Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 23 March 25 >

Purge server cache

March 24

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 uh...24/4/1 (82% majority), consensus to delete. Mailer Diablo 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citywide Church

edit

Delete This article is only of interest to current and former members. The (recent) pastor (not creator, but regular editor) is using this to promote himself and the church, as well as 'diss ex-members. We don't have a WP:CHURCH, so I use WP:CORP, which this fails. Rob 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are quite right to ask. A quick Google search [1] turns up 100 or so hits, some of them notable, for example [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Gwernol 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You chaps should look up the menaing of encyclopedia and related words:

A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. adj : broad in scope or content; "encyclopedic knowledge"

Word History: The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and paideia, “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 March 2006

Pastor William Oosterman (I gather that is who you are), do you expect this to change my vote? I know what an encyclopedia is. I also understand the concepts conflict of interest, disclosure, and recusal. Durova 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that opinions on AfD debates from anon users may be discounted Deizio 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)>[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Planetary Bill of Rights Project

edit

Non-notable website/movement. A few Google hits when one searches for the term, but few appear relevant to this particular website; for example, this seems to have nothing to do with Paul Kurtz's Humanist Manifesto. Nothing that can be considered a source on notability (i.e., media) seems to link to it either. Might just be adspam. The counter on the website doesn't make it seem notable per WP:WEB either. PROD removed with the comment The Planetary Bill of Rights Project for the people who would be free... which doesn't really answer any questions. Delete. Kinu t/c 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Omega Tau

edit

Non-notable sorority. Unless we want to accept articles on every fraternity and sorority (and dmoz lists 7082 of them), I can't see why small sororities like this with no reliable sources on them should warrant a wikipedia article. According to their website, they have 82 members, almost all clearly having graduated by now. Xyzzyplugh 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep content; merging can be further discussed on the talk page of the article. - Liberatore(T) 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faculdade de Engenharia Elétrica e da Computação da Universidade Estadual de Campinas

edit

This is a long name for an article and the article isn't even in English. --James 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NikeTalk

edit

Notability suspect, and current article is too POV and spammy even if arguendo notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My argument against that: the shoe game may be large, but it's not a group that expands exponentially. It has a marginal growth rate to other hobbies. If someone is serious about collecting sneakers, they already know about the site or will find it way before coming here; so to me that fails notability in as it's not a curiousity to look up a particular fanforum. TKE 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The pedantic, sophomoric assertions of wikipedia's self-professed gatekeepers aside, those familiar with the sneaker collecting subculture would easily attest to NikeTalk's "notability." The site has received mention in Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press stories, and most recently in the March 13th issue of Time Magazine. If one of the pseudo-intellectual "arbiters" of Wikipedia managed to accomplish anything in life worth mention in even one of these publications, I have to believe they'd be drafting a wikipedia entry within seconds. Yes, the article should be cleaned up - but its critics have no place impugning its merit based on the most perfunctory and prejudicial of arguments. The site's traffic and notoriety are EASILY verifiable. All you had to do was LOOK. Instead, many of you dismissed it offhand simply because it deals with tennis shoes and not pewter orc figurines. The article's inclusion only enhances the scope and utility of wikipedia. Don't confine this resource to your own narrow interests. RakimAllah 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit. --Nlu (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Major cleanup is needed. The Time mention pans out: [9]. However, if spite was a valid reason, I'd say delete per RakimAllah. ccwaters 03:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is notable. That said, RakimAllah, you're not really choosing the best way to champion your cause. --Ashenai 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The article is pretty mu on point but some facts need to be cleared up. And to the doubters, please visit niketalk.com to look at all the statistics. - wiki_editor_wutang
    User's second edit. --Nlu (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Keep The pedantic, sophomoric assertions of wikipedia's self-professed gatekeepers aside, those familiar with the sneaker collecting subculture would easily attest to NikeTalk's "notability." That's cool and all, but a subculture is sub to a culture. Collecting Nikes is not a culture in it's own right, it's a small small hobby group and this is a fanforum. Let'm find it on google as this is not an advertiser. I dislike the approach taken by the keeps, and that influences my delete. But upon more perusing a good point is made in a bad way, there are other fanforum articles. The mentions in major publications go to notability rather than verification in this is not a cite, but the alexa results hold up to looking up other shoe collecting sites. TKE 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911 In Plane Site

