I used to co-administer the site, but I left them a few months ago. LX is an independent project that has both steered away and has nothing to do with LUElinks. --Matt 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertising. It's even signed by the guy who wrote it - an employee. -- Simpatico 08:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete poorly-written advertising.-- (aeropagitica) 10:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advert. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. -- Longhair 10:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete -- Longhair 10:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment I think unless you say keep or no vote in your nomination then its pretty clear that your opionion is that the article should be deleted. I'm not getting on to you its just been happening with alot of people lately. --Pboyd04 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I always make my nomination separate from my vote for a very important reason, so that if information comes up of which I was not aware (such as that the article has been detected as a copyvio, for instance, or gets many more Google hits under the correct spelling than under the spelling that the article creator used) that information can be added to the 'nomination' section, before any of the votes -- including my own. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment I think unless you say keep or no vote in your nomination then its pretty clear that your opionion is that the article should be deleted. I'm not getting on to you its just been happening with alot of people lately. --Pboyd04 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. Ambi 10:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not establish notability. Cnwb 10:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 10:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn and vanity. Sarah Ewart 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Roisterer 13:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. Ajwebb 16:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The company appears to be non-notable and the article doesn't include reasons to justify its inclusion on WP -- (aeropagitica) 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. French Tourist 12:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn company. --Pboyd04 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Longhair 06:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability cited. --GrantNeufeld 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom Phantasmo 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary The Land 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a phrase that someone made up in school. Belongs in Urban Dictionary, not here. -- 9cds(talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As an expert on this subject, the definition is correct. It grandly deserves a Wikipedia entry. David Hilditch -- 14:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Heard it numerous times, beleve it's from France -- 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.131.4 (talk • contribs)
- Delete I'm not so hip to this current usage of "parlour talk", but I've heard it used before. A dictionary listing would suffice, as suggested above. PJM 13:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dicdef, 2000 Google hits in UK and US spellings. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki, as I've suggested with parlour talker. Daniel Case 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki the entry here even looks like a dictionary entry. --Pboyd04 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources given. Do not transwiki, unless good verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of AfD. As the policy says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed." In this case, that would be the entire article. (Also, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was going to vote transwiki, but Dpbsmith is right. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or transwiki. Term exists and is not fabricated. Some examples of the term in use, (Euro spelling);
(US spelling)
14:42, 6 January 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The television programme is non-notable. Questions included on Talk page. -- (aeropagitica) 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Television show seems to be fairly well established (broadcasts on several free platforms), but their website (where everybody can download the episodes) has an Alexa rating of 2,338,975. They're also not broadcast on a major tv channel. SoothingR 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Niz 15:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn "public access tv show" (yes I know thats redundant) --Pboyd04 15:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as this is a debate, Last Malthusian "wins". :p Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a strong delete, but don't believe it's as notable as claimed Oscarthecat 10:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC). Expanded / tidied it a little myself. --Oscarthecat 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and expand if possible Jcuk 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advert. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Was heading towards a 'weak keep' when they got a Google hit which described it as one of the 'big four' studios in the Philippines, but it went on to say that those four "...are all virtually closed down due to the proliferation of individual and collective modes of film production". That was the only Google hit I could find that related to this company that looked anything like a possible source for an encyclopaedia article. As it stands, we have no verified evidence of anything, let alone meeting WP:CORP. And of the five blue-linked actors, we have two articles created by this article's author (who might themselves be deletion candidates), two actors with no apparent relation to the studio, and a redirect to a Tintin character. I'd really like to know what the 'keep' voters see in this article that I don't. --Last Malthusian 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to that, it sort of seems from the few (very few) Google hits that this company existed and at least used to make films. But if kept, the article would have to be reduced to a tiny stub, since there's no verification that they a) made those movies b) worked in those genres c) were associated with those actors (those that appear to exist - both of them). And then the article would have to be watched to make sure that the unverified information wasn't put back in. Two last things worth mentioning: the official languages of the Philippines are English and Filipino, the latter of which uses the Roman alphabet, so the fact that Google finds very little isn't a language problem. And the Filipino Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this company. --Last Malthusian 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC (though it asserts notability). No allmusic entry; 20 Google hits (including us and our mirrors). Their label, Truculent Recordings, was deleted in this afd discussion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 12:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphan page. It should be categorised and related to suitable subjects to justify inclusion in WP. On its own, the page doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) 11:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Is this someone's imaginary pet? Tom Harrison (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a quick google search just shows a few forum entries by people with the user name "IronDino" nn. --Pboyd04 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity. --R6MaY89 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move It It seems to be a harmless character that was created out of boredom. Just move it to a cartoon topic or something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.233.106 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 December 2005
- Delete as non-notable, and I'm closing this one. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deletion ever intended - continuing discussion is at Talk:Kaplan. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be largely advertising/publicity about a commercial organisation
- It is 'squatting' on the name 'Kaplan' which refers to thirty or so other Kaplan articles.
At present anyone searching these is forced to see this 'advertisment' first before going on the to the page 'Kaplan (disambiguation)' I propose that the page as it stands is deleted and the contents of the page 'Kaplan (disambiguation)' are transferred to it. This would mean that anyone searching 'Kaplan' will immediately come up with the disambiguation page. I would also propose that, if the content of the present 'Kaplan' is considered appopriate for Wikipedia, it is transferred to a new page 'Kaplan Inc.' Declaration of interest: I am putting together an article on Anatoli Lvovich Kaplan. I have no ill-will towards, or any past or present connection with, Kaplan Inc. Smerus 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE discuss this page move at a proper place, Talk:Kaplan. The page is listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. mikka (t) 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Kaplan (company) and disambig to this page. The company itself is notable. Please use requested moves for future requests. PS I added an AFD notice on the page. JFW | T@lk 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as above and restore the disambiguation page to the top of the Kaplan page tree. The company can then be mentioned there, if indeed it requires an encyclopædia entry at all. -- (aeropagitica) 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is. Kaplan, the standardized-test related company, is by far the most notable article on that disambiguation page. It is common practice in cases like this to do exactly as has been done here. See all of the pages on this list for more examples. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/ and use Kaplan as DAB. To say that Kaplan Inc. is more notable that Fanya Kaplan, who shot Lenin is simply ridiculous. mikka (t) 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE discuss this page move at Talk:Kaplan. The page is listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. mikka (t) 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability. From the article: The site was launched on January 22nd, 2005. It has since been home to over 60 members and 3,800 posts including 180 topics. Ze miguel 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. PJM 12:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Essexmutant 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:WEB. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete page is also 404. --Pboyd04 15:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page created by vandal, possible hoax. I haven't researched further. -- Curps 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Jcuk 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only link to a football team is to a page whose truthfulness has been questioned. Even if they exist, why would a team in Derbyshire be playing in an east London football league? They are several hundred miles apart. -- (aeropagitica) 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete complete hoax Robdurbar 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no google hits. External link is totally unrelated. Punkmorten 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page created by vandal, possible hoax. I haven't researched further. Also created now-speedied Ho Hum Stalemurk-Foulgrease Battery Hens F.C. -- Curps 12:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are a real football club.... I think! Research is hard for the very lower leagues but it seems right to me
Heh - whoops Delete They DON'T actually exist, I've just discovered, so go ahead and delete as ficticious. 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
doktorb | words 12:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. PJM 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Jcuk 13:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Sceptre(Talk) 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is a real football team. I actually live near Sodswick, and have seen these play before in Derbyshire. They are a low-key team in the lower leagues (Level 10 I think) --202.156.6.54 12:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cant find anything to verify them, but if someone provides proof of their existance I'm happy to change my vote.....having said that 'level 10' is meaningless when talking about UK football leagues! Jcuk 15:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. There is no Sodswick in Derbyshire, or indeed anywhere. -- JimR 09:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Longhair 13:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Division Two of the NW Counties can be found here [7] and there is no Sodswick team in it. Hoax. Keresaspa 14:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AfD votes by anonymous and new users can be ignored by the closing admin, even if their opinions are taken into account. In this case the "Strong Keep" above was especially suspicious. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to be a hoax. See my comment on a (very old) version of "RC_Patrol" e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RC_patrol&oldid=10142837#10.2F2004 and the answer by Dr Zen ; I copy-paste both there
«* Special:Contributions/83.104.54.158 has created four mutually linking articles about some Holy man in 15th century Gujarat : Jesal Kansagra, Kansagra's_scribe, Maharishi_Wasu, Vishal_Amin. Not one answer on Google for the first three names ; the latter returns some results, but unrelated to Hindu tradition. Strong suspicion of a hoax. Opinions sought. --French Tourist 08:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, a hoax. No links out, no sign of the guy in Google. No wider contributions from the editor in other areas of Hinduism or Gujarat.Dr Zen 23:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)».
