Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< April 3 April 5 >

Purge server cache

April 4

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UniBooks.org

edit

This website is a complete joke. There are hardly any books there, it is pretty empty, and gets about 10 hits a day - too small for Alexa to even consider [1] EBayVP 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 04:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X10 camera

edit

Page violates the 'no advertisement' rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Hirsh (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Double Standard

edit

Clearly not appropriate content for an encyclopedia article...Filled with joke links and specious claims, it offers little substantive value. The text is basically taken directly from the website, too. Is the site or magazine even notable? Take it to the Uncyclopedia, folks. -- Scientizzle 00:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Fusion

edit

This article was created with the intention that this NIFL team would be a reality, but I have checked around on the internet today, and it seems there is no such franchise. IMO, this article, even though it's short, shouldn't stay since it appears the team doesn't exist. Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Funston

edit

Incorrect capitalisation of Title. Badly written and non notable person. Also its difficult to tell what its about by reading it.--Light current 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The above post relates to article Mickey funston I cant edit it properly

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

The result of the debate was Moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion by Royboycrashfan. -- JLaTondre 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroperiod

edit

This redirect is a bit of redirection vandalism, I've deleted the reference to an "aeroperiod" (which doesn't exist) from the article it directs to, but since my removal of the redirect was reverted by a bot, I'm asking for it to be deleted. Hopkapi 00:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Draft steals

edit

I have decided to renominate this to generate a clearer community consensus for lists of this type; A previous AfD failed on what perhaps could be considered a technicality. It seems to me that the term "steal" is much too subjective still, although the list has improved since it was nominated all the way back in October. If this AfD succeeds, we should take a look at similar sports lists, such as List of NFL Draft busts, List of NHL Draft steals, etc., so don't use the existence of those lists as a reason to keep this one. No vote. Grandmasterka 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Galvez

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Très.B

edit

This was listed as a speedy but notability is asserted in the article (which was written, coincidentally enough, by User:Tresb) so it does not meet speedy criteria. However, it does not appear to meet any of the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC, either; they have never received wide radio play, have never won a major award, have never toured internationally, and in fact (according to the article) have not yet recorded an album, let alone had one on the charts. I'm basically just moving this from WP:SD, but I agree with the basic idea - delete. Kafziel 00:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playing at festivals (even big ones) isn't one of the notability guidelines. Kafziel 02:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brought it up at WP:MUSIC as it's absurd. A band could play to more people in one festival appearence than in an entire tour. exolon 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to United Airlines Flight 93. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 03:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason M. Dahl

edit

Wikipedia is not a memorial Miguel Cervantes 20:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I just now included this in the afd log. Snargle 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Mailer diablo with summary ({{deleteagain}}). -- JLaTondre 03:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Barrie

edit

Previously deleted; some changes. Non-notable. Hoax. You name it. SigPig 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy. Shanel 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR cars

edit

I made this article not realizing that the NASCAR article included the same information Eric Ashford 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just place {{db-author}} on the page to get rid of it. Grandmasterka 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood cross

edit

Non-notable cross. Prod tag removed twice without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that there is anything in the deletion guidelines about notability either. For great justice. 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: not an official guideline, but it's used in personal judgement very often. T K E 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean that one. It's not deletion policy. For great justice. 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a strange justification for removing real, verifiable information about an object. Something doesn't have to be famous to be worth documenting. For great justice. 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not challenge its reality or verifiability. Nor has anyone else. We know it's there. Fan1967 20:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why choose to remove information that, I for one, and at least some other people, want? For great justice. 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not about what people want or don't want. It's not a personal webpage. The question is whether it's a notable public monument. David Hoag 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not a repository of random information or a collection of every possible fact. It's an encyclopedia. Something like the Crystal Cathedral is worthy of an article because it's a notable monument about which people will seek information. The Hollywood cross is not. It's a little-known, rather small public cross which is very difficult to see. David Hoag 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your attitude is disapointing. There's nothing 'random' about it. It's a public monument. I don't see why you get to choose what people can read about, and I don't see anything about 'notability' in the deletion policy. Sure its an encyclopedia, and anything that is verifiable and real should go into it. Not just what you feel is important. Your approach leads to huge disputes over what is or isn't important to different people. To someone living in the area the monument is probably more notable than something like Slashdot. To someone who browses slashdot, that is more notable. Both are verifiable, so let them stay. For great justice. 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My attitude is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about a consensus. You seem to think your opinion alone should take precedence. Wikipedia was designed not to be a giant repository of every known fact in the universe -- and to achieve that, information would necessarily be random -- but like any encyclopedia it was designed to encapsulate more notable information. You say, Sure its [sic] an encyclopedia, and anything that is verifiable and real should go into it. I'm sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is. That approach is in direct contradiction to Wiki's stated purposes. Have you read what Wikipedia is not? Your arguments strongly suggest you have not. I live in metro LA; I've never met anyone who said the Hollywood cross was a notable monument. No one seems to have linked anything here which verifies that it is, in fact, a notable monument. It is your opinion it is a notable monument, but opinions are not fact, and your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's. If you think this is a notable monument, where is the proof that it is notable? David Hoag 02:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of notable is subjective. I can't 'proove' it's notable any more than I can proove that I want to keep it. That's the problem with your attitude. You don't like it, so you think no one else should have access to that information. That's wrong. For great justice. 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course notability can be proven or disproven. Others have already done so in this very discussion. That's what the whole AfD process is about, to review collectively the notability of flagged entries. And nowhere did I say "I didn't like it" so please don't put words in my mouth. You're making value judgments about me out of thin air. And it's not about restricting access. You're free to start your own free webpage on Geocities and talk about this particular cross, where you can provide all the information and photographs you want, which will be found via search engines. The entry simply is not encyclopedic nor is the subject notable at this time, as the consensus here seems to be showing. That's not to say it might not be notable in the future, although I do find that hard to believe, considering how small this particular cross is and how difficult it is to see. So please stop trying to make this into some martyr issue or some free speech issue, when it is neither. David Hoag 05:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that 'notability' is a concept that does not appear in the deletion guidelines. It means nothing more than 'things I don't like or don't approve of', and, if a majority of people who post on AFD are also not interested, then no one can look it up here. That's a terrible editorial policy. In fact, if you read the deletion guidelines, it ISN'T Wikipedia's policy. For good reason. For great justice. 06:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no cited evidence that is what it is called, and the article is unencyclopaedic in tone. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing special about it. It barely has anything about it on google. It's only claim to prominence is that the cross originally on the LA seal was actually a picture of it. The problem is that all the sources I have seen which claim the cross was included on the seal to represent the "Holywood cross" seem like they'd do anything to strongly push forward a certain point of view( namely that evil atheists are trying to take over the country). What seems a better source, the LA website's page for the old seal claims that the cross on the seal represents, "the influence of the church and the missions of California." This would seem to mean the seal of LA has nothing to do with the holywood cross, thus destroying it's one claim to notability. If anybody can show otherwise (through a reliable source), I'd be willing to change my vote. Shadowoftime 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please this is important monument in hollywood Yuckfoo 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you notice? David already conclusively prooved it's not important by, erm. Saying it's not important to him. That should be enough for you! You don't want to read about this, no body does. For great justice. 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please stop attacking other users. It's a violation of Wikipedia Civility rules. Please also label and format your comments correctly.George Bluth 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as work of banned user. It was a hoax as wellCapitalistroadster 04:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to End Woman's Suffage

edit

Unverified and likely false. Judging from Google searches [13] [14], this group doesn't seem to actually exist. –Sommers (Talk) 01:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove it. Thatcher131 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropol 24))7

edit

Non-notable web forum. Speedy tags were pulled by anons a couple times. Delete. DMG413 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as blatant spam. JIP | Talk 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NJDX

edit

Delete - was previously deleted I think. No assertion of importance. Clearly an advertisement. Creator clearly states affiliation with corporation, thus spam. Wickethewok 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was previously deleted 3 times - twice as copyvio and once as G4 recreation. No longer a copyvio as author has given permission for use, so doesn't qualify for G4 again. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku ninjas

edit

Non-notable--Zxcvbnm 01:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trees for Canterbury

edit

Non notable organisation. Probably should have been deleted on Jan 3rd, 2005, but debate was never closed. See old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trees for Canterbury (1st nomination) Mikker (...) 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy: recreation (WP:CSD, G4)

`'mikka (t) 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N'vyus

edit

Previously deleted article on a non-notable rapper who is about to self-publish his first album. Speedy delete tag was removed without comment, so I guess it goes here. It's a pretty obvious delete and needs protected to prevent recreation. Brian G. Crawford 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental cosmology