edit

Not encyclopedic. It has an IMDB entry which amusingly notes "If you like this title, we also recommend Watch the Skies!: Science Fiction, the 1950s and Us" however nothing on Amazon. Lots of google hits but nothing to indicate that was even the smallest blip on the radar outside the S11 conspiracy circles. The villagevoice mentions it in passing in one article along with a list of others, but that appears to be as good as it gets for reliable secondary source. When taking into consideration the paucity of material available, the source of IMDB's information being unvetted, the low cost of productian and distribution of a DVD, and the fact that this appears to be mostly distributed via torrent anyway, I recommend deletion. brenneman{L} 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep A notable documentary, just not a good article. Read the comments on IMDB, it's no farce MadCow257 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly notable. Google returns 69,400 hits, and each hit seems to generally be about this documentary. --Hyperbole 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; notable documentary --TBC ??? ??? ??? 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Plenty of nutjobs concerned citizens are into this sort of thing. dbtfztalk 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barring the throw-away line in the village voice, do we have a single mention in anything that would be considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source? Can we find evidence that this has been reviewed in a reputable industry magazine, that it's thesis has been given serious consideration by major media, that this film ignited controversy that was reported in a trustworthy online source? Because I'm not seeing anything like that. Google hits demonstrate that it exists and that it's been blogged, but that's not the hurdle for inclusion. - brenneman{L} 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the article focuses on the film and doesn't present the info inside as accurate, it doesn't matter whether the ideas in the film have been given consideration by the media, or even if they are correct. The film exists and has a sizable following and thus should have a wikipedia article about it. Shadowoftime 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, tough one... (bias disclosure, Aaron Brenneman asked me to pop in here... but I am inclusionist) I think it's verifiable this video exists, that within the conspiracy community it has wide notice, that there are a lot of other sites that link to the site promoting the movie (which has an Alexa of about 140K... not high enough for notability on its own). But I'm not seeing major notability. All you keepers, take me through it again? The whole thing almost smackes of a Walled garden. Not available on Amazon, and the IMDB entry is weak. Very marginal notability. Still, the article is well written, as these things go. If this had any cites from mainstream sources (small town theorist run papers in Idaho need not apply) you can be sure the website would be trumpeting them, so that's evidence of non notability right there. Is there somewhere this could be merged to? Maybe an article on fringe movies that also included 9-11: The Road to Tyranny and 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands ??? I'm sorry, much as I want to say keep, I have to go with delete. The notability just isn't there for me. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: It is listed on Amazon [10], just not available. Changing my opinion to very weak keep in light of good, but not fully convincing, points made above. dbtfztalk 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that, I think I was looking incorrectly. That takes me to weak delete from delete because, well, because 25000 DVDs ahead of it in sales ranking means... not very notable. ++Lar: t/c 06:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what "they" want you to think. The appearance of non-notability is all part of the conspiracy.  ;-) dbtfztalk 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me get my tinfoil... There, hat's on. OK, more seriously, I read the whole Village Voice piece, and followed some of the links from there. This is the wrong article. The real story here, I think, is about Dave vonKleist, not about this one video (the voice said it sold 50,000 copies, if true, that's probably marginally notable, but I'm thinking maybe this guy is more notable)... If my earlier suggestion about merging all the videos into one article about them all doesn't fly, perhaps someone should take this article and move it to Dave vonKleist, changing the focus from the video to the man. Sources for that might be much more plentiful. Leave a redirect from the current title to there... ++Lar: t/c 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems notable. JIP | Talk 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "walled garden" argument (above), the "walls" of the article will fall substantially once it gets "Wiki-fied" if that's the word for adding blune-links in to an article -- 62.25.109.196 08:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. I mean that the entire 9/11 conspiracy theory web of sites out in the wider internet has some walled garden aspects. They refer to each other a lot more than anyone else refers to them at all. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exactly per Shadowoftime. feydey 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but edit. Certainly notable enough, but parts are in a very unencyclopedic style. I'll make some edits myself to see if we can't get it better. --Deville (Talk) 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I changed it a bit and made it somewhat better. It still needs some work, though. --Deville (Talk) 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMDB is the cinematic industry standard web resource; Their opinion as to what is notable or not is superior to ours. RGTraynor 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not superior, just different. Significantly broader, in fact. So having an IMDB entry is (based on past outcomes of AfD discussions) NOT sufficient, in my view of what accepted practice here is, to establish notability by itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable document of notably nutty conspiracy theory. ProhibitOnions 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd ask what people are basing the opinon that it's notable on? If a reason that an editor thinks that something is notable is explained, then we can talk about it, work it over, etc. But since this is a discussion and not a vote it's a real problem if recomendations aren't explained. They lack falsifiability for one thing. This is how I see it so far:
    • Google hits alone: Hyperbole, TBC
    • IMDB alone: RGTraynor, MadCow257
    • No clear reason given: ProhibitOnions, Deville, JIP, Shadowoftime, feydey, Terence Ong
    • Per all: Siva1979
    I'm not trying to be agressive in listing the names above, just trying to sort out what everyone thinks.
    brenneman{L} 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaron, I said keep simply because the film seemed to get a certain amount of press coverage here in Germany, and AFAIK in France and elsewhere; this might not be apparent from an Amazon(.com) search. The film's the usual fringe claptrap, but that plays well in some parts of the world, and I think it is notable only for the fact that it was mentioned on national TV shows. Can't remember which, though. ProhibitOnions 01:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reasons are: listed on Amazon, listed on IMDB, mentioned (albeit in passing) in the Village Voice, tons of relevant (if flaky) Google hits. None of those are alone sufficient, but together they make for a reasonable (though admittedly not overwhelming) claim to notability. dbtfztalk 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's available also on Google Video for free, and theres a trailer for it on the NOFX enhanced CD 'War on Errorism'. -Mask   00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. And just as Google and IMDb are not 100% accurate in terms of notability neither is Amazon. My DVD collection has several films that are not listed by Amazon. 23skidoo 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Arbusto 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep not per nom. I also object to the vote tally that has been placed within this discussion that is designed to intimidate participants, despite the clear consensus. If it remains, suggest adding: Reasons for deletion: none. -- JJay 14:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, what vote tally? Do you mean Aaron's analysis of the reasons people are giving for keeps? That's not really a tally, is it? If it is what you mean, I find it useful rather than objectionable... you may not agree of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't find it objectionable either. But I still say "very weak keep." dbtfztalk 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since User:Brenneman is so full of good ideas, maybe we should all provide running "analysis"- i.e. distorted summaries of user opinions shaped to our POVs. Merely in the interest of facilitating discussion of course... -- JJay 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked for clarification of arguments. For example, I'd left dbtfz's name off of the list because xe had made clear that they'd looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. If we don't know why someone has recomended a course of action, we can't properly evaluate it. - brenneman{L} 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, whatever. Not that there is anything really to evaluate since you made the case for keeping the article with the facts in your nom. However, while we are properly evaluating things, perhaps we can start with the only truly unabashed voice for delete on this page, i.e. Bov down below, who at least deserves a prize for honesty. -- JJay 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will admit right off the bat that I'm voting delete because I think this film promotes blatant disinformation - pods, missiles, flashes, no planes. It is offensive to the families of the victims who died at the sites by suggesting that fake planes or missiles were used instead of the actual flights themselves. Is it notable? Sure, like a virus all over the internet. Bov 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, that's not a good reason to delete. An encyclopedia article about the film need not inherit the bad characteristics of the film itself. Most would agree that Mein Kampf was offensive and promoted disinformation; it does not follow that the article about it should be deleted. Notability alone is sufficient for inclusion. dbtfztalk 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What an apt comparison. Actually I never said it was a good reason to delete, only that that's why I'm voting that way. Others can do what they choose. Bov 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bov, if a vote for deletetion does not cite a current Criteria for Deletion, it is invalid and does not count toward the final tally. See WP:DP for the criteria list. -Mask   21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the tally is already settled on here, so it doesn't matter. But it'll be great to have a neutral page on it to cite the many false assertions in the content. Bov 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Don't Guide

edit

Just by reading it, it seems more like an advertisement for the book. It does not seem to be of encyclopedic value. Alex 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete some of this has been mentioned at KAWZ. W.marsh 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K200AA

edit

Delete. It's not even a minor radio station - it's a dedicated piece of hardware set to rebroadcast a minor radio station. I think it's utterly NN. Perhaps someone can explain to us why this is important stuff, but until they do, it doesn't belong. A related article is up for AfD here. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, exactly what is notable about that? RGTraynor 06:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other stations broadcasting at 87.9, according to the article. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Annnnnd ... what makes that notable? If all this is is a piece of hardware retransmitting someone else's signal for greater coverage, this isn't like an article on the New York Times. This is like declaring the typesetting machinery on the West Coast allowing the Times to be sold there same day notable, and creating an article based around that. RGTraynor 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable). --Nlu (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoby

edit

Nonsense article, bragging rights by Lewisdee

Much work on this by User:Lewisdee, but not encyclopedic, mere grafitti bragging about grafitti. Shenme 01:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (word)

edit

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No (word)

edit

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reyes chord constant pattern

edit

Article seems to violate WP:No original research -- Eagletalk 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the numbers are miscalculated. This is simply rubbish. - Eagletalk 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spellhold Studios

edit

A non notable modding group. A Google search turns up less than 600 results.--PatCheng 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad vox absurda

edit

This page is a neologism coined by a wikipedia user, and thus contravenes the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms part of wikipedia's No original research policy. Jgsj 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it's bad Latin grammar. Censeo paginam esse delendam -- I mean, delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meesing

edit

Delete - Probable Hoax. Searching for Meesing+Bigfoot gets mirrors or irrelevant results. exolon 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT Convergence

edit

It's not wholly notable in terms of the google test. Plus its marketing and communications departments wishes to take it down. -- Zondor 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland power

edit

This page seems to be very bad in its wording. It seems to be extremely biased, and it does not explain why "mainland power" is at all importannt, or why it should have a wikipedia page. Marduuk 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the?

Evidently everyone here needs to research more thoroughly the resurgence of Chinese Nationalism abroad, as this article discusses. Simply because none of you have any knowledge whatsoever in the aformentioned fields does not mean you have the right to delete knowledge based upon your ignorant conclusion and lack of contextual understanding.

I do not know how else to add a reply so this will do. —This unsigned comment was added by Gongocongo (talk • contribs) .

So give us some sources in which we can research "Mainland power", verify that it actually exists. The ball's in your court. Postdlf 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_nationalism
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2393/is_4_163/ai_78729185
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/08/16/2003198998
http://big5.china.com.cn/english/2006/Feb/159363.htm

Evidently I doubt the specific organistation/"revolutionary" movement would be qouted anywhere, as a lot of it is fictional, I don't doubt but their beliefs are clearly noted in my article.

I would encourage other members to add to the article, instead of merely deleting it.

None of the sources you listed are actually about the group called "Mainland power" as described in the article, or even suggest that it exists. Please don't waste our time. Postdlf 14:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fictional?

I never said anywhere it is fictional...

Evidently, if you can't even read my words well...

The group does exist, some facts are ... well yes obviously, but the groups premise, beliefs and opinions are all clearly there.

Please learn to read my words, not misqoute them.

You said: Evidently I doubt the specific organistation/"revolutionary" movement would be qouted anywhere, as a lot of it is fictional... If it doesn't refer to the specific organization/revolutionary movement (i.e. Mainland power), then what does it refer to? And when you say, "some facts are... well yes obviously," I don't even know what you're trying to say. Some facts are completely factual? Some facts are embellished? Some facts are completely made up? Don't insult me by saying I don't know how to read your words, when you're the one who's having trouble writing with clarity. And you still haven't given us any proof about this specific group other than your insistence that this exists. --Elkman - (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Cook

edit

Delete: nn biography --Hetar 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Traveller Films

edit

Delete - Vanity page, written by subject. Google search brings up only two pages of results. Non-notable. MikeWazowski 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fillmore real estate

edit

The article reads like and appears to be pure advertisement. The original author also removed a speedy delete tag without comment almost immediately after it was placed. - CorbinSimpson 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Merkelbach

edit

Delete - Vanity page, written by subject. Google search brings up less than 250 results, mostly from self-promotion. Non-notable. MikeWazowski 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, as requested by author —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-24 06:32Z

Daniel Fulton

edit

Either a nn student bio or vanity. A google search for "daniel fulton" returns 312 unique results (the majority of which were unrelated to this person) and a search for "daniel fulton" "on human thought and understanding" ("his most well known and most important work") returns 0 results. Both speedy and prod and tags were removed; it was userfied to USer:Dgf32 but he decided to recreate it instead. TM 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a speedy tag to the article under the criterion of request for deletion by original author based on Dgf's comment near the bottom of this page and his blanking of the article. --TM 05:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article meets the following criterion:

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.

As the article meets the stated inclusion criteria, the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs)

  • The article does not show how Fulton has introduced a notable new idea. Please provide an outside source supporting this claim, as merely expanding the article does not verify anything. By the way, removing AFD tags constitutes vandalism so please don't do it. --TM 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

  • Many sources showing that Daniel Fulton's idea of neural phenomenology is notable are available. His idea has been discussed in major peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science as well as in papers and at confrences in the disciplines of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and computer science. I will point you towards two of the most well known.

“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.

Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.

As you can see, this article clearly meets the inclusion criteria for an academic. dgf32

  • Blnguyen, Daniel Fulton did his undergraduate thesis at Columbia University in the area of the philsophy of science. He is currently attending medical school in Pennsylvania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs)


Response:

  • Many sources showing that Daniel Fulton's idea of neural phenomenology is notable are available. His idea has been discussed in major peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science as well as in papers and at confrences in the disciplines of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and computer science. I will point you towards two of the most well known.

“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.

Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.

  • As you can see, this article clearly meets the inclusion criteria for an academic. dgf32
  • What troubles me the most is that in the edit summary of the article you said that Fulton's "most well known and most important work" was still unpublished. So how did Science and others find out about his theory concerning neural phenomenology if he has yet to publish anything? --TM 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The Science 'write up' cited above makes no mention of Fulton. (Nor does the CIMMS Workshop.) Should we add 'hoax' as a reason for deletion? Bucketsofg 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, if you all want to delete, let's do it. dgf32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. As per Buckets, the Science article cited is a one-paragraph pointer to two other articles and a commentary ("perspective") in the same issue. Neither the paragraph titled "Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making", nor the Perspective, nor the two articles make any mention of Fulton as such. bikeable (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rael's Racewalker

edit

Delete - Non-notable documentary, possible advertisement and vanity page. Google search brings up only *38* returns. MikeWazowski 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was why am I up at this time of night deleting garbage articles? DS 05:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics

edit

nn political group with 8 Google hits and a suspicious acronym. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Pollard