Note that I am posting simultaneously four requests for Deletion, concerning the four pages Jesal Kansagra, Kansagra's_scribe, Maharishi_Wasu, Vishal_Amin French Tourist 12:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this and all the related pages Jcuk 13:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all these pages. Unconfirmed, probable hoax, Dlyons493 Talk 14:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesal Kansagra French Tourist 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all related pages. Dlyons493 Talk 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the lot as unverifiable. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesal Kansagra French Tourist 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all related pages Dlyons493 Talk 14:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. utcursch | talk 08:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the lot as unverifiable. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesal Kansagra French Tourist 12:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all related pages Dlyons493 Talk 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. utcursch | talk 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the lot as unverifiable. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
marked as a speedy A7 but it is not. Reason given Self-promoting entry, which practise is _strongly discouraged_. (Note topic and creator appear to be same; "article" reads like an advert. No vote --Doc ask? 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC) -Doc ask? 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment due to having had some contacts with the subject (I met her a couple of times), I prefer not vote on this article. However, I would like to mention that the number of publications, and in particular the number of citations to the subject's work [8] places her well above the "average college professor", as required by WP:BIO. Not to mention that she is a co-director of a Stanford lab. - Liberatore(T) 13:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no reason why Prof. McGuiness shouldn't be mentioned in the field of AI research alongside other AI researchers. The article would be better if it placed her academic achievements in context, which would also justify its inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very notable in the fields of Semantic Web and Ontologies (OWL especially). Google Scholar turns up over 100 publications and she's heavily cited also. Dlyons493 Talk 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, subject appears to be well-respected in her field, however this is not the issue at hand. Should researchers be encouraged to create their own Wikipedia entries based on their own assessment of their level of recognition in the field? This appears to be flagrant disregard for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially since creator/subject makes sweeping claims about her own importance and reputation. Recommend article be removed, and a fresh one started, authored by one of the above (or other) colleagues supportive of an entry for this subject (if they so choose) in order to avoid appearance of Wikipedia as a forum for self-advocacy of subjects at any level of recognition. - Democritus
- That's a valid point, but it's so easy for someone to create an account and add the article that it actually seems preferable to me to accept (but not encourage) articles from the people themselves. That at least gives a little accountability to something otherwise completely unenforcable. Dlyons493 Talk 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation Such acceptance is the very source of the encouragement. And if it is your position is that it is preferable to have people create articles about themselves, due to increased "accountability" of the material contained therein, then please familiarise your self with WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself, which clearly states a position rather different to that. - D
- That's a valid point, but it's so easy for someone to create an account and add the article that it actually seems preferable to me to accept (but not encourage) articles from the people themselves. That at least gives a little accountability to something otherwise completely unenforcable. Dlyons493 Talk 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup if you're concerned about WP:AUTO (which is only a guideline, and it seems to me to not apply in general for "notable people") (ESkog)(Talk) 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Are you advocating a system of maintaining two standards regarding creation of self-promoting encyclopedia entries, one standard for those who deem themselves important, and another for those who deem themselves not? - D
- Answer Sure, I guess it's a double standard. But it's not "those who deem themselves important" but rather "those who we deem important." If Michael Jackson had created his article, we wouldn't be rushing to delete it. However, if local sixth-grader James Noname creates his, then I would be of the opinion that WP:AUTO applies. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Are you advocating a system of maintaining two standards regarding creation of self-promoting encyclopedia entries, one standard for those who deem themselves important, and another for those who deem themselves not? - D
- Keep as per Dlyons493 and others above. Seems clearly notable in her field. u p p l a n d 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The case for "notability" of this particular subject is certainly undermined by the fact that no-one (other than the subject herself) perceived adequate notability to feel moved to create an entry. This is exactly why the the creation of self-promoting articles is strongly discouraged; no-one is capable of judging their own "importance". If this subject is indeed notable, then let this be evidenced by someone of at least nominal neutrality taking such note, in the form of an independently created article. - D
- Keep as per Dlyons493 et al, as long as the subject doesn't try to claim control over the content. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above votes. Nope, nothing wrong here. --King of All the Franks 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while I share Democritus's concern that any self-edited article is going to be inherently biased, I also think it's a matter that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The Deborah McGuinness article is not bad at all and does not seem unduly promotional to me. I don't feel like it would be appropriate to delete it just to make a point. Tim Pierce 12:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Either action, keeping or deleting, will send a message of some kind. If it is kept, then let us please change the guideline described at WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself from "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged", to, "If you would like to create an article about yourself, because in your opinion the evidence indicates that you are important, then create one. All such articles will be handled on a case-by-case basis, in which a debate and arbitration process will determine whether you were correct in your conclusion that you are, in fact, important." - D
- Keep. Programme chair, dozens of invited talks at conference, holds five patents - looks notable to me. She isn't judging her own importance, it has been made verifiably clear that her peers have judged her important. Average Earthman 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But, if so, then let those peers themselves evince that they have "judged her important" by creating a Wikipedia article to honour that importance. Yet so far they have failed to do so, and this subject merely called attention to herself, flouting the objectivity criterion. But notable or not, anyone may perceive evidence from which they conclude they are important. If Wikipedia guidelines are that we create our own pages if we decide that we are important, thereby generating case-by-case-by-case calls for arbitration, then so be it. The current stated guideline, which is quite the reverse, should be revised to reflect this. The need then arises for further guidelines by which one may determine that one's conclusions about one's own importance are proper. Is this viable? Currently, there is clear and simple system in effect. A different system could be considered, but when reduced to practice, either all should feel free to create their own pages if they have concluded they are notable, or, none should create articles about themselves. - D
- Comment Allow me too clarify something that seems to be getting overlooked. I am not challenging (nor endorsing) the encyclopaedia-worthiness of this subject. I am asking whether this process, what we are all doing right now, is the method by which future self-created articles will be decided for inclusion. (And if not, then why for this person and not others?) If yes, then let the process be so, but, let us change the posted guideline to reflect the practised reality. - Democritus
- Comment - WP:AUTO says "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged," not "Creating articles about yourself is forbidden." It also notes that this is "guideline," not "policy." I agree entirely that it's a bad idea, and most such pages wind up getting submitted to AfD. I have done a lot of these myself. I also think there's a reason why this isn't a hard and fast rule, and this situation is an example of why. Tim Pierce 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we are to quote the source, then let us do it more fully: "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged. If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic."