edit

The lead sentence of this article says, "Environmental cosmology is an attempt [...] as proposed by Ken McRitchie." This article is apparently WP:Vanity for Ken McRitche. The Rod (☎ Smith) 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point, and this article is indeed WP:Vanity. Its also worth noting that Cognizance Books, publishers of Mr. Ritchie's book have only published one title - at least according to Google and Amazon - so this is likely a vanity press/personal publishing effort and so not notable. Gwernol 04:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VANITY Royboycrashfan   05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete as WP:VANITY I have read the rules on vanity and do not believe this is a vanity article. Other than identifying myself as the author of the book and the concept, this article explains technical details with no more further mention of the author. I can remove my name and the article will not lose anything at all. I don't think the same could be said for vanity articles. What the article (and the book) does do is try to reconcile two very differing points of view. It is critical of both sides and it accepts ideas from both sides that are consistent. Ken McRitchie 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If we retain an "Environmental cosmology" article or disambiguation article, Ken McRitchie's name belongs in it, as he appears to be the originator and sole promoter of the unique meaning of the phrase as used in the article. Other uses of the phrase (i.e. the sum of the parts use from physics and that of Joseph Grange) appear to be completely different. The Rod (☎ Smith) 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. I'm going to ignore the vanity allegations for a moment because while it is bad form I'm not of the opinion that vanity is always a deletable offense. Besides in a way it is its own punishment; look at it this way: someone had to create an article about themselves or their work because nobody cared enough about them or their work enough to create a wikipedia article; while there are people out there that care enough about a topic to create BotCon. That has to sting a little... but back to WP:NEO. Searching Google I find quite a few references to Nature: An Environmental Cosmology (1997) by Joseph Grange, a book about the environment. In fact most of the returned results are for that book. The term is also used in relation to cosmology and inflationary theory [17]. The usage of the term in reference to the book and theories by Mr. McRitchie are from his own website, and the book listing on Amazon. I can't find any information that the term "Environmental cosmology" has been used to refer to McRitchie's theories by any reputable 3rd party source. If not deleted outright, this should disambiguate to an article on the book at Environmental Cosmology (book) (and other uses of the term) and just have a write up of the book rather than a full explanation of the theory... at least until it can be WP:V proved that these pseudo-scientific theories gain wider acceptance.--Isotope23 14:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete per WP:NEO. Although Joseph Grange has authored a book with Environmental Cosmology as the subtitle, I don't think his subtitle does very much to explain his philosophy, or even that it is some sort of philosophy, which is along the lines of Whitehead. You would have a difficult time determining that this book is about the environment or cosmology from reading it, so there is a certain ambiguity in the title that Grange has chosen. "Cosmology," as used in this Wikipedia article under discussion refers to the structure and space-time relationships of the universe, just as you would find in a dictionary definition. That the universe is an environment should be self-evident. There is nothing new here. The subtitle of the book Environmental Cosmology indicates that this is an examination of astrology using the approach of how astrology structures the space-time environment. I don't believe this is ambiguous or making up new words. After all, these are fairly ordinary ideas that have wide and enduring acceptance. The Wikipedia article is far from a full explanation of the complete theory, but just a summary of some of the more salient features, just as you'd find in many other Wikipedia articles on any subject. Astrology has often been described as pseudo-science, but that does not eliminate astrology from Wikipedia or from being accepted, so there is nothing special along that line that needs to be WP:V verified. Ken McRitchie 15:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Second vote removed... please only vote once. Can you produce any evidence that the term "Environmental cosmology" is widely used for the theories expounded in your book by anyone other than yourself, or in reviews of the book, etc. If not then it is a neologism. Also, I'm not saying that pseudoscience is not appropriate for Wikipedia - there are tons of pseudoscience articles here - what I'm saying is that for this to be in any way notable as a theory it needs to be proven that this theory has gained wide exceptance... and the fact that it has gained wide acceptance needs to be WP:V by WP:RS sources.--Isotope23 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The term and the concept of environmental cosmology are gaining a wider acceptance as more people read the book and reviews are written in publications. The term is not as new as it was two years ago, when it was first published. I suppose that being deleted from Wikipedia would bring some added notoriety if that happens, although I hope the article can stay. The article refers to numerous works and authors that have very wide acceptance. These works are incorporated into the ideas discussed in the book and the article. The only thing that is new is that these ideas are brought together, compared with each other, and compared with astrology, which itself is nothing new. The article and the book are basically a comparison of a simplified form of basic astrology (which is where the term "environmental cosmology" comes from), which has wide acceptance, with similar ideas in the social science, which also has wide acceptance. Critics of astrology are continually asking for theory and comparison with the social sciences. It would be a mistake to remove an article for which there is a demonstrable need and which is WP:V well-referenced with widely accepted and verifiable sources. Ken McRitchie 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A great way to support retention of the article in something close to its current form would be to reference a discussion of "environmental cosmology" from somewhere outside of your book. If not, references to a professional review of the book would at least merit the article's retention (as Isotope23 notes) at Environmental Cosmology (book) and a disambiguation page Environmental cosmology (disambiguation) could link to it. The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have several published reviews of the book. How is it possible to publish them as "discussion" without infringing on the rights of the reviewers? Ken McRitchie 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just summarize the reviews and cite the sources where they were published. If a review is in a book, use {{cite book}}. If it is on the web, use {{cite web}}. The Rod (☎ Smith) 19:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, and unlike Isotope I'm not going to ignore the vanity issue - I don't think anyone can write neutrally about themselves, and I don't think McRitche even tried. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the article you will see criticism of both the astrologers' and the critics' cherished beliefs. Obviously this does not allow me to speak for all astrologers or all critics, so I cannot call it "Defense of Astrology" or "The Delusions of Astrology." "The Common Ground between Astrology and the Social Sciences" does not identify anything in particular, even though this is my aim, so I've tried to identify that common ground based on its structure. The fact that other recent thinkers have alluded to the term environmental cosmology suggests that there is some currency to this term and it is not entirely new. In the article you will also see acknowledgement of the limitations of this common ground theory. I am aware of its problems. I did not come up with the idea for writing a theory of astrology myself, but it was suggested to me by a skeptical professor who saw a need for it. I understood that need and tried to fill it as best I know how. Ken McRitchie 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 05:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OXXO

edit

Was tagged for {{prod}}; bringing it here instead as the creator disputes the deletion. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comix-zone (comic)

edit

Webcomic that debuted April 1, 2006. Four comics total. Previously speedied twice under the name Comix-Zone. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icefloe Technologies

edit

WP:CORP Non-notable company John Nagle 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, edit war is not a criteria for deletion. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!

edit

There's a horrendous edit war over it. I don't think it should actually be deleted, but certain other people keep revising it to a redirect, so I'm putting this to a vote.

I vote against deleting it, by the way. Cassandra Leo 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Report

edit

Non-notable - in-house high school TV show - suggest merge John Nagle 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-notable in-house TV show shown during homeroom in one public high school. Someone added a speedy delete tag; that was deleted. I did a merge into Valley Stream South High School, and put in a "mergeto" tag, but the original poster deleted the tag without explaination. Tried a "mergeto" tag again. Also deleted. It fits well as part of the high school's main entry, and in fact, it's in there now. Suggest deletion. --John Nagle 03:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Arnzy (Talk) 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merilyn Sakova

edit

Non notable model. Seems to have made it only in one magazine. No awards. No unique or historical significance in field. Google search on subject only returns 694 hits; alternative variation of name returns 2 hits. An obvious clear and cut case for deletion. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambigwah

edit
  • Delete - from contributor to article - accept that this article does not and currently cannot meet criteria for inclusion. Will endeavour to increase verifiability. Daniel Case - we all passed :)

This article is about an unverifiable game which yields no Google hits (even though the name of the game, the ball, the bat, and the goal are all the same). Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Trails

edit

I like hiking. I think there should be more hiking-related articles on Wikipedia. I like the idea of this article. But Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and I don't see how this article could be salvaged into something. Daniel Case 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as original research goes I have a list of little known nature trails within fifty miles of my home. It took me most of last summer to find them and they are not all listed in one book or pamphlet anywhere. I have only listed two of these places so far. It was never my intention to list every dinky nature trail in the world by myself. I was hoping other people would join in and supply their favorite spots. That's why I linked to various cities and states and articles about hiking. Some of those articles have lists of long trails. I'm interested in shorter trails some of which have no name. My "research" is... well, it's not a theory. These places exist. It's just a listing with directions on how to get there. Not much controversy in that. The trails are too short for an article called "long distance trails". - Socially Isolated Hamster

Seems to me the real issue is that in my efforts to get people to contribute their trails I put links in other articles connecting to "Walking Trails". This then ticked someone off who removed every one of my links in about twenty articles and submitted "Walking Trails" for deletion without saying a word to me. Except for the links and the shorter length of the trails my article is no different from "Long Distance Walking Trails".

Is there some reason why there shouldn't be a link to a list of walking trails in each of the cities and states I had linked to? Is there some reason why Wikipedia should have a list of longer trails but not shorter trails?

Given a chance I think the article is valid. Without the links there is much less chance that people will drop in to submit their trails which is what would have made the article more "encyclopedic". - Socially Isolated Hamster


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 14:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stubblefield's the American Empire

edit

Not notable nor is a varifiable source. Checked Google, got zero hits Eldarone 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Genealogical Society

edit

Advertisement plain and simple, no room for improvement since its not a notable society Mike (T C)   04:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:N. Royboycrashfan   05:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Part of me is struggling with this. While this article is clearly not up to snuff and contains questionable elements, I'm not so sure it ought to be deleted outright. What makes this society any less notable than a lot of the others under the Genealogical societies category? It certainly gets enough google hits, although a big strike against it is that I couldn't find it on Cyndi's List. I support giving this article a chance. If it doesn't improve, it could always be nominated for deletion again. Fluit 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. Per Fluit. Paul Cyr 07:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It can always be created again with decent content. Eusebeus 10:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Per Fluit. --estavisti 11:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fluit. As an organization, as noteworthy as other genealogical societies, but the "our national heritage" stuff has to go. ProhibitOnions 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebeus. I was the one who left the message about it and left the notice on WP:AN, and removed all the links to it from ca. 50 articles. I also did some Google investigation. It has some 15000 GHits in English version; the problem is, first few hundreds are various business, web and similar directories. IOW, the Internet is flooded about it in the same way like Wikipedia is.
    Now, about the notability: they seem have just enough notability to be on Wikipedia; e.g. their Heraldic section seems to be semi-officially in charge for designing & approving coats of arms of Serbian municipalities. However, I'd prefer it to be deleted and recreated with decent context (with creator spanked) than to be improved (well, maybe I'm biased but I'd like some kind of revenge for my wasted time :-) ). The point is, no one really cares about them. Duja 14:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plainly the article could use a rewrite, but the case for outright deletion is unconvincing. RGTraynor 15:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Montana spelling bee

edit

Just after this article was created, its editor was banned as a troll, so it probably won't get expanded on its own. Per WP:AGF, listing here for discussion (expand or delete) rather than tag as prod or speedy. I offer no opinion for the time being. Thatcher131 04:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. ×Meegs 05:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas BARBARO

edit

Someone created the talk page only, likely about themselves or something they made up in school one day. Renesis13 04:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Animal Crossing. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nookbay

edit

Does not pass WP:WEB. No external sources given. Alexa rank of 309,560. Attracts site members to document themselves. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weedle game

edit

Twice prodded as WP:NFT. As such, not notable, not verifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedily deleted as nonsense and an attack page. - Mike Rosoft 07:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kent Spalding

edit

Delete. Non Notable. Article doesn't cite references. Searching on google fails to turn up relevant hits. Soumyasch 05:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Intervention (game mod)

edit

Unreleased mod for Battlefield 2. 178 unique Googles for searchstring ["US Intervention" "Battlefield 2" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons, vehicles, and maps in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-club. Stifle 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History Of the TLDR

edit

Delete - Absurd historical context of some message board spinoff that in no way asserts its importance. Unencyclopedic to the max. Wickethewok 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sober (Canadian Band)

edit

Delete - no assertion of notability. Not signed to any label. Maybe even speedy delete on second thought. Wickethewok 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideate

edit

Nominated for AfD by an anon, who was unable/did not complete the deletion discussion page, but completed steps 1 and 3 of the nomination. Looking at the article, I've looked at the article, and am completing the nomination, based on the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is already an entry at Wiktionary for this term, although here and there disagree on the definition. -- Saberwyn 07:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, and move disamb page to articlespace. Mailer Diablo 14:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Reality

edit

Mod for Battlefield 2. 264 unique Googles for searchstring ["Project Reality" "Battlefield 2" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons, vehicles, and maps in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software). -- Saberwyn 06:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine : Trenchcoat Assassins

edit

nn fancruft Ektar 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Pyle

edit

Delete - google search for "barry pyle" + "eastern michigan university" returns few results, many from the school's website. Professorcruft. Vague claims of notability not backed up with proof. Wickethewok 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was in reality, this should've been a CSD A7, but discounting Ben's vote, it's a clear delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Marble

edit

Long story short, when going back to his Katrina-wrecked neighbourhood, the road to his home got blocked by Cheney's security personnel for the convenience and security of Vice President Cheney's vehicle. As a result, Mr. Marble had to take a longer route back home. To protest for having his road blocked, he says "Go fuck yourself Mister Cheney!" However, as far as issues go, a road being blocked by security seems to be a rather insignificant issue to be protesting about. As Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, I suggest that this article be deleted as a non-encyclopedic self-promotion article. Tokek 07:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You people presume to know what I was thinking when you write ignorant things like this:

"As a result, Mr. Marble had to take a longer route back home. To protest for having his road blocked, he says "Go fuck yourself Mister Cheney!" However, as far as issues go, a road being blocked by security seems to be a rather insignificant issue to be protesting about. "

Well I have stated in numerous interviews that was only one minor part of the reason I said what I did. After seeing the lame response of the govt. to the disaster I know I was speaking for a hell of a lot of people. If my '15 minutes' have already expired why is it that I just finished shooting 3 days worth of footage in New Orleans on the set of the upcoming Denzel Washington/Val Kilmer movie "Deja Vu" and will be filming an interview in the upcoming Spike Lee movie "When the levees broke" in a week or so? Try doing a Google search for 'Ben Marble' and see exactly how many results you get. Last time I checked it was over 4 MILLION! Besides you all have admitted that I did in fact have '15 minutes' i.e. you are admitting the fact that I AM FAMOUS! So basically for whatever reason you don't like HOW I became famous. Seems to me that the motive for deletion is primarily fueled by the BUSHEEP and/or jealousy so to all of you who say to delete me I say...GO F*** YOURSELF! Ben Marble, M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.121.153 (talk • contribs)

The votes below were deleted by the above user:


  • Keep I agree with Dr. Marble i.e. it is obvious all the people who have responded so far have admitted he is famous they just don't like how that occurred. So there motives would certainly seem to be political in nature. As for this comment: "zero Google hits on CNN, BBC News, and Google News. Also, judging from the video that he filmed, all the reporters ignored him" I don't what kind of crack that person was smoking but I just googled the name 'Ben Marble' as Dr. Marble suggested and there were over 3 million results. And those reporters should all be fired for not following up on Dick Cheney's comment that it was the 'first time I've heard it' because everyone knows those were Dick's own words. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.88.30 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was transwiki to wikisource. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thread safe VCL component programming example

edit

Not an encyclopedia article. Should belong to Wikisource, if at all. --ΜιĿːtalk 07:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Soviet (disambiguation) and transwiki. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet (word)

edit

Del. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have Soviet (disambiguation). What is necessary merge there, the rest move into wiktionary, and the article with this title in wikipedia is completely pointless. `'mikka (t) 08:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On closer review, I will relist this AfD due to meating delete votes. Sceptre (Talk) 11:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Eyre

edit

A not notable blogger. Seems to be a friend of one of the admins who removes PRODs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansi (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 April 2006

  • Stansi, please read WP:AGF and, to understand why PRODs may indeed be removed at will, WP:PROD. That said, weak delete as I don't really consider running a website (even a notable one) as a sufficient qualification for notability. Sandstein 10:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Borderline case, but on the right side IMO. Is reasonably known in the internet because he was an editor in Cricinfo for six years and ran the daily Cricinfo 365 which was popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s (discontinued when the internet boom got over and cricinfo cut costs). Currently, among other things, runs the site Cricketwoman.net which is probably the most informational site solely dedicated to women's cricket. The site seems to be down at the moment, this is the from the google cache from the last week Tintin (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worth an entry. Gillyfan 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Note that all five of Stansi's edit and the only two of Gillyfan's are related to the deletion of this article. Tintin (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps so, but this still looks like a NN blogger to me.
      • Comment. Since the main notability claim here is based on his pact activities, the argument that his current blogging isn't notable is something of a red herring; even if correct, it's irrelevant. The fact that author X's last six books have come from vanity presses is similarly irrelevant if his first six came from legit publishers and met audience requirements. Monicasdude 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RGTraynor 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your comment. --Gurubrahma 06:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

This page is intentionally left blank.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 according to guidelines. Capitalistroadster 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Szegedy

edit

As per Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Seems to be a vanity page created by the subject, as the only 'real' information is a link to his website. No real information about his work in mathematics is given, and the fact that he's a prize winner is already referenced on the prize page. That's the only real content. I suggest simply deleting this and referencing the field for which he got the prize on the prize page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnj85 (talk • contribs)

  • Maybe not, but do you make the same statement every time a new user with no edits who participates in AfD is essentially branded a sock puppet? Where is the AGF in that? If I put a sock warning here, would I be wrong? Why is it considered normal to begin editing at wikipedia by tagging something for AfD? I'll retract if the nom decides to make a 7th edit explaining really why this should be deleted. -- JJay 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone was opining "Bad faith opinion from first time wikipedia user", yeah I would probably cite WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, or WP:AGF. Is starting with an AfD nom normal? Nope... but unless you have some evidence this is a sockpuppet or an intentional bad faith nomination, claiming bad faith is a bit bad faith in and of itself. This could be a sock AfD by someone with an axe to grind; or it could just be someone who has no idea about WP:DP. You can infer what you will from the correct AfD formatting on the first try by a new user... but unless you have evidence, it's just not necessary to make that claim.--Isotope23 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP NTK 21:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute Francais de Recherche en Iran

edit

This page is a duplicate of National Museum of Iran. I tried to do the redirect myself, however the original creater has apparently asserted ownership of this page. Redirect to National Museum of Iran. --Hetar 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sunshine

edit

Article fails to establish notability, he's a consultant like thousands of other people Dismas|(talk) 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the assertion of notability is based on performing non-notable work with notable people. That doesn't make those who work in Downing Street notable and I can't see why this case is any different. MLA 09:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Bio. Feezo (Talk) 09:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or delete sorry, but hobnobbing does not make one notable unless one's work is notable. Done anything notable? Then we'll talk. Alba 13:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if Michael Musto treats him as notable, his notability is presumed established. [25]. He gets about 50,000 Google hits in notable enough places [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and even is involved in New York politics [32]. Research. It's not just for homework any more. Monicasdude 14:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references above. Superstar PR guy and agent constantly in the news, responsible for shaping the careers of a smorgasbord of mega celebrities. -- JJay 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added cleanup tag because article is drek in it's current form. No opinion on inclusion/deletion... but I will say the bar seems to be lowering for notability.--Isotope23 16:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ghits are not the end all be all of determining notability; there also has to be something vaguely encyclopedia-worthy about the subject (which reminds me it's time to bring Cyrus Farivar back to AfD). I'll echo Alba on this on. Eusebeus 16:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has shaped the career of many of the biggest celebrities so he is noble enough. The article has improved since I had first seen it. I think we should leave it or help the creator write it better
  • Definitely keep the article that I copied from Articles for Creation.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic prophecies - time of birth

edit

This appears to be one of a series of POV forks on Biblical or Christian topics created by User:Blubberbrein2. The first sentence, betraying the bias of the author, originally was:

"The time of the Messiah's appearance to the world, as predicted in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testamant) is defined by a number of concurring circumstances, that fix it to the very date of the advent of Christ."

This was later changed (by the same user) to:

"The time of the Messiah's appearance to the world, as predicted in the Tanakh is defined by a number of concurring circumstances, that fix it to the very date of the advent of the Messiah."

That change made the lead pseudo-NPOV and tautological ("the Messiah will arrive at the time of the arrival of the Messiah" - uh?). In any case, the article has no references except biblical passages and can be considered what we euphemistically call original research. There is an enormous body of sound, academic scholarship on biblical and other religious topics which needs to be used and referenced when these topics are covered in Wikipedia. I'm all for detailed coverage of the Bible and have voted keep on the articles created by SimonP, but we have to uphold strict academic and NPOV standards in these cases. u p p l a n d 09:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Property records

edit

The first version was deleted as a copyright violation. The author reposted the material, leaving a note on the talk page. I don't know if this is sufficient proof of ownership, though. Also, the article is partially how-to and while it provides some information about property records, it is more practical information than encyclopedic. Also, the information only applies to the United States. I brought it to AfD to decide its fate: report it as copyright violation, delete or keep/cleanup. -- Kjkolb 10:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calenine

edit

Link at the bottom of the page goes nowhere, and googling "Calenine" gets nothing much but forum posts advertising the site. The El Reyko 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refriendz

edit
Relevant policy: WP:WEB

Non-notable website, contested PROD. Sandstein 10:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was soft redirect to Wiktionary. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inamorata

edit

Dictionary entry, perhaps a transwiki to Wiktionary is in order? James Kendall [talk] 10:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as a useless article with no context. - Mike Rosoft 11:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dindi

edit

Delete. Inconsistent, barely comprhensible. Soumyasch 10:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollies in Norway

edit

Simply a non-encyclopedic topic. It's taken directly from http://home.online.no/~kskyberg/holliesinnorway.cfm, which seems to be the creator's personal website. This topic and text is best left there. Punkmorten 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was that this blog does not matter, i.e. delete. Mailer Diablo 14:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion Does Not Matter(YODNM)

edit

Delete, non-notable blog. This was prodded, removed, and prodded again, so I moved it off prod and to AfD (due to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy). It was deprodded with reason 'Cited sources', but one is the blog itself and the other is broken. -- Mithent 11:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tv Tome 2

edit

This page seems to be a weblink to a non-notable page. Complete vanity, only one post in the forums. Probably should be speedy delete. Sir Isaac Lime 11:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Beyond the Mist. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fergus McGhee V