edit

This is a quote, not a biography. Transfer to wikiquote. --Hetar 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Martin Luther King said she was notable, and used her as a figure in his preaching. "Since that dreary night in 1956, Mother Pollard has passed on to glory and I have known very few quiet days. I have been tortured without and tormented within by the raging fires of tribulation. I have been forced to muster what strength and courage I have to withstand howling winds of pain and jostling storms of adversity. But as the years have unfolded the eloquently simple words of Mother Pollard have come back again and again to give light and peace and guidance to my troubled soul." The quotation is well known, and has been the source for the title to more than one notable history of the US civil rights movement (the best known by Howell Raines). I like the eloquently simple form the article now has, and would myself simplify it a shade further, but I expect someone would soon enough convert to a more mundane, traditionally encyclopedic form. That someone would seriously claim that Mother Pollard (sometimes referred to as Sister Pollard) does not merit a few bytes of space in a supposed encyclopedia which devotes absurd amounts of it to fictional characters from mediocre cartoons, "performers" in the erotica trade, all the subway stations in the world, and every one of those wretchedly inbred British peers who devoted their lives to sexually abusing their kitchen staff, fox hunting, and oppressing the Irish is unfortunately unsurprising, and I would hope this proposal is immediately and resoundingly rejected. But I am certain it will not be. Monicasdude 04:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is unencyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikiquote. Royboycrashfan   04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above --TBC ??? ??? ??? 04:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki If anything, I would say that the quote is notable. Perhaps it deserves an article. Maxamegalon2000 05:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - there could perhaps be an article written on Mother Pollard but this isn't it. --Hyperbole 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki this quote, or (better) write a genuine article on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and rewrite per all. Alba 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki -Mask   01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. I agree with Monicasdude that the topic is notable, but this article is just a quote at this point. Mangojuice 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, this is ridiculous. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:13] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Transwiki per nom.--Adam  (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis Films, LLC

edit

Delete - Apparent vanity and advertising page. Non-notable - Google search brings up less than 200 returns, a large number taken from information redistributed from this article.

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons - self-promotion tied to main article, miniscule Google returns:
MikeWazowski 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete - This is just a young company, and has not been given a chance to be updated by the public. Would you consider deleting Amblin Entertainment when it was in its infancy just because it had only released "ET"? And as for the infinitely looping logo, it's taken directly from their company website. Maybe someone should request a non-moving logo instead of committing to deletion because of its novelty. Photoactivist 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that ET made $14 million its opening weekend, the comparison is apples and oranges. As for being a "young company," can you show that it meets notability standards such as WP:CORP? --Kinu t/c 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • - How about "Brick (2006 film)"? Would that be more to your liking? It was only recently bought by Focus Features, and has actually been completed for over two years. The fact is, this particular company cannot be compared for not having an "Opening Weekend" in national theaters. It's an independant film company. --Photoactivist 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - If it releases a film that sees any sort of commercial or critical success, then it's worth including, but the single film that has been released is neither. Night Gyr 22:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Perhaps you're right, why should an encyclopedia be responsible for maintaining information and recording events, when it can be a top 100 list of popular trivia? The one film that has been released by this company is the only dedicated documentary in Wikipedia databases regarding the subject of Racewalking. That alone should ensure its reason for non-deletion. Not to mention that the film is regarding the World Masters' Championship, which is an international event in equally high standing as the Olympics. Photoactivist 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & withhold can you show that it passes WP:CORP? If so I'll vote keep. ---J.Smith 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. If it releases a notable film, we can add it back in. -Mask   01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMDB already exists; if we want to be them, let's just link to them. -Syberghost 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Then why do we host films at all? This goes exactly back to my argument of why the documentary by this company should be included in Wikipedia. If for no other reason than the fact that an encyclopedia's main function is to record information on human endeavor and events of human achievement. (it behooves me to mention that the film centers around the World Master's Championship, which could only be participated in by members of each country's elite qualified members. as I've said before, it's similar to the Olympics) -Photoactivist 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. (I don't think deleting links or redirects to this article is necessary, since it is likely that a new version of this article will be created at some point.) Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poseur

edit

This is a long, silly, and juvenile rant and probably cannot be anything else. Strip it of POV and you have a one sentence description of the term. Move to wiktionary, perhaps. --Tothebarricades 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We keep some crap therefore we should keep all crap, is a poor axiom to apply to the VFD process. And we don't need an encyclopedia of all topics talked about in youth culture, lest we become a glorified Urban Dictionary. --Tothebarricades 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the second point, Wikipedia does give a different spin to the topic compared to Urban Dictionary. On the first point, it's nevertheless the axiom I am choosing to use. To be honest, whether or not this article is deleted, I believe a Wikipedia article on posers will exist in a year's time. Cedars 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so as well. And I also think we should have one. But maybe it is best to start over. Punkmorten 15:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iwaku Roleplaying Community

edit

Contested prod. It's a discussion board which gives no indications of meeting WP:WEB. I haven't don't any research--moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yottamark

edit

This seems like an 1:1 copy from some marketing paper Malasa 04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an attack page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Borozonets

edit

non-notable; subject appears to be user M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Mejia-Canales

edit

non-notable; appears to be garbage M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - nn-bio. -- RHaworth 05:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Longobardo

edit

nn and no real content M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


This page was speedily deleted by CanadianCaesar with the delete summary:(content was: '{{db-empty}}Played by Ashley Tisdale in the High School Musical movie2005 - sister of Ryan Evans (Played by Lucas Grabbel)') —Encephalon 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpay Evans

edit

A non-notable character from High School Musical. I question this article's ability to contain content that isn't more appropriate in the article for the movie. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soleado ghosts

edit

Urban legend, no supporting references. --Chris 05:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a (presumably) real homo sapien with no claim to newsworthiness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy's sister

edit

nn and nonsense M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a memorial for a person with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Long

edit

nn, even if it is heartwrenching (sorta...) M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Could Work Records

edit

Prod contested, seems like an AFD was attempted but never got closed and the AFD was removed from the article. Fails WP:CORP, WP:Music. NN. Delete Dbchip 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable record label with no media coverage. The only Google hits are to MySpace or Wikipedia. PROD contested. FCYTravis 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Could Work Records is not organized as a corporation and should not be considered under the corporate notability guidelines. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The subject matter is highly relevant to the North Dakota cultural scene, which has suffered from poor media coverage due to systemic biases that overlook smaller communities. Artists booked to the label will be completing tours in the United States this month, making them notable under WP:MUSIC; the label is similarly notable.