By applying these guidelines selectively, as is being proposed, you merely open the door to all comers who have determined, by whatever means, that they are "encyclopedic", to feel free to promote that fact in Wikipedia, resulting in more work and more time spent on maintenance, and in the meantime, further jeopardising the already roundly-debated credibility of this resource.
In summary, if this article, or others like it, stand, then ammending WP:AUTO along the following lines would be appropriate, and would accurately reflect the state of affairs: "As a matter of practise, if you guess correctly that you or your accomplishments will be decided noteworthy, then a self-created article promoting this fact is fine and is not likely to be deleted. Therefore, those who have concluded, based on the available evidence, that they themselves are an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, need not take "strongly discouraged", as mentioned herein, very seriously." - D
- In most cases, not creating an autobiographical article is good advice, as it is usually a waste of effort and frequently leads to a deletion discussion which can be somewhat humiliating to the author/subject. But it is just not a big deal when it happens, if the subject does happen to meet our notability criteria and the information is verifiable. It may also be noted that as long as articles are written under pseudonym we have no way to know for sure who actually wrote an article. If the author in this case had taken the username User:SuperMarioFan2000, rather than User:Dmcguinness, nobody would have suspected that the author was Deborah McGuinness. For all I know, User:Dmcguinness could be some random computer geek in Taiwan (or at least somebody else at Stanford). I see no reason to change the guideline. u p p l a n d 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - applying this guideline selectively is an inevitable result of using selective language to define it. If the appropriate guideline should be "creating an article about yourself is forbidden," then it would be a very good idea to take this argument to WP:AUTO and obtain a consensus for that statement. But as it stands I think that the complaint about inconsistency is just meaningless. Tim Pierce 16:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed. As the policy states, the artice was listed on articles for deletion, where deletion is not certain (but is rather judged case by case.) Strongly discouraged is not the same thing as prohibited, if you want to actually prohibit get consensus to say so in the policy. CarbonCopy (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we are to quote the source, then let us do it more fully: "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged. If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic."
- Comment - WP:AUTO says "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged," not "Creating articles about yourself is forbidden." It also notes that this is "guideline," not "policy." I agree entirely that it's a bad idea, and most such pages wind up getting submitted to AfD. I have done a lot of these myself. I also think there's a reason why this isn't a hard and fast rule, and this situation is an example of why. Tim Pierce 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. We appear to have a lack of verifiability and the article does not provide any information on how she passes WP:BIO in its present state. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- External links to the lab at Stanford University count as verifiable to me. Average Earthman 10:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Slang) dictionary definition. - Liberatore(T) 13:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- DeletePer nom. Obina 13:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism dicdef. JFW | T@lk 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This belongs in Urbandictionary. Obli (Talk) 14:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And its already in Wiktionary Joygasm (Neologism it might be but it has 16,300 hits on Google.) --Aspro 15:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, dicdef. Punkmorten 20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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] 06:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This book is written by Andrewdavila, whose other vanity articles have been speedied by me (tagged by others). This book actually is sold online, but the publisher is iUniverse, a known self-publishing company. This book should be deleted as a nn vanity work. --Deathphoenix 14:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Youngamerican 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, but instead I'm going to merge and redirect as per JFW because that makes far more sense. Mindmatrix 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
incoherent title and article. no meaningful content. material covered in other entries. Zvesoulis 14:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with portal vein. JFW | T@lk 14:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, amazed it lasted so long before being found! JGF Wilks 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly tagged as speedy. This term exists, but I don't see it growing beyond a dictdef. I say we Transwiki to Wiktionary (TransWiktionary?). --Deathphoenix 14:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there are some folks who may interpret my Transwiki vote as a vote for deleting valuable, encyclopedic information, maybe I should just explicitly state that I am not voting for delete. Thank you. --Deathphoenix 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I think a useful article could be written on the subject (by someone who knows anything about Phylogeography, so that's me out for a start), and if not, it can always be merged into speciation. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above ... I've tagged it with {{expert}} now. Daniel Case 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What's up with this whole deletion craze? I prefer not to have other people tell me how to use my time by putting articles up for deletion. I fixed one article today, not doing it again (and I'm mighty pissed off now, could have written a much better article in my own time, with my books which didn't follow me on Xmas vacation, but hey, this is all you're gonna get!) As @topic, you should lobby the people from Category:Phylogenetics. - Samsara 17:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it seems like there's a lot more to say on the subject (any scientists working with this, who came up with the idea, what conclusions can be reached using the method?). Obli (Talk) 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per fuddlemark and others. rodii 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep real, expandable. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an alternative suggestion for the interim: merge article with either biogeography or phylogenetics. If there's support for this idea, we should vote on which article it could best be merged with. I think chances are it will grow more quickly that way, and could become a separate article again when it's matured. - Samsara 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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] 06:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged as a speedy. I'm not sure how notable this is. In its current state, it can definitely be deleted as a crystal ball, but maybe someone who knows about about this can shed some light and improve the article. --Deathphoenix 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; per page, "This is going to be planed sometime." Tom Harrison (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete crystal ball Dlyons493 Talk 15:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:Not a crystal ball we can have an article if its built. --Pboyd04 15:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 --Deathphoenix 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school band; no Allmusic, and no Google references except, unfortunately, a whole bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. - squibix 14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn-band Niz 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete nn-band no claim to notability. --Pboyd04 15:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've speedied it as CSD A7: nn band. --Deathphoenix 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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] 06:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like spam to me. Small, non-notable company, and the text of the article comes mostly from their own website (though I don't think this quite qualifies as a copyvio). Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. -- DS1953 talk 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Snakes
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. See last comments below. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm renominating this for delete. The previous nomination ended in no consensus. However, since then both the Inclusive Democracy page and the International Journal on Inclusive Democracy have been deleted on the 25th of December, 2005. The International Journal on Inclusive Democracy is that same publication as Democracy & Nature, when they changed editors they changed names. It seems the whole group of these three articles has been little more than vanity pushing of a relatively unknown ideology and this article is little more than a list of their issues and authors. It should be deleted per the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy and the first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature. -- Jbamb 14:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