edit

This article seems to be about me, and, although it is accurate, I'd rather not have an article entry on Wikipedia, so I have asked for it to be deleted. Thank you. Rfmcghee 11:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although Beyond the Mist began as a self-published novel, it is now published by a traditional publishing house in Iceland with a sizeable printrun. Its article does not deserve to be deleted. Rfmcghee
You'll need to provide some verification of that claim of professional publication. Besides, novels aren't more famous than their authors: if your biographical article goes, then the book article goes, too. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Beyond the Mist. People don't necessarily have a choice about whether they are listed on wikipedia or not. However, it'll help both articles here if they are merged into one article focusing on the book, and mentioning Mr. McGhee's lineage only as a footnote. It'd also be best to preserve the article history in the redirect, as who ever goes around creating these articles about British nobels might care about the article history for some reason. JeffBurdges 17:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a backward merge: novels aren't more famous than their authors, so any possible merge would be in the other direction. But given it's a vanity-press book, how to merge is moot: both should be deleted. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Beyond the Mist. Jeff Burdges' solution seems best. I was not aware that I had to provide PROOF of professional publication! After all, I didn't even make either of the articles! But I can assure you that a deal has been secured with a professional publishing house: perhaps its page could be updated to show the history of the book and its publication. I do not wish this to descend into any sort of arguing, because I refuse to take part in any arguments. I simply requested for my biographical page to be deleted, and this is my last word on the matter. Whatever happens, I'd just prefer if the biographical article were deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfmcghee (talk • contribs) 10:35, 5 April 2006
  • I was not aware that I had to provide PROOF of professional publication! Of course you do. If you have any doubts, see WP:Verify, WP:BIO, and WP:CITE. "Because I said so" isn't a standard we follow around here.
  • As for whether to delete the pages, it's not your perogative: Wikipedia has standards, and, frankly, both articles don't meet them: Beyond the Mist isn't even close. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Product

edit

Unnotable Hawaiian rock band without even a decent CD release out, meets none of the notability criteria. Article is also exceptionally poorly written, containing POV, original research, very bad structure (sub-divided into 8 sections, most of which contain no more than 3 sentences), and an overall unencyclopedic style. Should be deleted. HarryCane 12:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American, Interrupted

edit

Delete - Author and article are the same people. The creator was a user named Eurotrotter. The book is self published by "Eurotrotter Publishing" which recieved a whopping 6 hits on google, all related to this book. The books title, with the words Dan & Thompson receives 424 hits, and 21 are on the site www.american-interrupted.com, and 79 are on wikipedia. The rest look like wiki-mirrors and promotional posts/spam on other bloggers websites. The creator and an anonymous I.P. also went through many many Iraq related articles and posted ads for his book/website under "Further reading" and "external links" headers, hence the high number of references on google to wikipedia. The only thing virtually all the articles had in common with the book was some relation to Iraq Nobunaga24 12:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete per nom. Waggers 13:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP NTK 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fotki

edit

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Fasten 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily Deleted  (aeropagitica)  20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler's Dream Team

edit

NN local band in northeast US (seems like upstate NY somewhere); Googling for info brings up a ___domain with two functioning pages that haven't been updated since 2002, and I can't find any other verifiable information on the band. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c   13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushfire (band)

edit

Don't seem to be notable - according to the unofficial website listed they had a gig in a café in January, which suggests nn to me. Delete CLW 13:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going snacks

edit

Does not appear to be a widely used term. "Going snacks" gives only 147 Google hits, and the only real reference I can find relating this term to the Great Plague of London are from Wikipedia or its mirrors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual recruitment

edit

First let me say that I'm not trying to criticize earlier editors of this page; trying to make an acceptable Wikipedia article out of such an ill-defined topic is difficult by the very nature of the subject. Of course, this is exactly why I am putting this article AfD. The history of the road to AfD of this article is: I prodded it about a week ago, Monicasdude unprodded it, in the meantime Crawford went half-way towards putting it up AfD, so now I'm going "whole hog".

All in all, I would say that if I were going to write a parody of an article which egregiously violated WP:V and WP:WEASEL, I don't know if I could do better than this. Nowhere does this article even make an assertion. Consider, e.g. "it is supposed", "the notion ... is undocumented", etc. What is this article saying, really? Some people [we don't know who or how many] have a belief in a conspiracy theory [which we've sort of vaguely defined], presumably enough people believe this to make it notable [we guess], and finally this is not surprising [since we all know people think this way]. And if you don't believe us, here's an article from The Onion. C'mon. Deville (Talk) 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If someone can come along later and write a sensible article (which isn't OR or POV), they can recreate it. In the meantime, this is helping no-one. CLW 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nobody seriously argues that the subject isn't a commonly enough held belief, that it's not a staple among right-wing chatterati, or that it's undocumented. This is a bad article, so fix it. Wikipedia is not censored on behalf of politically correct sensibilities, and notable right-wing crackpot theories should be given the same coverage that notable (often marginally notable) left-wing crackpot theories get. Monicasdude 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are significant google hits for this concept from the religious right such as [35] or [36]. This was the thinking behind controversies back in the 70s involving gay teachers in the public schools. Instead of denying that this was a controversial political issue, which I think cost people their jobs, the article should be expanded and improved. I also wonder why this nom, who seems to raise a number of editing related questions, did not start on the article talk page?-- JJay 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing. This is another case of "yeah I know this exists", but where is the sourcing in the article? I actually have a strong desire to keep this article on the basis of the subject, and I'm 100% willing to change to keep if someone takes the time to actually source this better. The AIM source is fine... but credibility is hurt by The Onion reference (though I love The Onion). Post at least one more reputable source.--Isotope23 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone expanded the article... I can't guarantee I'll get to going through it right away, so removing opinion until I have a chance to judge the new article on its merits.--Isotope23 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did want to put this up for deletion, but I decided I needed some more time to think up exactly what's wrong with this article. The main problem with it is original research. There's no evidence to support the idea that "Homosexual recruitment" is the term actually in use by the vast, right-wing conspiracy. I'm a real stickler for correct terminology, and the fact that the term "Homosexual recruitment" isn't demonstrated to be in use by those that are supposed to engage in this activity makes me think this article ought to be deleted. Also, I'm aware of parents who are afraid of their children being around gay authority figures, not because they think the children will be turned gay, so to speak, but because they are afraid the children will be sexually assaulted or abused. Brian G. Crawford 15:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am with Brian on this one, but even more so. First, I have never heard this term. Second, with Onion, Christian and Schools removed from a google search on the term[37], the results fall to about 300. More notedly, just removing Onion pares away about 90% of the hits, which means this is basically an article about an Onion headline. I also love the Onion, (God Answers Boys Prayers: Says No), but this is not the place to substantiate Onion humour. Eusebeus 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, there is nothing humorous about this. Homosexual recruitment has been used as a catchphrase by the religious right to attack homosexual teachers since the 1970s. This has been reported by nearly every major newspaper in the United States. Furthermore, your google results are completely distorted by the removal of schools and Christian from the search. -- JJay 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a strange interpretation of my comment. Eusebeus 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean or how I have misinterpreted you. You said: "this is basically an article about an Onion headline". I've tried to show that this has nothing to do with onion or any other humour magazine or comic book. I really don't think the religious right, or some of the other groups or politicians I've cited below, get their marching orders from Onion or Mad magazine. -- JJay 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Choice and sexual orientation, unless editors there object. I posted a comment on their talk page asking for imput. This article required editors from Category:Sexual_orientation_and_science before it can hope for neutrality, if they won't participate in it, it should be deleted. JeffBurdges 17:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. A search for the term "homosexual recruitment" in Factiva over the last decade throws up ten articles. One of them is about the Onion story and reactions to it. Most of these are a group of stories from Viriginia in 1998 when the Christian Coalition launched ads that concern "homosexual recruitment in public schools" (the quotes are in the article, meaning that they are part of the CC's campaign). That seems to me to suggest that this particular rubric is not particularly widespread. It also seems to me that the term "homosexual recruitment" is irredeemably POV. With JeffBurdges, I think that a redirect to Choice and sexual orientation is best. Bucketsofg 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No one denies that this is a POV concept, not unlike the many articles that can be found in Category:Pejorative political terms. However, it is far more widespread than you, or others are trying to claim. I get far more than 10 article hits. Here are 10 excerpts over a 20 year span:
  1. ...Senate debates surrounding the bill, and a House committee deliberation of the similar HB393, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, focused on the merits of gay-straight alliances. Some called the alliances a safe place for homosexual students that foster tolerance in schools. Bill supporters called them homosexual recruitment tools inappropriate for public schools...Deseret News (Salt Lake City), 2006
  2. ...Queer Action Network spokeswoman Lauren Mellor, an organiser of the rally, accused Mr Caltabiano of opposing funding to the gay youth service Open Doors last year while he was a Brisbane City councillor. He had said the Fortitude Valley organisation acted as a "homosexual recruitment cult" when he was allocating grants to youth services, Ms Mellor said. "We are opposed to Mr Caltabiano due to his record of homophobic remarks - it is well known he is outwardly homophobic... AAP News (Australia), 2005
  3. ...But late last year public meetings with administrators exploded with complaints about the decals from small groups of parents. Biblical injunctions against homosexuality were cited, along with fears of homosexual recruitment of children. As the debate roared on, some parents related fears about a connection between gays and bestiality, or blamed the brouhaha on Internet pornography. A young woman who rose in defense of the decals was questioned by angry parents about her own sexuality.... Chicago Tribune, 2003
  4. « Press ignoring real problem in church: homosexual recruitment », New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH), 2002
  5. "It is my hope and insistence that the Senate heed the plea of Massachusetts families and families across America," Keyes said in a written statement. The failed presidential candidate also blasted Cellucci for "his promotion of the radical homosexual recruitment of our youth." Boston Herald, 2001
  6. Another ad, published yesterday in USA Today, talks about ``the truth about the nongenetic roots of homosexuality and ``the truth about homosexual recruitment in public schools. If the ads succeed in stimulating open discussions about homosexuality, they can be applauded. But that is improbable. Miami Herald, 1998
  7. Then she was disturbed to hear that he promised to hold hearings on alleged homosexual "recruitment" in public schools. If school districts are penalized for encouraging acceptance of homosexuality, she fears, young people who are coming to terms with their sexual orientation might be driven toward suicide. Washington Post, 1995
  8. Porter, whose North Shore district has one of the nation's highest concentrations of public television viewers, wanted to open the hearings to all comers. He was rewarded with a daylong parade of witnesses whose complaints ranged from charges that taxpayers' money was funding homosexual recruitment programs in Akron to warnings that the popular "Masterpiece Theatre" could be dropped by many public television stations. Chicago Tribune, 1995
  9. This argument is being advanced by such groups as the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). According to these groups, the numerous non-gay educators, health professionals and religious leaders who favor such a program must be either advocates for homosexual recruitment or else dupes of the gay and lesbian community. Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA), 1991.
  10. RealWomen distributed a pamphlet on "sexual orientation legislation" which says, falsely, that many people would be hurt - athletic associations, schools, daycare centres, boy clubs, parents of school-age children. The pamplet rouses fears by warning that because of AIDS, homosexuals have become a medical threat to the population at large; that homosexuality involves sadomasochism, bestiality "and other perversions"; and that the new legislation would make homosexual recruitment of the young permissable and acceptable. Toronto Star, 1986