    The MySpace hits should not be discounted, but instead taken for what they are, an indication that This Could Work Records is slowly growing in relevance to social circles, enough so that Lonegunmun decided to register a Wikipedia account to start an article on it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The systemic bias of ignoring a "record label" with 13 MySpace hits? Maybe you could point to a mention in any one of these media sources in South Dakota? A college newspaper, even? You're telling me there's a systemic bias at the University of North Dakota journalism department? Puh-leeze. FCYTravis 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. An organization, company, unincorporated entity, whatever, that generates a grand total of 13 hits on myspace and none anywhere else is about as unnoteable as you can get. Fan1967 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Come back when you've signed some notable bands. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have nothing against this article. This label seems to be gaining in prominence and I think it is unfortunate to see users so eager to delete articles which do have something informative to offer. --MatthewUND(talk) 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see any such bias. Could you please point it out? JoshuaZ 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response SWATJester has made it readily obvious he does not take this to be serious subject matter. FCYTravis has also made many uninformed allegations against this article; He confuses North and South Dakota and is apparently unaware of the fact that the University of North Dakota has no accredited journalism department and the campus newspaper is about as focused on Minot happenings as the Chicago Tribune is on Milwaukee. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Swatjester made one comment which he noted was a joke, given that and you claim that bias was expressed by "editors" plural, I have trouble seeing that. Your other comments, i.e. not being aware of the nature of the local newspaper and confusing N and S hardly constitute evidence of bias. Now, there specific conditions for WP:MUSIC. Instead of claiming bias, your best bet to get the article kept is to show that it fits those conditions. JoshuaZ 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My claim that the article should remain based upon the fact that artists on the label have completed national tours in the United States has yet to be disputed. I would also maintain that This Could Work Records Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city, as Minot, North Dakota has no other indie/punk record labels. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bojidar Spassov

edit

nn 16 y.o. saxophonist. Several Google hits for the composer Bojidar Spassov (b. 1949, Sofia) but nothing for The Falshimentos. Gimboid13 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note After I posted the above, the author added the following to the discussion page of the AfD: "More than one person can use the usernamebulgariangladiator and more than one person may be named bojidar spassov." Remarkable coincidence. Fan1967 16:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE (per WP:SNOW and probable CSD A7 candidate anyway). Rd232 talk 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley college debating

edit

Original PROD by Kungfuadam as non-notable; contested by editors. Delete as non-notable club, and as WP:VSCA-magnet for its members, apparently. Kinu t/c 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The club has also created a page about Han Ming, one of their so-called rivals, which should be speedied as an attack page, or at the least a non-notable bio. --Kinu t/c 05:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comic sucks

edit

Non-notable webcomic, fails WP:WEB, Alexa ranking is 118,172[16] --TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect; if needed, anyone can get the original content from the history and merge it where it is useful. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games obsession

edit

A poorly-written article already better covered by Game addiction. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, sock or no sock. Mailer Diablo 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Pwnage