- Speedy keep notable. [9] [10] - FrancisTyers 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sure it's a fringe group, but we have plenty of articles on fringe groups. As long as their views aren't given undue weight in other articles, I see no problem. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable; if not for any other reason, then because Murray Bookchin was an active member of the advisory board for the first few years. Paulcardan 23:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Known sock puppet. -- Jbamb 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The whole thing is not noteworthy.Cyberevil 16:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable! User:john sargis 12:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Another known sock puppet. -- Jbamb 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this last vote was by another person who's only contributions are to pages about Inclusive Democracy which has also been deleted. The only supporters seem to be people affiliated with this small and non-notable group. -- Jbamb 17:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Harold Pinter + Noam Chomsky = notable. Kappa 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is notable. - ulayiti (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per the other afds in regards to this nn group. karmafist 04:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the points made by Francis, Nikodemos and Kappa. Furthermore it seems that a dispute over content led to the article being listed for AfD. If this really isn't notable why wasn't it listed for deletion before the content dispute arose. RicDod 15:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a clue what this is about, but as Jbamb mentioned, the only supporters seem to be people affiliated with this group. It's not notable as is, probably violates WP:NOR, and is kicking up a lot of trouble. Strong delete per WP:IAR. Stifle 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a journal of which 17 issues were published, and for which there is no reliable evidence of any widespread currency. Many of these journals are vehicles for vanity - there is no evidence on which to weigh whether this one is or not, because much of what is said about it is not verifiable from reliable sources. A journal can publish an article by anyone through syndication or by paying them - do we have any evidence of whether the illustrious contributors thhought this a credible journal? Whether they submitted to the journal or whether they were approached for a piece of editorial? What the peer-review process was? Taylor & Francis stopped printing it after five issues; is that a sign of a significant journal? Plus, the reaction of the "editorial board" is a clear violation of WP:OWN. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All the above ‘facts’ are FALSE indicating that it is through blatant lies that some try to have the journal deleted! First, the journal D&N (formerly Society and Nature) has published not 17 but 27 issues in its over 11 years history. http://www.democracynature.org/dn/index.htm. Second, the ‘illustrious contributors’ have submitted many articles, as anybody can easily find out by just checking the link above. Third, Taylor & Francis stopped publishing it after five VOLUMES , not issues, as Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] ‘discovered’ voting for delete, followed by SarekOfVulcan. Of course, we do not expect that the above real facts will make any of these ‘neutral’ users to change their mind! User:Narap43, 11:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked out several articles by contributors I recognised and saw that their contributions were first published in this journal. It isn't hard to check this: just use google & google scholar. --- Charles Stewart 02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Postscript - On the matter of why the publisher dropped them, it could be related to the resignation of Murray Bookchin & Janet Biehl from the editorial/advisory board [11]: long time lags between political and business effects are not uncommon in journal publishing. --- Charles Stewart 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good detective work! The point however is that Bookchin and Biehl resigned in 1997, when D&N was still published by its original publisher (Aigis publications) whereas Taylor and Francis started publishing the journal …two years later (in full knowledge of these events since, before deciding to take over from Aigis, they went through all the previous issues of the journal) and continued publishing it for another five years (i.e. another five volumes of 3 isuues each) when, according to our Sherlock Holmes, discovered that Bookchin and Biehl resigned and they were so shocked by this event that they stopped publication of the journal. Ingenious idea indeed! User:Narap43, 11:50, 4 January 2006, (UTC)
- Let me outline a hypothetical scenario to make my point about time lags clear: one, the publisher hears about the resignation even before it is published; two, while the publisher is very concerned about the resignation, they decide to take a gamble on the new advisory board still working out; three, two years later they drop the journal when it becomes clear that the journal had lost a lot of credibility. --- Charles Stewart 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a hypothetical scenario but pure science fiction! I repeat: T&F stopped publication not after two but after FIVE years of publication by them and SEVEN years after the Bookchin resignation. Second, can our Sherlock Holmes reply to the question why on earth a capitalist publisher like T&F was so shocked by the resignation of Murray Bookchin when NO OTHER MEMBER OF THE EB has resigned since then but, instead, the EB expanded signigficantly since then (the same happened to the number of contributors and circulation) ? And is the absence of Bookchin so signifibant when people like Sharon Beder, Steven Best, Carl Boggs, Pierre Bourdieu,Cornelius Castoriadis, Dan Chodorkoff (who is the Director of Social Ecology created by him and Boochin!) , Noam Chomsky, Paul Ekins, Andre Gunder Frank, Arran Gare, Douglas Kellner, Serge Latouche, Brian Morris, Harold Pinter, James Robertson, Ted Trainer-- among many others-- remained (or joined later) the EB? Only someone with no knowledge whatsoever of important writers in the Left could think so! User:Narap43, 4 January 2006, 18:06 (UTC)
- Comment You mean "AB", right? --SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a hypothetical scenario but pure science fiction! I repeat: T&F stopped publication not after two but after FIVE years of publication by them and SEVEN years after the Bookchin resignation. Second, can our Sherlock Holmes reply to the question why on earth a capitalist publisher like T&F was so shocked by the resignation of Murray Bookchin when NO OTHER MEMBER OF THE EB has resigned since then but, instead, the EB expanded signigficantly since then (the same happened to the number of contributors and circulation) ? And is the absence of Bookchin so signifibant when people like Sharon Beder, Steven Best, Carl Boggs, Pierre Bourdieu,Cornelius Castoriadis, Dan Chodorkoff (who is the Director of Social Ecology created by him and Boochin!) , Noam Chomsky, Paul Ekins, Andre Gunder Frank, Arran Gare, Douglas Kellner, Serge Latouche, Brian Morris, Harold Pinter, James Robertson, Ted Trainer-- among many others-- remained (or joined later) the EB? Only someone with no knowledge whatsoever of important writers in the Left could think so! User:Narap43, 4 January 2006, 18:06 (UTC)
- Let me outline a hypothetical scenario to make my point about time lags clear: one, the publisher hears about the resignation even before it is published; two, while the publisher is very concerned about the resignation, they decide to take a gamble on the new advisory board still working out; three, two years later they drop the journal when it becomes clear that the journal had lost a lot of credibility. --- Charles Stewart 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's rather amusing that you reached this conclusion, as much of the edit warring prior to the first AfD was devoted to keeping this resignation letter link off the article.--SarekOfVulcan 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Just zis Guy. As tempted as I am to leave this up to spite their demands to withdraw it, I didn't think it was notable last time around, and all the ranting I've seen since has not convinced me otherwise.--SarekOfVulcan 17:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - unlike what I could establish for the successor journal, "The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy", it is easy to see that this is a bona fide journal: ISSN number, paper printings by established publishers, original content by recognised scholars. Furthermore, many of the contributors are notable. --- Charles Stewart 02:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- Comment. Can any of the keepers tell me why this entry should be kept, but that the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, the same journal, was deleted? The journal was published as Democracy & Nature, then when it switched publishers a few years ago it became the International Journal on Inclusive Democracy. Same editors, same writers, same journal, one entry gets deleted, the other is magically notable? Also, Paulcardan has skin in this game, his vote does not belong here according to policy. -- Jbamb 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, the AfD for the other name came to the wrong conclusion. - FrancisTyers 01:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- also... why shouldn't Paulcardan vote? Which policy are you referring to? - FrancisTyers 01:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the deletion etiquette policy. If you have skin in the game, your opinion is obviously biased. Apparently Paulcardan was once an editor of this journal. Would anyone take seriously a vote of someone who is the subject of a bio that is afd'd? Also, if you think it was wrong to delete the other article, feel free to recreate the article and try again but the consensus seemed clear then. -- Jbamb 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I wasn't aware that he was an editor of the Journal. - FrancisTyers 19:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I think that the vote of Paulcardan should not be counted because of a recent history of creating additional Wikipedia accounts for use in votes for page deletion (pages that are related to Democracy & Nature).