-- JJay 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. JJay's examples demonstrate that the phrase "homosexual recruitment" is used, but the fact that the words are used together doesn't mean there is anything more to say about them than about any other adj. - noun comination. The article is dramatically POV, and the non-POV parts of it have nothing more to say than we learn from the words "homosexual recruitment" themselves. This is not a movement, or an organization, or a unified concept; it is a dicdef. I don't think there's anything that needs to be said about this. bikeable (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concerns about sources don't make a case for deletion, nor do concerns about wording: what fixes that is editing. A decent article could be written about this; in fact, JJay's material is a start. This stub is not completely unhelpful. Besides, everybody knows it's the food. Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does need some editing, but the concept, as well as the wording, is in common use. I see no reason to delete this. YellowPigNowNow 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (but conditional) keep. Its a hard call. There is little material in the stub at present, but it is a term that's known, a concept that's probably encyclopedic in the end, and an assertation that it isn't just some authors invention is certainly capable of falsifiability and verifiability. It's also for me, more to the point, a notable subject (no matter if minor), might potentially be of broad interest, and "just generally worth a place". I'm not involved in that issue, yet it's a term I have heard in use. My concerns are mostly that as others have said, it's at present poorly documented and completely unsourced. But many articles start off that way. Conditional keep... let's keep it and see if it can be improved to standard before anything else, as it does have good potential to meet Wikipedia standards. FT2 (Talk) 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit:5 minutes on Google and some editing later, I have tried to add something vaguely more useful than hearsay to the article FT2 (Talk) 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia at the 1976 Summer Olympics

edit

There seems to be some confusion over which countries boycotted the 1976 olympics, see Talk:1976 Summer Olympics. But is no doubt that Ethiopia boycotted these games (this pdf: [38] and the BBC) so this article shouldnt exist -- Astrokey44|talk 14:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if it did boycott the games, it can still have an article documenting its boycott. As I understand it, the boycott started after the opening ceremonies, so countries could both have competed and boycotted the games. If we have a boycott article, it can be redirected there, if Ethiopia had not competed in any events at all. Still the article can be used to document the travails of the athletes to get to the Olympics, or the decisions of the NOC. 132.205.44.134 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing to write about about its performance in the '76 games because it did not compete. The boycott is already discussed at the parent article. Mike H. That's hot 07:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How was it the 6th appearance of Ethiopia at the Olympics if they didn't go? --Nobunaga24 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamasaki Mami

edit

"Yamasaki Mami" gets only 166 Google hits which suggests not very notable for a model. To be fair, she might get more hits under her name in Japanese script, but that's not something I'm able to verify. However, the article itself makes no claim for her notability, which again suggests nn to me. Delete CLW 14:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are potentially millions of "models" out there, I doubt this one's notable. But I would like to see someone who understands Japanese try to verify this in Japanese script before closing. Abstain. Grandmasterka 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google hits with kanji here and here --Nobunaga24 15:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after doing some, ahem, research, I'll throw in a keep. Not super-famous in Japan, but certainly as notable as some of the lesser pornstars in America who have articles. Once again, though, it's an article about a Japanese model that I think someone started just because they wanted to post a sexy pic on wikipedia (BTW, in the course of my research, I found much better pics than that one. Bad choice) --Nobunaga24 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was I'm going to treat this as a Proposed Deletion. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEVER Technology Group PLC

edit

IT solutions and services company. Article almost certainly written by a member of the company. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage Human Resourcing

edit

A staffing firm. Article almost certainly written by a member of the company. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 14:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kumar

edit

Vanity, soapbox, attempt to contact, nn, etc. Delete CLW 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Manifesto of Mortarism

edit

Literary work that has not been published yet. FreplySpang (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating for deletion:

  • Mortarism - an "emergent literary movement"; Wikipedia is not for predicting future events, but for reporting on movements/people who have already made an impression on the outside world.
  • Marc di Saverio - the author of the manifesto and the founder of the movement. Has apparently been published in several periodicals (I don't know their circulation) but the article focuses on his not-yet-published works.

- FreplySpang (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC) [edit]

  • "John Reed Wiley" User talk -- di Saverio "Talk page" The Manifesto of Mortarism/Maisonneuve/Marc di Saverio Please see MARC DI SAVERIO, and perhaps you may like to to write an article based on the stuff left on discussion board. Just a thought. Take care.
  • this is Marc di Saverio. I can't see why I don't deserve a stub article. This is not SOAPBOXERY, as YOU understand it. After you have read the manifesto, you will understand that self-righteousness and literally going into the streets and standing on platforms is a part of changing the world. Soapboxery, eh!? That is a funny one. You have SO many other articles on wik you could be picking on; why mine? There are several articles that should be erased because they are inconsequential and many written of people who will never even come close to being immortals, or even surviving 20 years as important or substantial figures of time. The Manifesto of Mortarism/Marc di Saverio is history. I am manic, but I am not psychotic, and I am speaking absolutely honestly and with righteousness. WIK policy that I read said something along the lines of if an article stub SEEMS it COULD be POTENTIALLY important, "EXPAND!", or at least leave the article, or even shorten it; but DELETE!? That is simply the jealous spirit of wik writers who can't stand a man who will likley be important, and is not afraid to believe that, and is not afraid to go into the streets of Hamilton and stand on platforms to read his manifesto -- being a championed English undergrad -- or at McMaster, or wherever. MORTARISM will be one of those immortal philosophies. THE article OBVIOUSLY shows the subject is quite LIKELY going to be important, esp if you read the talk page -- and considering I am still a student for Chrissake. DELETION?! Pure Wikwriter jealousy? It's uncalled for to delete that page, and you all know it. You are acting unprofessionally by putting your inferiority-complexes, Artist-envy, Genie-envy, before WIKIPEDIA, and PEOPLE'S EDUCATION.
  • ' tell me freply, what is the "outside world". What the hell does that mean? Are you telling me a lot of those articles on wik describe people IMPACTING OUTSIDE WORLD. SURRRRRRE! Ok! Whatevah. Go bother with deleting someone who SHOULD be deleted. I impact the outside world every day on the streets, and I have ALSO DONE SO WITH PUBLICATIONS, and will with MAJOR FORTHCOMING PUBLICATIONS. A total deletion of my article would be extreme, uninspired, and ridiculously 21st century. O you Ice Agers! O the Age of Ice. O the Age of Passionlessness being fashionable. O the power of propaganda and media. We are living in the Age of Cutesypoo, the Age of Verveless and fashionable distance. Whatevah.
    • You know, a better tactic would be to read WP:BIO and WP:NOT, particularly the crystal ball clause, and provide evidence why these articles meet those criteria. Diatribes attacking those who have rendered opinions here is likely to fall on deaf ears. Expansion is only called for when an article could be potentially important based on existing information. Your statement that THE article OBVIOUSLY shows the subject is quite LIKELY going to be important shows that the Mortarism and The Manifesto of Mortarism in particular violate the crystal ball subsection of WP:NOT. If this movement become important or influential at some point in the future, a wikipedia article might be in order then. Right now it is premature.--Isotope23 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as "likely to become notable"" or however you put it, Isotope23 is right to cite the crystal ball clause. Anybody can claim future notability, but it's a practice that means nothing in the grand scheme of things, and in fact is often a defining motif in what we might call outsider literature. I wish you luck in your art movement, but predictions have a way of going wrong. Please don't take it personally. Haikupoet 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Patel

edit

Delete. The community, even if it exists, is a non-notable one. And Jai Patel can also be names of people from Gujarat (India), (though none notable enough for wikipedia entry). This makes the page a potential target for vandalism (see revision history). Soumyasch 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Toms

edit

Before I removed the attacks from this article it was much longer, but certainly not much better. I don't think presenters on local cable channels in Britain are usually considered notable, I certainly don't see evidence of notability here. Just zis Guy you know? 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nude Celebrity Blog

edit

Non-notable website. Alexa rank of 948,908. Article {{prod}}ded but no substantial changes made before the tag was removed.  (aeropagitica)  15:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Super Mario Brothers. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!

edit

A gaming meme from one game, and a quote at that. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the procedure for the two was one and the same, but I've never actually seen an AfR.
Additionally, TYM doesn't transcend the original game outside of two references - one in a sequel to the game, and another in an MMORPG. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a few more references than that - just google "Thank you * but our * is in another *" and you'll come up with tons of stuff. Most of it's just on webcomics and ytmnd stuff and whatever, but if that stuff is noteworthy enough to merit an article on AYB then it's (arguably) noteworthy enough to merit an article on TYM.
That said, I wouldn't object to this being merged into a new "List of memes originating from Mario series" article, because I'm sure there's plenty of other ones that haven't been noted on Wikipedia yet. Cassandra Leo 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Herts TV articles

edit

I stumbled across what appears to be a walled garden related to an obscure local cable TV channel in the UK, with repeated namechecks of the same names - as if nobody else was involved, in fact. One, Colin Toms, was mostly an attack page and I listed it separately, but the balance are essentially a series of articles which are rnotable only in relation to each other. My parents live in the target area and have never heard if this lot, not that this is conclusive. The entire set of articles is uncited, and appears unverifiable.

  • Google for West Herts TV gets 40 hits, mostly mirrors [39]
  • Google for West Herts Sports Round Up gets nine hits, all Wikipedia, all within this walled garden [40]
  • Google for "Channel 10" "West Herts" gets 35 hits, almost all Wikipedia & mirrors [41]

I can't find a single reliable source to support the idea that this lot ever existed at all, let alone that they were worthy of note. Virtually every mention is either one of these articles or a link to them placed in some other Wikipedia article.