edit

Non notable fan cruft. waffle iron 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
  • Strong Keep Regardless of what the show is or how people feel about it as a fan people deserve the right to know about what they like. —This unsigned comment was added by Kennansoft (talk • contribs) .
Of course, but that does not mean everything with fans belongs on Wikipedia… (not that I'm implying that Pure Pwnage doesn't belong) --HeteroZellous 04:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Pure Pwnage and merge the episode list into it. It seems somewhat notable, and an Alexa of 34k isn't too bad. I would like to see more references of its notability in the article, though, such as the major tech blogs and gaming sites mentioned by Jester. (Note: While I'm not a gamer, I've watched a few episodes of this in the past, and I feel somewhat ashamed about it...) --Kinu t/c 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The show is very popular, and many people go to the Wikipedia entry for clarification of terms that they use. The Scene is not voted for deletion, and Pure Pwnage is most likely more popular. The reason stated above, Non notable fan cruft is incorrect, it is notable, and is not fan cruft. --robz0r 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's up to US $4,150.00 with a total of 98 bids, and over 224,000 hits. For a lock of the main characters HAIR!? If this is anything to go by, the show has more than a few fans, and is definately notable. Silent War 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, although I have to admit I haven't read the article yet, therefore don't know the quality, Pure Pwnage is too big a phenomenon not to be in Wikipedia. If it's deleted I'm sure people will want to re-add it within no time. Retodon8 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pure Pwnage is very popular worldwide and too many people watch it to consider this for deletion. The page is a great point of reference for people interested in today's gaming culture. --CharlieA 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has 37 contributions [18] ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^^^Meaning what? Is my opinion less valid than yours? What gives you the right to undermine my opinion?--CharlieA 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uhhhhhhhhhhhh duh.com, nooob. only liek users with > 999999989 edits are allowed to vote. roflol noob. --Anaraug 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appendum to my comment - I think it's probably worth contrasting Pure Pwnage to something like Mega 64. It has a DVD out and worked with Ubisoft on projects. This article is short and to the point and their list is a real list, not a supplimental article. --waffle iron 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Response*Sorry? It hasn't stopped people on this site before. While series like Star Wars and Dr. Who are amidtablly more notable than Pure Pwnage, the fact is they have larger articles and sub articles than World War II on this site (which, is funny since the first has its own Wiki). This goes for a whole bunch of other series as well. Like for example, before I would get fansubs for Gundam Seed Destiny, I'd check here first for the spoiler's. And they were fairly extensive. So, unless you are going to attempt to be a great champion of the wiki and nominate every single one of those article for deletion, I think the PP article is fine and short in comparion.BrendantheJedi 04:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went though and looked a about 6 people's number of contributions... 5 of the 6 had more then 100. 3 had more then 1000. 1 had more then 5000. ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Does that have to do with anything? The last time a I checked, this was encyclopedia could edit. So if if 20 people with only mild contributions vote to keep this, we are somehow viewed lower in opinion to one man with 1000? You stop focusing on the rep of the poster, and look more the value of the post itself. Even if someone with 2 trillion contributions says something totally stupid, that statement is still foolish. BrendantheJedi 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with an abnormally low edit count is (purportedly) less likely to be knowledgeable about wikipedia policies and/or a sockpuppet used to vote multiple times. This isn't a vote anyways and only their 'vote' is discounted, not their view, opinion, or evidence. Of course, I am one of the people in the 100-999 range of edits under this user so take that however you will. If you care to know I have only heard of this in passing and only seen one episode. It was the googles that did it for me. kotepho 05:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, you could be a long time lurker. Also sometimes I've made edits not with my account. In any case I know what cruft is, but I also know as long as their is at least 125 articles about mobiles suits, I don't think the cruft is well enfornced. I know wiki prefers to look at itself as encyclopedic, but this in an encyclopedia that be edited on the internet. Because of the demographic, the articles on this site may lean towards geekish followings. They can only go after smaller things like Pure Pwnage on occasion, since they still feel the futile need to look sophisticated. But we all know if they tried to cut down on articles on Star Wars, they attept would most certainly fail (unless of course it was a character article about obscure person in the fandom).-BrendantheJedi 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a site; Pure Pwnage is a popular webisode series. By the way, how are the numbers of contributions made by these users relevant to this discussion? --HeteroZellous 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first episode was released in May 2004, almost two years ago. Honestly, is that really too new? --HeteroZellous 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too new a subject? Wikipedia is so useful because it is quick-- "wiki wiki." Moreover, how exactly does deleting a largly contributed article benifit Wikipedia? Deleting content is an awful way to promote the effort-- and I can't see how any of the arguments for deletion have justified such a "last resortish" kind of move.66.157.30.31 13:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I seem to have forgotten to add the comparison details in my earlier vote, so here goes: Not only was there an already large fanbase during the previous AfD almost three months ago, but it's grown considerably since with another episode released. The <200K for Google has jumped to around 300K (I just picked up 312K), Alexa ranking's jumped from 39K to 34K, his then-month-old MySpace has gone from 3K friends to almost 10K[19], and the forum members of 11K to 15K.[20] And presently, a TeamSpeak chat with the crew will be held on Saturday; I expect 300+ participants like it's happened before. Also, as said above, a lock of the protagonist's hair is going for more than US$4,000, now with over 100 bids and 225K hits, even after a bunch of relatively high bids were taken down for more safety from fake ones.[21] --HeteroZellous 01:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Extremely notable, if I recall accurately, there are already plans for the show to be picked up by a television network. Just about everyone I know has at least heard of it. --Anaraug 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.Highly notable series. Well talked about. I mean this arguably as well noted as YTMND or Penny Arcade. I don't see anyone deleting those. The FPS Doug video is reason enough. BrendantheJedi 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Arbusto 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BOOM HEADSHOT to all delete votes ;-) but seriously, strong keep. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't know a single male aged 14-18 who does not know of Pure Pwnage. To say that it's not notable is simply naive. 25 March 2006 —This unsigned comment was added by 144.132.206.106 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep Even if you did delete it someone would probably put it back (me) selmaelbeyati 10:02 25 March 2006
  • Strong Keep Boom Headshot! ;) michael talk 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Popular and long-running show. The episodes list contains indispensible trivia, but should be merged into the main entry JVC 21:53, 25 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Strong keep considering how long the article is, and the fact they're working on a tv show, plus other reasons above. Wikioogle=world take over 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep keep it, its a very important online show, they have popularized and invented such phrases as "Pwned"(or "pwn"), "n00b" and most importantly "BOOM HEADSHOT!!" Thrawst 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Thrawst (talk • contribs) .[reply]
  • Keep It's huge in the gaming community, and has created some catchphrases, too.... keep the main article, and merge the episode list with the main article. -Outsidethewall 07:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Its articles like this that make wikipedia worth coming too as i see wikipedia made up off two parts. Valuable historicle information that one would deem necessary for a regular encyclopedia and also valuable trivia for things such as this, Pure Pwnage. Keep this page, it contains more info than the actual webpage. -147.10.248.213 10:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SWATjester. --Rory096 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Popular Series - provides insight into terms and definitions - Fancruft debatable - and even if fancruft - not poorly written, which is criteria for deletion. - Quote from It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and POV - all things that lead to deletion. --wickahead 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Keep - What the heck?? This is an extremely notable site, I go to check in on it today and find it on AFD?? Staxringold 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found this page because I was linking to it from another article (Chicken Fried Radio). Merge the episode list into the page and keep.
  • Über Strong Keep ;-) - There are many good reasons listed above. It's very popular with many computer gaming communities, it's been around for quite a while now, and the amount of content is quite acceptable compared to the collections of pages for other shows on Wikipedia. There is no good reason to delete it, nor merge the episode list. Jasp 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is a popular web series, similar to things like Red vs Blue or any of the multitude of gaming webcomics. Fancruft may or may not exist, but the article is valid and should be kept. Bowmanjj 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pavlina

edit

Possible Vanity Page/Advertising. No real content whatsoever/ Geedubber 06:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your examples are not comparable. Instapundit, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post are not small time niche blogs blogs. If, and when, he reaches as large an audience as these blogger then he can have a page. Wikipedia is not a crystalball.--Geedubber 05:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Vic

edit

Unable to find any source for this. No idea which Victoria it refers to. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been linked to there but the editor who created the article has been editing articles at Notre Dame University, which is in Indiana and it also has a Victoria. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think there are a lot more penguins in Vic, Australia than any other Victoria, and the existence of this character (also mentioned at penguin) is verified by [22], but I don't think this campaign is particularly notable. JPD (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imia Fleur Edwards

edit

Non-notable, despite the entry's proclamations. Her only IMDB credit is this - [23].

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
—Encephalon 06:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mikey Sweet

edit

Obvious hoax. Zero google hits. Prod contested without comment.Henning Makholm 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7 (Userfied). kingboyk 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan MacDonald

edit

Vanity. OK, he's a stuntman, but he's still trying to break into the industry: "In Dan's attempt to break into the Film Industry he's been signed with Talent 2NV, a background agency for while he is still in his studies; which are schedueled to end September 06." Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can actually give you the sources for all of this information. Not just from myself but those who know me. I am trying to break into the industry of not just student films and web based films. My movies and movies of others I have been in are known and do have a following. Especially in Cape Breton. If there is any information that you find questionable please tell me and I'll give you the proof of its authenticity. DanMacDonald\talk
Response to comment. It's not a matter of authenticity, but notability. Literally tens of thousands of aspiring artists, actors, musicians, directors, et cetera create Wikipedia pages for themselves. While all the information therein may be factual, the vast majority of self-created pages are simply not notable from an encyclopedic viewpoint. For an actor or stuntman, you're going to need several major movie credits (i.e. not student/web films, and not just as an extra) before being deemed worthy of inclusion. StarryEyes 12:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, not notable enough per nom. feydey 07:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as userification has already happened. His one imdb credit is as an "onlooker" for an upcoming film, which simply does not meet the criteria for notability.. StarryEyes 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please, vanity, non-notable. Young Mr. MacDonald's sole contributions are that page and a few vanity insertions (i.e. including himself in a list of "famous" people from his hometown), which I see ol' Starry has taken the pleasure of erasing. Delete his pictures, too. Bottom line: this is not the place for self-promotion. Raggaga 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Que Huong Food Products