- see: Sockpuppeting - DisposableAccount , Paulcardan, Llbb, Bbll
- --JWSchmidt 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I want to remind to Jbamb that the discussion on the AfD for D&N (in which the vast majority of users voted to KEEP) showed that the journal was notable for many reasons(notable contributors—not just Bookchin!—notable editorial board—many citations and lots of abstracts published by the Alternative Press Index etc)--TheVel 16:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A debate that included many sockpoppets and personal attacks it appears. -- Jbamb 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on! Jbamb, what about Nicodemos and FrancisTyers! What about Woohookitty(cat scratches), 23skidoo, Capitalistroadster, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Tupsharru, Pete.Hurd, Alf (melmac), Jmabel, El_C and others who voted KEEP in the debate for Democracy&Nature? Are they supporters affiliated with our group?--TheVel 18:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Jbamb's insistence on deleting the D&N entry, using in the process a series of falsified "facts" like the above one on the affiliations of supporters of KEEP, as well as the statement that the Inclusive Democracy entry was deleted because it referred to "a relatively unknown ideology" and not because of a minor copyvio (from the Inclusive Democracy external link!) is very interesting indeed. The fact that this uknown (to him) ideology reserves a long entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of International Economy presumably means to him that this is not as reliable an encyclopedia as the Wikipedia one! I wonder whether this insistence has anything to do with his interests as described in his own WP page!18:40, Dec. 31, 2005.
- Comment: We aren't talking about those pages, we are talking about this one. Inclusive Democracy has been deleted, the International Journal on Inclusive Democracy has been deleted. There appears to be consesus on deleting The International Network on Inclusive Democracy. Everything associated with this is getting deleted. If all you have to defend this is assume I'm acting with bad faith, I think that says something about the inherent worth of these articles. I'm a latecomer into these debates, and I'm saying nothing about a dozen other people have already said. Those articles are getting deleted because of the non-noteworthiness of this theory. This page is no different. -- Jbamb 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Jbamb, it would have been much more honest not to pretend that you are a ‘neutral’ administrator on a deeply political topic belonging to the antisystemic Left when all your interests (and contributions) are on right wing-politics. The noteworthiness of this theory fortunately is not going to be judged by right-wingers who have the power, as administrators, to decide what should be and what should not be on encyclopaedias. At least, bourgeois encyclopaedias, like the one I mentioned above, (as well as the dozens of references to Inclusive Democracy you may find in books, journals --even in Google hits) have experts on the field who, even if they do not agree with the politics of what they assess, try to be as neutral as they can. Coming now to the new distorted ‘facts’ you presented above: I repeat, as it seems one has to repeat things to you so that you can assimilate them, that the Inclusive Democracy entry was deleted for a minor copyvio –nothing to do with non-noteworthiness. The International Journal on Inclusive Democracy was deleted after an obvious socketpuppet (currently under investigation) made an AfD, which is now recognised as an error by several administrators in their own WP pages. It is worthnoting that the decision to delete was taken by just two (2) votes in favor of delete, after all other votes to keep were discounted, on the dubious grounds that they were made by relatively new users (even if they were clearly more knowledgeable on the topic than the two administrators, who, like you, had no idea about it). A similar type of “consensus” is being attempted now with respect to the International Network on Inclusive Democracy. It is actions like yours that discredit Wikpedia and today the world press increasingly disputes the reliability of information it provides!19:47, Dec.31, 2005
- User has been warned for repeated personal attacks. A difference of opinion a vast right wing conspiracy does not make. -- Jbamb 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC
- Comment It's not a matter of a difference of opinion, but of the impossibility of 'neutrality' of administrators. -- john sargis 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You have skin in this game, I do not. All of your other stuff has been deleted, I played no part in that. Move on. -- Jbamb 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you did your homework you would have read that the deletions boiled down to gangsterism by non-neutral administrators. And it is the same with this article. You coming in now is just jumping on the delete bandwagon, because you are carrying the same argument. john sargis 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Check out WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. I'm getting real tired of the supporters of these articles engaging in a pattern of attack and intimidation. I'm about ready to move to get you all banned. In every AfD the policy has been followed you've been given a chance, and all you do is flame. If all you can muster in support of this article is some vast right wing conspiracy that's out to get you, then we should delete the article and be done with it because Inclusive Democracy must be nothing more than a kook patrol for conspiracy theorists wearing tin-foil hats. -- Jbamb 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There has been no good faith practiced by 90% of the administrators. The originator of the deletes was discredited to be a sockpuppet and was to be banned. He never was and allowed to continue his attacks using other sockpuppets. Consequently, the 'neutral' administrators sided with him and the gangsterism commenced. Personal attacks is a matter of opinion. I can say that your personal attack against us is with your above comment depicting us as "nothing more than a kook patrol." You are not learning the history, so therefore you are repeating it. You are acting like a dictator with, "I'm about ready to move to get you all banned." We are doing all we can to rectify the situation considering we are new to wiki with its voluminous set of rules. john sargis 20:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not acting like a dictator, I'm insisting you follow the rules on personal attacks. I've cited them repeatedly. -- Jbamb 17:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you saying that your comment that we are "nothing more than a kook patrol" is not a personal attack? Here is an observation: you are a hypocrite, because you do not follow the rules you make. Therefore, you are superfluous. You don't get it. Are you and only you going to ban us. Then do it. You follow the rules, when it is convenient for you. Everyone else is discounted. john sargis 19:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is this much discussion it should probably be going on in the Talk page of the article. - FrancisTyers 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I voted delete last time and none of my concerns then were satisfactorily addressed. As to the other articles, why would we need two articles on the same subject anyway? Actually I'm not even sure about one. The statement at the top of this page is a claer violation of WP:OWN, of course. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is not the solution to duplicate articles. Kappa 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because your concerns were not satisfied, when you voted to delete, does it mean that the process or the processors are not to your liking? Democracy is a subject. You mean there cannot be more than one article on it? That is a totalitarian statement if I ever heard one. Your rules are a hodgepodge all over the place and very confusing, the better to keep newcomers off balance and discounted!
john sargis 20:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF D&N AND IJID
removed 1. We, the members of the Editorial Board of Democracy & Nature (D&N) and its present successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (IJID) have, over the last few days, witnessed a concerted attack against the journal by an alliance of sockpuppets (who have been created by a disgruntled ex-member of the journal with a vendetta against us) and some administrators who are either apolitical (not in the sense of party politics but in the sense of a fundamental lack of understanding of politics in the broader sense) or who do not hide their hostility towards the Inclusive Democracy political agenda. This ‘unholy’ alliance has attempted to delete all Inclusive Democracy entries in Wikipedia and in some cases it has already succeeded in doing this.