The articles are:

All are the work of one editor, Gertcha (talk · contribs), on a single day. Jan 31, 2006. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "citing 0 parent hits"?
  • Delete all as non-notable and/or per WP:V. Zero non-Wikipedia hits for "West Herts TV" on Google, and this was the Internet age already. A channel that supposedly "broadcast for only a few hours a week" during a few years in a very limited area is hardly notable, and its shows more so. Incidentally, I for one welcome our think that mass nominations of this sort are a good idea. Sandstein 19:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought hard about it, but oin the end the whole lot is a walled garden and they can safely be considered as one, since none is apparently notable except by reference to the others. As you note, the channel is not a full-time channel, and it's not even in the listings my parents have (they live in St. Albans, where I grew up - and I've never heard of any of these either). There is a vast difference between an local US cable channel and a local British one, in terms of audience (both potential and actual). Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what exactly do you mean to keep? One of the problems is that nothing of all this seems to be on Google or otherwise verifiable. Sandstein 04:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein is right - keep anything verifiable in this case means delete the lot, since none of it is verifiable. I could not find a single reliable source for West Herts TV ever existing, in fact - Wikipedia is the principal reference on Google. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeinside

edit

Non notable (700 Google hits, possible vanity article Tony Bruguier 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted fraudulent spam. Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlemark

edit

I believe that this article should be deleted for a couple of reasons:

  • It is a patently commercial link and has questionable encyclopedic value and notablility
  • The article purports that the site is a service provided by Google, however the site itself states that it has no affiliation with Google.
  • It may be a site in violation of Google's copyright/trademark and thus the article may also be infringing upon the copyright.

-- Mkamensek (talk) -The LeftOverChef 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Helsing II

edit

Delete - Google search turns up no official announcement anywhere. IMDB does not show actor listed as attached to film. Article creator has a history of vandalism and adding false or spurious information. TheRealFennShysa 15:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchkey

edit

reads like advertisement. A google search turns up 13000 mostly nonsensical or nonapplicable results. A google of "watchkey pindome", which would focus down to the company, (note search was not in quotes for obvious reasons) comes with just 19 hits. Also, as a further smack, was written obviously by owner of company. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 16:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theater intime

edit

And since it receives no support from Princeton, nor does it make any assertion of notability, it doesn't deserve an article (maybe.....and that's a long maybe, a nod in the princeton article) ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged, incidentally. Sandstein 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 80+-year-old independent theater group (which seems to control its own theater, unusual enough for a supposed student club) which happens to be be run by students from a single college. The organization's website makes reasonable claims to notability (notable alumni working in professional theater). This Afd nomination, while the original author was apparently still writing the article, with no effort at research or attempting to contact the author to ask for improvements, is a perfect example of a WP:BITE violation. It ought to be policy that when a new user is in the process of writing an article, busybody editors should allow more than 30 seconds to see if the author is done. Monicasdude 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This AfD is about the article and not about the editors. --Alan Au 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. An inappropriate nomination is fair game for comment, and this is a very inappropriate nomination. The tag was added while the article was being written (which ought to be seen as uncivil, but somehow isn't, by a new editor. Per WP:BITE, appropriate reactions would include:
If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put titles in boldface, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself.
Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done that you *like*.
Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new ___domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized strictures and structures, which take time to learn.
and keep in mind We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.
There's nothing in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, consensus, or whatever that suggests that summarily tagging a new editor's chosen subject as nonnotable and undeserving of Wikipedia's attention, without doing a shred of research, without any signs of bad faith on the new editor's part, and without making any attempt to contact the editor to see whether the objection can be satisfied, is anything but entirely inappropriate behavior. Monicasdude 22:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Monicasdude: While I appreciate your comments, accusing me of WP:BITE ing and being a "busybody" editor is rather uncivil. The article completely fails to meet any notability standards, let alone asserts them. It perfectly fits the criteria for speedy deletion but I put it on AfD instead to gather a consensus. Attacking me is not the way to go. I'd appreciate it for you to refactor your comment. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I thought your behavior violated WP:BITE, and said so. That is certainly no less appropriate than your comments here. It is a perverse facet of deletionist behavior that editors feel free to criticize editors whose articles they would like to delete, but feel themselves immune from criticism. Monicasdude 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The more correct Google count is over 28,000 [44] if you search for the official name rather than Americanizing the spelling. Monicasdude 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Except, Princeton university is in america, so the american spelling is more accurate. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the name that it calls itself is more accurate. Whatever gives you the idea that searching for an organization under a name other than its own is a sensible thing to do? Monicasdude 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, a large number of those hits of the 28000 are from internal Princeton university pages, student resumes, and a significant portion are not actually "Theatre Intime" but rather the french words "theatre intime" in which case refers to intimate theatre, or (as babelfish would tell you) translates to intimate success, but does not relate to the princeton organization. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article makes no assertion of notability, nn student club. --Hetar 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: A student-run theatre company like this could well be notable because of its age, notable alumni, and local significance in a setting which in itself is notable in national culture, in this case a university which is significant in American culture. See Cambridge Footlights for a British example. I do not think keeping an article like this opens the door for every short-lived theatre club at Nevada State College and every other minor educational institution in the U.S. I agree with Monicasdude that tagging something like this within a minute of creation is not a good practice and not unlikely to scare a serious contributor away. The current article isn't really much more than a placeholder for the link, but I am voting "weak keep" as I think this topic should have been given a fair chance before nomination. If actually deleted, re-creation in a new & improved version should be allowed without some cumbersome DRV debate (I actually don't think a DRV is required if it is a new article on the topic, but I think it should be stressed anyway). u p p l a n d 07:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has potential. SECProto 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I knew I recognized the name; it took a couple days to make the connection. As I thought, this is certainly a notable organization, among its early members were James Stewart, Joshua Logan, and Broadway/film director Bretaigne Windust. In the late 1920's it spun off a short-lived summer stock company, University Players, which already has its own Wikipedia article, because its early troupe included Stewart, Logan, and Henry Fonda. Quite a few other notable members in later years, too. Here's a link with enough details to verify that, I'd say [45]. Nominations like this are bad practice, and the resulting deletions damage the Wikipedia project. We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article. In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Theatre Intime, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the troupe, so I wonder if there's a problem here. Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about comics, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" Monicasdude 03:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Harro5 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The addition of info to include the fact that Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda were members of the group changes everything, including my vote to keep. Harro5 09:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaCom

edit

While I'm sure it's a fine terminal emulator, nothing in the article indicates why the topic is encyclopedic. Googling gives mixed results (note that there are many products and companies named "AlphaCom", so when you try this, don't just trust the raw count). Looking at ZDNet downloads for ssh clients (as just one metric), AlphaCom has 470 downloads, compared to tens of thousands for other SSH programs, such as SecureCRT. AlphaCom fares better on download.com, garnering 150,000 downloads in 8 months[46], but that's compared to just under 600,000 downloads in 5 days for SecureCRT[47]. Unless there's some particular reason AlphaCom is more notable than your average bear, it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. Nandesuka 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. With probably some tens of thousands of users, as per the download figures, this is of interest to sufficiently many people. Up until a few days ago (when the policy proposal was shortened), the editors of WP:SOFTWARE seemed to agree on a 5,000 user threshold. Sandstein 18:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - way above the notability threshold; the article is descriptive, concise, and source-supported. --James S. 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verfiable, real information. For great justice. 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm surprised people want to keep this, I don't see what there is here for an encyclopaedia. There's nothing special about this progam and few people use it. The nominator's arguments are very convincing to me. — ciphergoth 08:02, 6 April 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. Kusma (討論) 02:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetFurry

edit

Good god.....get it out of here. Ok, to start: it's an article about a website for "furry"s, and a non-notable forum. Does not appear to meet any WP:WEB notability tests. Also contains a huge linkspam list at the end. Kill it in the face ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No way! Why delete it? Because its furry? What if it was a site for black people

  • I differ. While the website may not be as notable as other web forums on Wikipedia, and for the mainstream could be considered "non-notable" for the mainstream, the PlanetFurry website and community *Are notable* within the furry fandom. There are several fairly high-profile furry stories stemming from the PlanetFurry community.
And the problem is, while the furry community as a whole is notable (barely), and this site is notable (maybe: Alexa says otherwise) within the furry community, this site is NOT notable within the world community which, unfortunately for the article, is what matters here. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as to User:Swatjester, I would like to respond to this statement;

"get it out of here. Ok, to start: it's an article about a website for "furry"s,"

Ok, so you have something against the furry fandom? Isn't this blatantly against Wikipedia's neutral policy? Beno1000 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Beno My personal feelings against Furry's aside, what notability is there? It's a non-notable website. I wouldn't delete the Furry article: despite my contempt for the subject, it's highly notable. Same thing if there are (I haven't checked) entries for whatever the keynote Con for furry life is. Nobody's singling out furries here: we're singling out this site for not being encyclopedia worthy.⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Swatjester Yes, the furry article should not be deleted, it is highly notable, and PlanetFurry itself can be classified as being notable within the fandom. And I would also like to note that you have admitted that you have "contempt for the subject" in regards to the furry fandom, and although you claim otherwise it still demonstrates bias on the subject.