edit

Appears to be an advertisement for a business, not an encyclopedic article Mary Read 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xhref

edit

This is nothing more than blatant marketing for a company and a black SEO one at that. asmodai 08:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing. "Black SEO" refers to "black hat search engine optimization". Catamorphism 02:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete to keep it secret... - Liberatore(T) 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Sigma

edit

Delete: No information given about notability and Google does not turn up anything of note. Seems like something made up in school one day. Crystallina 09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs where the title repeats itself

edit

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is list at its cruftiest. Is there any foreseeable use to this page? "Well, I like Wikipedia OK...but what I was really looking for is a list of songs where the title repeats itself, and they didn't have it." Pardon my sarcasm, but really I find even the very idea of this page laughable. Yes, it is factual and no, Wikipedia is not paper, but this is an encyclopedia, and all encyclopedias need to distinguish between worthwhile topics and extreme trivialities lest the signal-to-noise ratio surge towards infinity. StarryEyes 09:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Barbican Estate. kingboyk 13:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbican, London

edit

Duplicates existing articles Pjc51 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7 (for the second time). kingboyk 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Prendergast

edit

Vanity. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Conde

edit

I don't know whether or not this person is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but what I know is that the article is useless. Spam, full of useless trivia. Delete unless rewritten. (Originally nominated for speedy deletion, but I decided to list it here to give it a chance.) - Mike Rosoft 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly also vanity now. LookNorth 16:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Oak

edit

Non-notable tree. The article does not assert the significance of the tree, and no proper Google hits except WP and mirrors. The prod was removed without comment, so it ends up here. Robin Johnson 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. I don't think that protecting this against recreation is neccesary just yet, since that is something we usually do when someone consistently recreates it. That does not seem to be the case here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 4

edit

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only source of information in the article is the IMDB page which hasn't been updated in almost 2 years. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator simply commented out an old AFD and started a new one in the same page. This is actually the 3rd nomination for the article. For previous AFDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination). Blimey O'Riley, what a mess (in the past I mean, not the current nom's fault)! This is actually nomination number 4 or greater:

Page has been deleted 3 times previously: 

    * 12:35, 12 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Terminator 4" (nonsense)
    * 00:26, 12 January 2006 EdwinHJ deleted "Terminator 4" (patent nonsense)
    * 02:41, 30 September 2005 Zscout370 deleted "Terminator 4" (dude, this was an attack page, no need for a AFD.)

--Kingboyk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matsumoto Marika

edit

*Delete As unverifiable. (eg. how many of those google hits refer to this Matsumoto Marika?) Marcus22 15:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just expanded it with the info on the Japanese page. After this AfD is over (if the page still exists) the page will need to be moved to Marika Matsumoto in keeping with WP:MOS-JA. --日本穣 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major expansion makes this a worthwhile article on a noteworthy person. Fg2 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasSpeedily redirected to Gocta Cataracts.  (aeropagitica)  15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gocta

edit

This stub duplicates Gocta Cataracts. – Jondor 13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Go

edit

There are some links here, but I want discussion as this was already voted delete once before. Alba

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Enochlau as db-author. -- JLaTondre 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pull it

edit

This is not an article. It's just a comment made by the leaser of the World Trade Center building number 7. The term "pull it' is not used by the controlled demolition industry, as this "article" would like you to believe. We already have an article on the person who stated this at Larry Silverstein, so this is not only a non article, but a POV fork as well. Delete.--MONGO 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could always create Category:Articles that lack 9/11 conspiracy theories. Believe me, it won't even be ten percent of the size of Category:Living people. StarryEyes 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here it is: Category:Articles lacking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Start putting things in! Weregerbil 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean Category:Articles requiring attention because they lack 9/11 conspiracy theories? --Deville (Talk) 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no people there to "pull out", they where all evacuated already, firefighters included. I taged the article for speedie delete.--Striver 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he was speaking spontaneously and wasn't making much sense anyway. The whole conspiracy theory depends on Silverstein revealing the plot in public once and then never mentioning it again. Thanks for the speedy tag. ProhibitOnions 10:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOTOREDE

edit

No proof this ever existed as an actual JBS committee in article, except as a sketchy reference by critics of JBS Dominick (TALK) 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost: Coagulation

edit

NN machinima production. Possible vanity (may have been created shortly after series begun), but I have little proof of that. If it is notable, it needs to be proven. Drat (Talk) 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasSpeedily deleted as per author's request.  (aeropagitica)  16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St John the Evengelist School (Silver Spring, Maryland)

edit

I created this page poorly and I even spelled the title wrong. Just put it out of its misery. Vint 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Child

edit

Vanity, Wrong Information and against policies. —This unsigned comment was added by Jameslittle (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 Deleted by The Epopt. -- JLaTondre 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Versus (Fanfilm)

edit

"Versus is a Star Wars fanfilm". Google search on it seems to show it being discussed in star wars or fan film message boards, no place else. Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse Of Ra

edit

Delete as NN game and advertisement. I had originally {{prod}}'ed this article for the same reason, but the author has since edited the article without removing the {{prod}} tag. Assuming that the edits were intended to improve the article and contest proposed deletion, I've removed the {{prod}} tag and moved to AfD. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Gator1 with summary of fails to assert importance and more like patent nonsense. -- JLaTondre 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sethcorps

edit

Non-notable website. No alexa ranking. Maxamegalon2000 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hoyt

edit

Two non-notable bios in one article. Delete unless notability information comes to light. GTBacchus(talk) 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination (WP:BIO x2) Politepunk 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ... and twice {{nn-bio}}, so tagged. Sandstein 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as to the first Robert Hoyt, who appears quite well-known and well-published in the space technology community, see [32] for examples of his work, [33] for evidence he is viewed as notable in the field. Monicasdude 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stub with no content. If someone wants to write an article about the space tethers Robert Hoyt that actually has some content in it and assert notability about him, then fine, but this isn't it. Considered as a stub, it lacks sufficient content to be kept. It is standard to delete stubs that have almost no facts in them about the subject. They should be created when there is more content. And finally, this isn't an article OR a stub in its current form. It's a disambig page for 2 articles which don't exist. Slowmover 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ManBeer

edit

Claims to be non-notable beer, no google hits, does it even exist? Title has slight scent of possible hoax MartinRe 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Madden