2. The reasons for which Wikipedia have attempted to substantiate their AfDs range from silly WP copyright violations (from our own webpages!-- which, if applied to all WP entries, would lead to most of them being eclipsed) to arbitrary ‘assessments’ of the notability and significance of our entries. Such ‘assessments’ are given either by administrators who do not have any expertise on the topics they are assessing, or by others following their own political agenda which is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to the Inclusive Democracy project.
3. We find it humiliating, to say the least, to be subjected to this pseudo-democratic process which defames not only our journals, which have been honoured to have had as contributors and members of their Editorial Boards well-known writers such as Steven Best, Murray Bookchin, Pierre Bourdieu, Cornelius Castoriadis, Noam Chomsky, Takis Fotopoulos, Andre Gunder Frank, Serge Latouche, Harold Pinter-- and many other equally important writers who do not have similar WP entries—but also our subscribers who have, in the past, included such notable institutions as Michigan State University, University of Maryland, University of Wisconsin, London School of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Stanford University, Simon Fraser University, Hamburg Library, University of New South Wales, University of Canterbury, Kent; Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Harvard College Library,Iinternational Institute of Social History, Amsterdam; Formazione ii Biblioteca, Palermo; Bath University and many others. Furthermore, we find this process equally humiliating to the authors of hundreds of references and citations to D&N and IJID in books, journals, magazines, and electronic media.
4. Finally, we find appalling the fact that, through Wikipedia’s so-called assessment process, self-anointed administrators with no guarantee at all of any expertise in the fields they assess use their wide-ranging powers to decide which pieces of knowledge and information are appropriate enough to be included in Wikipedia. These powers include discounting the votes of registered users who are not long-established--even if their expertise is much more relevant to the topics assessed than that of the administrators, as the irrelevant comments of these administrators frequently show. These built-in fatal errors in assessment—only some of which have been mentioned--could go a long way in explaining the growing literature in the world press on the low standard of knowledge and information provided by Wikipedia.
5. When we created the WP Inclusive Democracy entries, we were functioning as bona fide users thinking that we were helping the development of a free and supposedly democratic encyclopaedia that could function as an alternative source of information to the established encyclopaedias. We were utterly disappointed when we discovered the irresponsible and completely unreliable way in which knowledge on important matters is supposedly created by this supposedly alternative encyclopaedia, which clearly will never reach the standards of the established encyclopaedias because of the fatal structural flaws mentioned. Therefore, the sooner it is disqualified as an authoritative source of knowledge, the better.
6. In light of the above we have decided the following:
a) to withdraw with immediate effect ALL the Inclusive Democracy entries from Wikipedia, including those that have been challenged only on account of trivial Wikipedia copyright violations, as well as those like the entry on the founder of Inclusive Democracy, Takis Fotopoulos, which has not been challenged by anyone during this whole process. b) to demand the banning of any new entry on the following topics: Inclusive Democracy, Democracy & Nature, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, The International Network for Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos. We reserve all our legal rights in case any future entries on these topics are created in Wikipedia without our explicit and written permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.62.52 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 18:43, 1 January 2006
- The Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 18:00 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't the place to demand withdrawal. See wikipedia:no legal threats Kappa 18:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: 81.79.62.52 is an IP owned by Energis UK and is assigned to their DSL section. I find it hard to believe that this request is actually attributable to the Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably the same person as John sargis (talk · contribs), who originally created this and all related articles, and has now been indiscriminately pasting the same rant on all those articles. I see no reason to suspect the authenticity of the rant, but it should have no effect on the deletion process either. - ulayiti (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: 81.79.62.52 is an IP owned by Energis UK and is assigned to their DSL section. I find it hard to believe that this request is actually attributable to the Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ulayiti, you really have it in for me, since I briefly analyzed you. You are transferring lots of unconscious energy on me, but I refuse to play that whom (you fill in the blank)you are transferring that energy towards. john sargis 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just said that I believe you and voted to keep this article. How's that 'having it in for you'? - ulayiti (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Francis et.al. you have a difficult time beleving everything we write, so it's not difficult to predict that you don't believe. Francis are you a wagering person? If the request is not from the EC of the IJID I will withdraw from all discussions and you will not hear from me again, and you are free to delete all pages. If, however, the request is indeed from the EC of the IJID then all pages have to be restored and protected. How confident are you in your beliefs? Go for it dude! john sargis 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't bet. I advise you read my comments more carefully, I think you will find that you are mistaken in assuming I want this page deleted. - FrancisTyers 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In life one must take risks or else one only clamors in the "gas chamber of life", in the illusion of freedom. How else to seek out openings in your life-world or to disrupt the taken-for-granted? john sargis 4:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Whether or not this is actually originating from the editorial board aside, the demands made in point 6 are not anything that we can comply with. Since all the contributions were originally licensed under the GFDL, which is a perpetual license, they cannot be withdrawn or terminated. Nor do they have the right to require permission before any creation of further articles. Stifle 13:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM
Since yesterday’s announcement some of the main points we made in it have already been confirmed! Thanks to the technical work of some administrators who showed that they function without any political agendas against us but instead attempted to find out the truth, Paul Cardan (the disgruntled ex-member of the journal with a vendetta against us who was the main cause of the first AfD against Democracy & Nature through his repeated vandalising attacks against it) and User:DisposableAccount (who proposed the deletion of the successor journal to D&N and with the support of two (2) administrators managed to have it deleted), Llbb and Bbll (who persuaded other administrators to keep the page deleted) are all the same editor! [12] Meanwhile, other administrators still doubt whether the present announcement is a genuine Editorial Board announcement. Here is the proof: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/Wikipedia.htm
The Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 10:30 (UTC) January 2, 2006
- Please be aware that I for one do not give a flying fuck whether this is an "official" editorial board announcement or not. Nor do I care whether you choose to take every "delete" vote as a personal insult. I do care that you appear to believe that you own the content relating to your journal, since that is absolutely not permitted by Wikipedia policy (see: WP:OWN. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from an outsider. Before anyone pounces on me, I'm just one of the guys that reviews the AfD nominations and closes them when appropriate. The discussion above, if it can be called a discussion, is out of place. Parts of it should be conducted in the article's talk page, other parts in personal talk pages. The editorial board announcement is so terribly out of place that I should remove it outright. I'm trying to find a way not to close this as "no consensus" but it's very hard. As I see it, this is not a problem of notability but of verifiability and control of content (please correct me if I'm wrong). If a journal is published over years and receives contributions from notable people, then it's notable. But if the only way to verify anything about it is by consulting the editors, and moreover, if the editors want to have control of the Wikipedia coverage of the journal and the concepts it presents, then we have a serious problem. I can only suggest that everybody calms down and think of a suitable compromise. If you can't compromise, then this article will have to go. Legal threats, editorial pronouncements, and accusations of any kind not backed up by policy and immediately accessible evidence will not be tolerated. Just for the record, Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