Except, the furry article is not up for deletion. An article about an non-notable website filled with linkspam is. The website here isn't even notable within any genre: an Alexa ranking of over a million demonstrates it's not notable within even that genre. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If needs be I will remove the linkspam. And when you consider that works which are quite well known within the fandom such as "Sabrina Online the Story" are coming out of PF you can consider it "relavent within its genre". Beno1000 19:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sabrina Online is notable (at least enough to merit an article). Fanfiction based on that is not. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think anything was uncivil. The "kill it in the face" part was a joke I include in any AfD I think appears a shoe-in. The comments are not meant as a criticism of the subject, but rather the content of the article's non-notability in the article. Point taken though, not everyone may get the joke, I'll rein it in a little, thanks. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You continually reference how it's "well known", and "notable" within the genre. Two problems: a) There's no attempt to assert HOW it's notable. Has the website been on tv? Has the website won international awards? Was it presented as a sponsor of FurCon? Does it have the requisite amount of users listed in WP:WEB? Does it have over 10,000 forum members? Has it made Wired magazine, or any of the major (and by major I mean top 500) internet blogs? No. It has an abysmal alexa ranking over 1 million. I'm sorry, but it's just not notable. WP:WEB quite plainly sets forth the standards for online notability. Relevancy within it's own genre is not important if the genre itself barely merits an article. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 19:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No commentary about the forum's users or the quality of the site, just not notable per WP:WEB. --InShaneee 19:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not referring to it numerically, or literally. I was referring rhetorically. The precise number of articles that furry fandom warrants does not matter in the slightest here: what matters is whether this website meets the WP:WEB notability standards. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned that it should have 10,000 forum members. I can think of at least 2 other forums with articles on Wikipedia which have neither 10,000 members or meet any of the other criteria you mentioned in one of your previous posts. However, it is not debated whether these forums should have articles or not.
That makes them no better. If they don't meet WP:WEB, or have some extraordinary measure of notability they should be AfD'd too. As for below, regarding Alexa, I did not ever claim it was an end-all be-all. However, it's USUALLY right, and in this case the overwhelming weight of evidence points towards this site not being notable. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test. "A number of unquestionably notable topics have corresponding web sites with a poor Alexa ranking." Beno1000 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this website is not important or encyclopaedic. While the furry page will stay, this page will not. It does not have a high number of visitors and it is not notable. James Kendall [talk] 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an idea might be to shorten the PlanetFurry article to just cover the general overveiw of what the site is about. Then add links on the main Furry article that leads to all the Furry forum articles who should all be short basic descriptions with a link to the actual site. So that way a person wondering about the Furry fandom could read that article then click on the links to lead them to articles with info on some forums then if the description of the forum sounds good they can click on the link to lead them to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.160.247 (talk • contribs)

Not required. The site is not notable. More notable sites are much more useful for illustrative purposes. James Kendall [talk] 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sobha developers

edit

Attack page against another company, the rest is horribly written review/advertisement ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 16:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2027 (film)

edit

Delete - Where to start? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Google search turns up no official announcement anywhere, IMDB does not show actors listed as attached to film, and the article creator has been blocked for vandalism and adding false or spurious information. TheRealFennShysa 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Bilis Walang Kaparis

edit

Non-notable film, only 111 google hits. Also an e-mail address at the end. Modular. (Talk.) 17:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty? 03:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Studios

edit

Non-notable. Promotional. Low google hits (other than this article and their own website) The JPS 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted as an nn-bio Prodego talk 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Ward

edit

No evidence of notability. Appears to be advertising and/or vanity. Page was previously a redirect to Brad Ward, and (I believe) should be returned to this. CJCurrie 18:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted as nonsense

Kenneth Fox

edit

Suspected hoax. I can't find any sources for the "International Mime and Clown Olympic Games", a famous mime prodigy named "Ken Fox" or "Kenneth Fox", or references to mimes being invited to perform at a presidential inauguration. There are assertions of notability, so I don't think it's speedyable, but it should probably be a clean delete anyway. Colin Kimbrell 18:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I don't even see any assertions of actual notability. Being in the clown olympics, performing as Ronald McDonald, and not performing at an inagural ball are not on the list of notability criteria. :) I've entered it as a speedy, but either way, it should be deleted. Kafziel 18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he had actually won some kind of national clown competition, I'd be prepared to consider that an assertion of notability, since we don't have any firmly defined standards for clowns. It's totally moot, though, since the competition's a fake, and the performer probably is as well. -Colin Kimbrell 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Redemption

edit

The band has recorded and self-issued two albums, and has performed in one major festival. Those do not meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Will Beback 18:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shump

edit

Another complete joke of an "auction website" which gets 10 hits a day and isn't ranked by Alexa - [48] EBayVP 18:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilliver

edit

Delete. Unencyclopedic and probably NN. dicdefish, too. If this is deleted, please also delete Gillivery, which redirects here. Prod removed by anon, no reason was given. Originally created by John.gilliver (talk • contribs • count) - something fishy there... - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete for all mentioned articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totebo Interactive

edit

Delete. Author removed {{prod}}. Company does not seem to nearly meet notability guidelines. Google returns five unique hits for "Totebo Interactive", and site has an Alexa rank of 190,091.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all related to the same company and made by the same author:

Vslashg (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to see that the administrators based thir view on public opinion and not the usefulness of free information. Please remove my entries, which are in conflict with these guidelines.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison asterisk and ser

edit

Not encyclopedia material. Modular. (Talk.) 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Oster

edit

Lots of people get Ph.D.s, I do not see why this one is in any way notable. (Perhaps because I do not know what the missing women problem is?) Austrian 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Googling is not "research". Because of my ignorance, I called for afd, rather than asking to speedily delete it because the article (still!) does not "assert the importance or significance of the subject" (Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion A7).
If the "missing women" problem is not important or interesting enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then Emily Oster is not important enough, either. But please, contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia, and at least add some relevant links to the article and not only here. Austrian 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Frankly, this argument makes no sense to me. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on a particular subject in no way establishes that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the subject. Otherwise it would be time to disable the creation of new articles. Monicasdude 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, it means , at most, she's non-notable as an academic. Einstein published his first set of major papers (including the one which got him a Nobel) very shortly after getting his doctorate; are you saying they weren't enough to establish notability for the good professor? Monicasdude 23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seem to be a reasonable number of media mentions that are not minor, such as in Slate, BusinessWeek, Salon, and NY Times. Despite just receiving her Ph.D., I think her involvement with this issue has reached the point where she and her thesis are key players. Definitely cleanup, though; e.g., the phrase "[s]he is perhaps most well-known for her PhD thesis" seems a little... odd. (Full disclosure: I stumbled upon this article while creating a stub for a former professor of mine, Ray Fair, who happens to be Oster's father. I have opted not to link that article to this one, pending the outcome.) --Kinu t/c 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While not totally devoid of notability (like our oft-deleted articles on high-school kids and forum personalities), I don't think that having written a thesis is quite enough to clear the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. Looks verifiable to me. For great justice. 00:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above and as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" (from WP:BIO)--blue520 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Her work is solid, and that economists better than her aren't included does not mean she should be excluded...rather that more good economists should be included. 01:16, 5 April 2006
More important: information about their work, rather than about the persons. Austrian 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by Adam Bishop as nonsense. --Arnzy (Talk) 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gino ninjas

edit

Non notable - google searches only throw up wikipedia James Kendall [talk] 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 03:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding Grammar School

edit

non-notable grammar school. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecky-becky

edit

Contested prod. Dictonary definition, possible hoax. Eivindt@c 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Userfied and deleted as per Uncle Ed's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Sunday in April

edit

Delete Wikipedia is not a calendar. Joelito 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies with slow claps

edit

Cruft. Her Pegship 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know its not doing any good? For great justice. 00:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, why not? For great justice. 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENC - Hahnchen 04:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? For great justice. 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't address why any given list is worse than another. For great justice. 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was soft redirect to Wiktionary. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kathi

edit

moved to wikt Dangherous 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kazhutha

edit

Malayalam slang. Not interested. Dangherous 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kleen

edit

I'm not ozzie. This is meant to be Oz slang. Does it merit Wikipediadom? Dangherous 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect Proto||type 10:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

klobasa

edit

Slovenian word for sausage. Confirm this, then move to Wikt, then delete if possible Dangherous 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

knobbler

edit

I highly doubt the investigative or academic value of this entry...the fact that I have never heard of the expression "Knobbler" doesn't necessarily mean that it does not exist as a colloquial usage, of course, but the provision of atleast a basic etymology would give more credence to the entry. The rather heated emotional tone of the piece, with the climactic insertion of a reference to 'clueless Cluster customers", which is in no way foreshadowed or explained, would lead me to believe that the entry is some sort of backhanded invective against, well, god knows what. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this...Kenneth Tyrone

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knobbler"

Comment: I believe the wikipedian who nominates is not supposed to also vote. Kukini 16:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which wikipedian are you referring to? Dangherous AKA Kenneth Tyrone nominated. Procedure states "There is no requirement to put anything in the Edit summary, but "first delete reason" is appropriate." Therefore, the nom clearly can voice an opinion on what to do. It's also inferred that it's a delete recommendation Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Noms_w.2Fo_delete_recommendations.3F_Not_that_it.27s_a_vote. Шизомби 16:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Kukini 16:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

know best attitude

edit

Not Wikipedia material. Dangherous 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kokatat

edit

Extremely vague. Meant tot be a phras said by northern Californian Indians. Doesn't specify which one, hence can't even be used for Wiktionary Dangherous 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

koodhiyan

edit

This is an abusive Tamil word. Not belonging in a dicitonary. Dangherous 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kumur

edit

We is not is dictionary. Dangherous 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladino Dictionary

edit

Only 5 or 6 definitions, from the beginning of the alphabet. Not useful. Plus, I've never heard of Ladino, ;). It's generally a rubbish page Dangherous 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirected. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landnám

edit

Not useful fo Wikipedia or Wiktioanry. Dangherous 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinderspital

edit

German word for hospital? wtf? Not Wikipedia material whatsoever. Wiktionary, yeah, but it can be confirmed first. Dangherous 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Beginning 1

edit

Yugioh-cruft--Zxcvbnm 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you select Dark Beginning 1, but completely miss Dark Beginning 2, not to mention the other 2 or 3 reprint sets--TrekMaster 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tariva, inc.

edit

Company with <1000 ghits, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, no evidence their product meets WP:SOFTWARE, and not even a proper stub at that. Just zis Guy you know? 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo pacheco

edit

Almost certainly a vanity page, as the username of its creator is the name of his website. Modular. (Talk.) 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by author request. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour D'Campus

edit

Empty/No longer needed page. --NKirby 22:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete for both articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hart-Stein and Adeji Abeyowa

edit

This is a hoax concerning two supposed members of Brand X, created by a vandal, Kenwood_3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who introduced huge amounts of false information into Brand X and related articles. This has the official line-up of Brand X, neither of these two are on it. (It also contains the actual tracklistings of the albums for anyone who doubts that edits like this are complete bollocks). There is a website that mentions these people, but it is not official and may have been created by the hoaxer. Regardless, it is not a reliable source. Initially prodded, the vandal removed the tag, I rolled him back when rolling back a whole spree of edits, but vandal or not, PROD was removed and this has to go through AfD now. Delete both. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Proto||type 09:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Mc Peake