I wonder how Pablo D. Flores derived his ‘wise’ conclusion that the problem is one of verifiability and control. All that the Editorial Board stressed was something that for everybody else (outside Wikipedia!) is self-evident: i.e., primarily, the authentic source of information about the history of the journal, as I suppose the authentic source of information on an article on the history of the New York Times, is its editors and not any user, even if he worked for the journal for a couple of years. Also, the primary source of information on Inclusive Democracy could only be its founder and his associates, as similarly the primary source of information on social ecology could only be its founder and his associates. This does not mean that editing to add information, provided it is reliable, should not be allowed. If that were the case, the editors would not have created this WP entry in the first instance. But, it is one thing to edit in order to add reliable information and quite another to distort the FACTUAL information given by the editors themselves, or to add malicious misinformation etc, as it happened in this case. And the WP rules about negotiation, arbitration, etc. are completely irrelevant. Why the Editors of NYT will ‘negotiate’ with a malicious editor on an encyclopedia entry on their own newspaper? In any other encyclopedia such problems are solved through expertise and specialized knowledge on editing any entry. This does not of course secure ‘objectivity’, but at least rules out malicious and distorted editing. In Wikipedia even this seems impossible since it establishes ‘equal right’ of any user, without distinguishing between editors who have more qualifications to give an accurate description, particularly on factual matters, and every other user. As an astute user stresses on the matter: “The danger in wikipedia is that secondary readers of secondary sources can become primary editors! …Truth lies in the eye of the beholder! Since that article and many others after, my faith in wikipedia as a reliable source with universal value has been questioned, and I can't trust the "anyone can edit" principle anymore” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chazz88#enlighten_me_about_objectivity_in_wikipedia_.28and_thks_for_welcoming.29 john sargis 19:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried asking them to move the discussion to the talk page of the article 3 days ago :( - FrancisTyers 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I got the idea now. I vote for delete as violation of WP:NOR and WP:V; an extra reason would be the apparently unsolvable issue of WP:OWN. I must say I considered closing this as "no consensus", but I believe that would have been unfair. All articles should be subject to the same standards. If this nomination fails, I suggest further discussion is conducted at the article's talk page before re-nominating it. However, if this nomination is disrupted again by personal attacks, rants about Wikipedia's ideology, or any of the other ways in which it has been disrupted above already, I will block the offending user(s), protect the page to avoid an edit war, and re-nominate it myself. I refuse to believe this might be necessary. We're all adults (I think). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pablo D. Flores makes it clear that no criticism of Wikpedia’s ideology is allowed and he threatens blocking any offender. And yet he goes on to accuse us that, what we requested, amounts to the violation of the WP rule that articles should not be subject to the same standards (a rule that presumably does not apply to the administrators’ comments!) In fact, however, we never asked anything of the sort. We simply argued that for Wikipedia to survive, as criticisms about the reliability of the information it provides grow in the world press, it should change its own standards: i.e. a way has to be found so that primary editors’ views are not offset by those of secondary or tertiary –even malicious--editors. This is a bona fide advice. Since you have the power at your hands you can of course ban me but the future will show who is right and who was all along wrong! john sargis 9:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm closing this as "no consensus". The AfD process has been turned into a farce. I urge editors who voted above to come back to AfD, since I'm going to re-nominate this. I have blocked john sargis for 24 hours for disruption and seeming inability or unwillingness to understand what WP policies are about. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This content from Parkinson's disease was split off to its own page for a deletion discussion. Most people on this list probably have PD (although sources are lacking for all), but in the vast majority this has not achieved any degree of notability compared to, say, Michael J. Fox. I don't think we should make lists of people's diseases, or at least not where those cases have not received major coverage. JFW | T@lk 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JFW | T@lk 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is shaky at best. Endomion 15:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --WS 17:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the list (if all entries are verified as sufferers) is useful. Otherwise, merge with Parkinson's disease. Evil Eye 01:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepAlthough it could use some cleaning up and verification, the article doesnt seem to be problematic. The sufferers are all public figures, its not as if we're violating any sort of ethical concerns. 151.196.115.79 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd prefer to keep rather than merge, but I don't care if it stays or goes otherwise. InvictaHOG 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I won't call this listcruft, but it is probably very hard to verify and unlikely to be of much interest to many people. Stifle 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --NaconKantari 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepI found it very interesting to have see a list of public figures who are known or supposed to have parkinsons. It helps give a human face to this frightening disease and I don't see that it does any harm to anybody...
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep The Land 20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little more than a slang term used as a pejorative by certain groups to label practices they disagree with. No worthy content / unencyclopedic DanielCD 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef, immediate NPOV problems (how does one define "natural") JFW | T@lk 15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or at most Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Pboyd04 15:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if you bother to read the article it quite explicitly says it does not mean the opposite of "natural" in this context.Jcuk 22:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not that it's relevant to the issue of deletion, but the usage of this term to decribe human behavior hasn't got a passing relationship with whats natural. It's a pejorative, plain and simple, meant to insult. --DanielCD 01:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. IMHO "insult" and "pejorative" are grossly understating the case. The legal establishment wasn't talking about insults, they were talking about felonies that could and occasionally did result in jail time. Let's all stop a moment to give a tip of the hat to Alfred Kinsey; I'm not sure people under forty understand just how important his work was. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not that it's relevant to the issue of deletion, but the usage of this term to decribe human behavior hasn't got a passing relationship with whats natural. It's a pejorative, plain and simple, meant to insult. --DanielCD 01:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a slang term but a quasitechnical term. I believe it was (and probably still is, statutes not being frequently updated) the official term used in police reports, legislation, etc. Not being a lawyer (IANAL just doesn't sound appropriate here!) I can't tell you precisely what the official definition was, but it probably had a very clear one (which likely varied from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Could become a decent article if anyone wanted to research it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Huh. I said it "probably still is" in use. Take a gander at General Laws of Massachusetts. "Chapter 272, Crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order. Section 35 Unnatural and lascivious acts: Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years." There are also references to "Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse," to school bus licenses not being issued to anyone "who has been convicted of the crime of rape, unnatural act, sodomy, or the use, sale, manufacture, distribution, possession with intent to distribute, or trafficking of any of the controlled substances which are unlawful under the provisions of section thirty-one of chapter ninety-four..." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The New York Times, March 22, 1927, page 1: Browning Wins Suit: Gets a Separation: No Funds for Wife. This was the notorious Daddy Browning-Peaches Heenan affair. Judge Seeger wrote: "Nor is there sufficient testimony to establish defendant's charges of abnormal and unnatural acts and practices." I don't know what Seeger meant by that, but I'm sure that he and the readers of the Times did. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Legitimate legal terminology, still in active use. -Colin Kimbrell 17:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory. - FrancisTyers 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CORP JFW | T@lk 15:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CORP --Pboyd04 15:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Deathphoenix 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where to begin? This person has one hit on Google, the images link to this myspace page (warning: crappy HTML design ahead!), suggesting it's an article made by an admirer (crazy stalker?) of the person, it reeks of POV and CRUFT and is written in first-person, that's about all, I guess. Obli (Talk) 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - clearly a case of CSD A 7 JoJan 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete post haste. This is not encyclopædia material. -- (aeropagitica) 15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Userfy, to JoelRyan. --Deathphoenix 15:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, why is this even here? There's nothing notable about the person, and most of the article only consists of the views of some random angsty teen. And don't userfy, wikipedia isn't myspace. - Bobet 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete pretty clearly fails WP:CSD A7. I'm adding the tag now. --Pboyd04 15:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've speedied it per CSD A7 (nn person) --Deathphoenix 17:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, fails Notability test Sceptre (Talk) 14:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it may be notable, the contributor just goes round adding olympic athletes with one line Sceptre (Talk) 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't appear to have been a notable athlete. -- (aeropagitica) 15:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep won an olympic medal, thats notable enough for me. --Pboyd04 15:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, winning an olympic medal is a notable achievement which is easily verified, since all of the medalists are listed on olympic.org. - Bobet 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously. Olympic medallist. Punkmorten 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Our friends in the substub club may be annoying to work with at times, but the correct answer is to expand and cleanup if notable. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as obviously notable athlete. Carioca 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.
- Keep all Olympic medalists. --Rob 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1900 games weren't the huge thing they are now, but winning an Olympic medal is a decent claim for notability. Average Earthman 00:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. Tim Pierce 15:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Niz 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn company using WP to advertise. -- (aeropagitica) 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. enochlau (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another attempt to promote a new (and thus nn) MMPORG. Can we have {{nn-mmporg}} sometime soon ... very soon? Daniel Case 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Niz 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the MMPORG doesn't appear to be notable. -- (aeropagitica) 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. r3m0t talk 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt assert the notability, as per WP:MUSIC GeeJo (t) (c) 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has this band done anything of note? If so, include the information to justify the page; if not, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously tagged as a speedy. I don't think it's a speedy candidate, but it's certainly not notable enough to be deleted and should be deleted. --Deathphoenix 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not notable enough to be deleted, would that make yours a Keep vote? :P GeeJo (t) (c) • 26-08-2025 15:16 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 99% sure this guy is not a football player and this is just a hoax. Among other things this is the only google result I got for "juandy tan" and Perth. I'd like some input from Aussie football (or soccer if you prefer) fans to confirm this though. Leithp (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as either a nn-bio or a hoax. The official website of perth glory don't have him on their player profiles list so it's very unlikely that he's ever played for them. He might be a junior player for the club, but that's unverifiable and wouldn't make him notable enough for inclusion anyway. - Bobet 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. *drew 05:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete""", this is an article written orignally by JMMW about me, Juandy Tan and is totally rubbish.
- Delete. As above, it appears to have been a prank played by others on some guy who wasn't involved. In the end, the bio written in the Juandy Tan article was grossly unbelievable anyway. More damaging was the constant vandalism and alteration to the squad lists on the main Glory article. ViXx 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted as per all the above. Some people have too much spare time. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously tagged as a speedy. Delete as neologism. --Deathphoenix 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or if someone actually comes up with a definition maybe transwiki --Pboyd04 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Pogoman 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a dictionary definition. I think there isn't much to add to this topic, so I'd merge to Rambo or transwiki if people think it is worth moving. Sarg 15:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't appear to be a term in common use (3 Googles), so Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 17:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems to be some kind of inside joke Obli (Talk) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. - Liontamer 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Votes by User:JasonMacey62 and User:Iolancia Rodriguez have been ignored as possible sock/meatpuppets. — JIP | Talk 10:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in a style that seems more promotional than informative. Web searches on "naprotechnology" turn up only promotional sites from practitioners and news releases from the inventors of the practice. The article was written by one person, who has also edited references to naprotechnology into Women's health and In vitro fertilisation articles. It does not seem to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article yet. Tim Pierce 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The article reads like a vanity page. LeContexte 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the article can be salvaged with some judicious editing. Endomion 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My wife's sister had three course of IVF before concieving using this method. We were also sceptical at first because it seemed a bit new age but I think it is actually a genuine medical treatment. I think you should keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonMacey62 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 30 December 2005 JasonMacey62 has two edits; one to the article and one to this AfD.
- Agreed it could be salvaged with an NPOV edit, but query if anyone neutral has sufficient knowledge to be able to do this. There don't appear to be any neutral sources on the web - are there any elsewhere? LeContexte 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Neutral sources on web- there are articles about Naprotechnology and creighton model in the academic literature. Google Scholar reveals 5 for Naprotechnology and 39 for the Creighton Model. As academic journals are peer reviewed they should be pretty unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iolancia Rodriguez (talk • contribs)
- Keep- I have had a brief look at the journals and it seems ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iolancia Rodriguez (talk • contribs) Iolancia Rodriguez has two edits, both to this AfD.
- Delete unless NPOV and reputable references can be found, which I doubt. Else remove the advertising. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of Estonians. A rough tie between keep and merge, but I see no convincing reason for keeping the architects in a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A farm of red links. If biographies for these people did exist, Category:Estonian people and Category:Architects would be more appropriate, and maintained automatically. Also, a Category:Estonian architects could be created if they become great enough in number. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:19, Dec. 30, 2005
- Neutral - Hmm. I'm opposed to deleting things on the basis of the "red link" argument, since this is a wiki, and red links are how we grow. In addition, this seems to be a more clueful edit than the usual fare from new users, and I get the distinct impression we could well end up with biographies for some of these people. On the other hand, I don't like lists, and there are no links to existing pages whatsoever, so I'm hung on this one. Thought I'd comment, however. Rob Church Talk 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, in that I feel lists are often good at-a-glance views of articles we have, e.g. " * John Doe (1912-1941), invented the cardboard briefcase." This clearly doesn't serve that purpose. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:41, Dec. 31, 2005
- Keep Eeven if it is only for the rediculously funny article title. Robdurbar 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The word is 'ridiculous', unless you're making a play on the colour of the links. Average Earthman 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The presence of so many red links in this case is just another case of systemic bias. The List of Swedish architects, which I posted a while ago, is also mostly red links, but I can attest to at least most of those names being those of notable architects (a few were architects unfamiliar to me, but taken from the Swedish Wikipedia). I don't really know anything about Estonian architecture, but when many clearly notable Swedish architects (including some of the most famous ones, such as Ferdinand Boberg) are still lacking articles, Estonian architects are probably even less well-represented on the English Wikipedia. We will never get a category until at least a few biographies have been written, and hopefully the red links will encourage someone to write them - perhaps that is even the intention of the creator of the list. (I don't understand what is supposed to be funny about the article title.) u p p l a n d 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, merge is fine, too. u p p l a n d 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest possible keep- I don't like lists as a rule, and I especially don't like lists of red links. But this does look genuine. Reyk 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Estonia is a real country with real buildings, and picking a couple of names at random from the list gave me links to genuine architects (although one appears to be arguably more Canadian). Given the modernisation of the country (which is now in the EU), their architects will be pretty busy. So sneering at the article because of its title isn't exactly warranted. I suggest tagging for improvement is more appropriate than deletion, particularly as it is only a day old. Average Earthman 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading following votes, I change my vote to Merge with List of Estonians, as that list separates by profession, making merging and potential later demerging easy. Average Earthman 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Estonians which still has room. Expanding coverage of Estonians sounds okay unless they are overcovered here, are they?--T. Anthony 04:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above for now. This should give it more attention (and it is likely the people will appear in the larger list anyway). Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In light of recently posted opinions, I agree that a merge might be appropriate (either to List of Estonians or Wikipedia: Requested articles), but under no circumstances should this be kept as an individual dead-end article. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:20, Jan. 1, 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.