edit

Google search yields nothing. Hoax? Neutralitytalk 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Searching without the space brings up a few results about a republican named "Gerard McPeake", so he may be real. Still probably non-notable. I'll withhold judgment for now. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 @ 22:40 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated below. Weak Keep and tag with {{Hoax}}, in addition to uncited and original research tags. Have found a few obscure references online as User:Cuivienen, but nothing to confirm whether he's notable or not; nonetheless, if it's not a hoax, the article does a fairly good job of asserting notability, and editors should have a chance to provide references if they're available. Will change my vote if solid evidence of a hoax is provided. - dharmabum 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax unless real verifiable information turns up. Apparently a great number of families claim descendancy of him, and he is a subject of great debate amongst historians — yet manages to draw what appears to be zero related google hits. Famous historians and book nowhere to be seen. Verifiability, verifiability, and verifiability. Weregerbil 23:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:V. Royboycrashfan   23:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Actually, the article does not assert notability, that I can see. Read the wording carefully. If this fellow ever did exist -- which I'm not saying -- and if this list of exploits is also true -- also which I'm not saying -- the article does not indicate any notability other than participation in this battle or membership in that group – a claim that could be made by hundreds if not thousands of other Irish Republicans. Assuming he existed:
- the records of his birth are conveniently missing
- he is one of 7000 Irish Volunteers of 1913;
- one of 11,000 Volunteers who didn't join the British army, and thus formed the IRA;
- one of 1000 or so Volunteers in the Easter Rising;
- one of 15,000 IRA soldiers in the Irish War of Independence;
- one of 15,000 IRA opponents of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and one of 2000-3000 killed
- regarding his death: "…although specific details…are not available. It is speculated…no body was ever positively identified…speculation as to his fate continues…"
I can find none of Cuivienen's or User:Dharmabum420's obscure references. I also cannot find any references to:
  • Messrs Martin or Mc Caughan.
  • Mr Martin's book
  • The Irish National Aid Society
Soooo…delete: no notability; no verification; possible hoax. SigPig 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By asserting notability, I meant that the article asserts that the debate around him by historians is notable, while the person themselves may not be notable without that kind of attention. I did not think to search out said historians, and I find a lack of references to them far more damning. While I'm still not sure it's a hoax, that kills notability, and I changed my vote. Also, I rather prefer the first half of my username for shortening purposes. :) - dharmabum 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I just cut-and-pasted your sig block from your earlier comment: didn't realize I only got the, ahem, tail end. SigPig 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
Although the florid language and multiple references to ‘controversy’ and ‘a great debate’ may indicate an exaggeration of the importance of this participant in the most major events in Irish history, it would be erroneous to dismiss McPeake’s story lightly. If the article is factually accurate, this figure, in my opinion, is worthy of, at least, local significance if not universal interest, and, though it would be a fallacy to directly compare this man to any of the hundreds of notable American's wikipedia articles, it should not go unsaid that many of these are of similar wider significance.
I strongly disagree with user:SigPig regarding the notability of this admittedly enigmatic person. It is stated that 'the records of his birth are conveniently missing.' I would argue that the records of his birth may well have been kept in the Public Record Office at the Four Courts in Dublin, and that there was nothing convenient about the loss of a vast swathe of Irish historical records when this building was gutted by an explosion and subsequent fire in June 1922. Furthermore, I feel that it is negligent of user:SigPig to say 'the article does not indicate any notability other than participation in this battle or membership in that group.' This disregards the extraordinary record of this man, potentially belonging to a number of organisations, participating in a number of key battles, and making a significant contribution to republicanism, and the foundation of a fledgling democracy.
I fully acknowledge that there is little evidence available through Google, however, Wikipedia's own criteria for verifiability warn of the bias of this method. In my opinion it is unscientific and practically worthless in researching an Irish historical figure. This is clearly demonstrable by user:SigPig's admission that the National Aid Society is not referenced. The sheer deficiency of information on Google regarding a fairly important group in Irish modern history indicates the unreliability of ‘The Google Test’ in this instance. (According to M.E. Collins in 'Ireland 1868-1966' the Irish National Aid Society was founded by Kathleen Clarke, wife of Tom Clarke, to, among other things, 'provide a cover behind which people who had escaped arrest could begin to rebuild the Volunteers and IRB.' This detail is fully continuous with the account given in this page.)
The distinct lack of verifiable sources tempers my attitude to what is, otherwise, a worthy addition to the wikipedia, containing rare personal information on a member of several secretive groups. It can be, in my opinion, only detrimental to this encyclopaedia if colourful, personal histories like these are met with such immediate and strident criticism. JMcCann 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houdini (sexual behavior)

edit

I put this up for proposed deletion, and the tag was removed by an anon. There's no assertion that the activity described in the article has been documented, and even if it has, why on Earth would it be important as anything other than a joke? Wikipedia is not a book of inside jokes, a dictionary (yet), or a forum for unverifiable original research. Brian G. Crawford 22:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donutey: A Donut Lives Here

edit

Non-notable website, only 50 Google hits. SCHZMO ✍ 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete as a hoax in Greek. Kusma (討論) 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Αθανάσιος

edit

Orphaned AfD. AfD'ed by 132.205.44.134 (talk · contribs) with the comment, "This is all Greek to me."

Needs translation. Best I can figure out it's a stub about a Cypriot Orthodox bishop named Athanasios who is now the Metropolitan of Lemesou and became (will become?) archbishop of Cyprus this summer. There's also something about him defeating evil at Kykkos. Fan1967 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a native speaker of Greek and I inform you that this article, while on a valid topic, Metropolitan Athanasius [59], is a hoax. It translates as:

Athanasius was the Metropolitan/Diosean Bishop of Limassol and is the Archbishop of Cyprus since 2006 (since he expelled the forces of evil from Kykko). As he himself said, "in satan they are different..." Now he enjoys the throne of Cyprus.

Athanasius is indeed the Bishop of Limassol, but according to the website of the Chruch of Cyprus [60] and the Wikipedia list List of Archbishops of Cyprus, he is not Archbishop. This article is a hoax (I don't know if he ever will be Archbishop). What Wikipedia does need is a biography of the present archbishop. His bio here [61] should be translated. Edwy (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. NTK 09:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nay-Nava

edit

Originally {{prod}}ded by Bth, who explained the article was a "self promotion, doesn't meet WP:WEB." Search for "Nay-Nava" returns 43 unique hits. Website does not have its own ___domain, so Alexa rank of 3,408 is misleading. Delete. Royboycrashfan   23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect Proto||type 09:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlin (Nintendo character)

edit

This is misspelt - the correct article is at Kremling. Karaken12 23:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin kramer

edit

Non-notable member of club, [62] Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a "non-notable member". She was the leader of the large New York District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregloveandkristinlove (talk • contribs)

Above user has < 10 edits. Royboycrashfan   23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original article had reason to be deleted. However, the current article is relevent and accurate. —This unsigned comment was added by Gregloveandkristinlove (talk • contribs) .

  • Please follow proper wiki conventions in this vote, and also you are only allowed to vote once. The only difference to the article is the addition of "also lieu-gov" and one external link. WP:Vanity. T K E 23:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So...what was the actual reason for deleting this relevant and accurate article? The original article was deleted for good reason. I requested it to be unprotected (as I had good reason) and it was granted. The article as it appeared a little while ago had no reason to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregloveandkristinlove (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy delete: G4 (if appropriate) or A7 with no assertion of notability. Even the leader of the national organization itself should be nothing more than a mention at Key Club. State officers do not meet WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Kinu, with the clarification that this is a former state leader. I'm sure it looked great on her college applications, but no way does it make her notable. Fan1967 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - default to keep Proto||type 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color or Country

edit

There's only one source which doesn't cover half the content in this article, and googling (e.g. [63]) seems to imply that this isn't notable. Please prove me wrong :) ZoFreX 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan   23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, while I admit that I do not have a source asserting notability other than myself, I do know that this game has at least as significant recognition as Mornington Crescent, which has an article. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 00:07 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is real. For great justice. 00:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a second nomination. A link should have been provided to the first nomination, which was long and complex (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color or Country). Oh, and weak keep. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like The Game (game), this article has verifiability issues. The previous AFD argued primarily the notability of Color or Country and its appropriateness as a game, not as an article. (This current AFD seems to be headed that way too). I'm not inclined to delete an article based on its notability; I do not think, however, that we should allow unsourced articles to continue living in article space--especially if they do not seem sourceable. As the article stands, the only thing that has been given a source is the rules, a very small portion of the article. I've looked for more information than that, and been generally unsuccessful. Regardless of my opinion of the game itself, the article is unlikely to ever meet the criteria set forth in WP:V and WP:NOR —Seqsea (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually think the article (well, the top section, anyway) is adequately sourced. The last paragraph is false, by the way: this game was not introduced for the first time at Mathcamp 2002, I have firsthand knowledge.. and the business about "Functor or category" is a mathcamp in-joke. This game is simply not notable enough... it's basically a case of WP:NFT. Mangojuice 14:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was keep Midgley 14:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William_Job_Collins

edit

nn (there are currently 100 000 doctors practicing in the UK of whom more could be gleaned from The Medical Register than is here - "he was a doctor who worked with two other doctors, and did not use a particular treatment. His father also was a doctor and did not use that treatment". The links are to a clonelet of the author's whale.to website which has been determined by RFC to be not WP:RS - the site in question was established after whale.to ceased getting links from WP. This iswas one of many nn articles generally lacking in interest and WP:V and by User:Whaleto in pursuit of his WP:SOAPBOX WP:VSCA Midgley 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Talk:Measles may be thought relevant, or Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Whaleto. Certainly it indicates that we should wait at least 48 hours even if WP:SNOW were thoguht to apply. I venture to suggest that its effectiveness might also be considered, here, after that time has passed. Midgley 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most notable anti-smallpox vax medical doctor along with Creighton and Crookshank. john 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that description has I think been used of Bayly Beddow. They can't all be the most notable. Whether being against something makes you notable is another matter. Midgley 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of 3 most notable 19 century UK anti-vax medical men. Bayly, Mendelsohn are two most notable 20 cent. You tried to delete Mendelsohn [64]. I dispute that whale has been deemed WP:RS. john 09:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RS means Reliable Source. Whale has been deemed Not Reliable Source. The page WP:RS is a well-constructed consensus. What anyone deems is up to them but WP attempts to run on evidence. Midgley 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can read. Deemed by who? john 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been answered previously. RFC @ MMR Midgley 22:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. That is your interpretation, to suit your POV. You are pushing your POV here as well. john 05:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DISPUTE it then. Midgley 08:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication as to his notability. Will revise opinion if there are historical sources that support notability. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: brief biography here: eminent ophthalmic surgeon, university don, London councillor, later Liberal MP (twice), Vice-Lieutenant of County of London. More at the Times obit for Saturday, Dec 14, 1946. Definitely notable, but not, as the current version portrays it, solely (or even principally) for opposition to vaccination. Tearlach 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - forgot to log in, but I've expanded it into a proper biography. Tearlach 12:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sir are a scholar, and this is an article. Keep of course. Midgley 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I close this? Seems reasonable.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4&oldid=1206827545"