edit

The one scene of the single movie this guy is in was cut. Clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mongovan

edit

To me, this article appears to be nothing more than a fluff piece for a person who doesn't meet WP:BIO, as he is a high school coach, entrepreneur, and vice president of the state version of the USATF. PROD was contested claiming that he is a "track and field legend" (a vague descriptor) but I am unable to find anything non-trivial to back that up from Google, Lexis, or Proquest searches. For my money, delete. --Kinu t/c 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. If a talking semi-alcoholic monkey who is pals with Jimmy Saville isn't patent nonsense, I don't know what is. kingboyk 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bubabaah

edit

vanity nonsense ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an uncontroversial WP:CSD case - Speedy Delete for me. Politepunk 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep schools for organic growth. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serangoon Secondary School

edit

non notable school ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UP TO YOU Toronto

edit

As far as I can tell, this is an advertisement for a non-notable store. {{prod}} was removed. dcandeto 17:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing included shows legitimacy of store and its notable presence in Toronto. Overturn ruling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentik (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 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobaflex

edit

Article is blatently copied from http://umusic.ca/bobaflex/ This article is simply a posting of the groups info page, which is a possible copyright violation. Even if permission was given for this article to be copied, it does not explain the topic in an encyclopedic format, it sounds like a magazine article. rmosler 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum invasion

edit

Belongs in Wiktionary, rest of article is just vanity and other nonsense. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Henning

edit

Bio. Notability is borderline to say the least. As the only edit by user:GTHwrestler, assume vanity. -- RHaworth 18:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold as the Clay

edit

Do we really need a page for an album that doesn't even exist yet? There are no verifiable sources for this. Delete --Hetar 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Hetar 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, it is just due to be release in a few months. Sources for this information just became available a few days ago. As more information about this album is released the article will be further fleshed out from a stub. --Estanton 18:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources just became available, how about citing them for us? --Hetar 18:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added that source (http://www.shock.com.au/news/news_item.asp?News_ID=532). Since the Bad Religion entry already included a dead link to this entry I thought it would make sense to create a stub for that entry. --Estanton 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a fake album at this point, this album is past the rumour point and is upcoming release now. I don't see any point in killing this article just to have it recreated in a few months. I know the article is only a stub at the moment, but there's not that much verifiable information out there at this time. Hopefully the actual labels will release information shortly about the release which would shore up the information. I know this album has yet to be released but why not have a stub to link to the dead links in the Bad Religion article regarding this forthcoming release? --Estanton 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of illegitimates

edit

The text of this article mentions that "illegitimate" isn't a recognized category in the United States anymore and people born out-of-wedlock are now granted the same rights as those born in wedlock, and yet it proceeds to identify certain people, such as Oprah Winfrey, Eric Clapton, Marilyn Monroe, and Eartha Kitt, as "illegitimates". That doesn't make much sense. How can they be "illegitimates" when they are from a country that doesn't recognize the concept? Also, the reference to them as "illegitimates" seems to be without any verification. Where have these individuals ever been referred to as "illegitimates"? Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be based on verifiable sources? I have never heard any of these individuals termed "illegitimates", and I have never heard of Eva Peron being termed an "illegitimate". This article seems completely unnecessary and completely without verifiction. If one wants to mention that these respective individuals were born out-of-wedlock, wouldn't it be preferable to mention that on their respective pages? What use does this page serve? -- Andrew Parodi 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Retain this article. It has been commented that the purpose of this article is unclear. Granted; this list is so far barely a stub, and so its purpose may at this point be difficult to discern. But, then, there are many lists on the Wikipedia — what purpose do they serve? What, for instance, is the purpose of a List of poets or of novelists?
It has been objected that the criteria for inclusion in this article are imperfectly defined. True, the criteria do need to be more explicitly refined. But are they, even now, truly more ambiguous than those for inclusion on a list of poets? Who can provide a universally embraced definition of "poetry"?
It has been suggested that a list of persons born illegitimate could end up including a major part of the world's population. Not really. The overwhelming mass of humanity, whether fairly or not, are never deemed sufficiently notable for inclusion in any list.
Research begins with 1. the framing of hypotheses, and 2. the accumulation of data. By the nature of things, one cannot anticipate with any certainty where research will lead. If it were possible to do so, any research at all would be superfluous. What, for example, could ever be the point to compiling a list of suicides? What would be the point of such a gruesome undertaking? And yet suicide was the subject of ground-breaking sociological research by Émile Durkheim (Suicide, 1897), and — yes — Wikipedia is home to a List of suicides.
It has been observed that there may currently be individuals on the List of illegitimates who do not belong there. I suspect that that is indeed the case. I will posit that no name should appear in the list that cannot definitely be documented as belonging there. Only those individuals should be listed who, in the circumstances of their time and place, were deemed at birth by their society to be "illegitimate."
If the purpose of this list is still to make itself manifest, there at least is one thing that it is not. This list is not intended as a public pillory to shame those whose names appear on it.
So, why set up such a list? First, it may be worth noting that, given current trends, this will be a self-limiting list: the concept of "illegitimacy" — I will venture to say this, at the risk of disclosing a personal bias — appears to be dying out, at least in the demonstrably more enlightened quarters of the world. But until recent times it was widespread, and it did cause incalculable anguish to those touched by it. Though I am by no means an expert on their life stories, I am convinced that it was a grim presence througout the lives of Leonardo da Vinci and of Lawrence of Arabia, and of countless other less prominent individuals.
I believe that a useful purpose can be served by this list, and that it should have a chance to demonstrate that usefulness before its life is so early snuffed out. logologist|Talk 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I'll make one response to this, and then that will be it (otherwise, a debate would go and on). At the very least you should have verifiction of people having been referred to as "illegitimates". You have none. No such category of "illegitimates" exists anymore in this country. (Further, there is perhaps the risk that publishing such a list may constitute slander. I doubt that Oprah Winfrey, Eric Clapton, and Eartha Kitt would be too happy to know they are listed as "illegitimates".) And isn't there already an article that discusses the concept and the places where the concept is still viable? It seems to me that should be sufficient. I fear I shouldn't say this, but I'm going to: this list seems about as appropriate as making a list called "A list of Negros", and then listing various people of African descent. And I wholeheartedly agree that there is little use of a list that would include a great deal of the world's population. And if you believe that being born out-of-wedlock was of importance for Lawrence of Arabia and da Vinci, then wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply include that observation/opinion in their respective articles? -- Andrew Parodi 08:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP does have Category:African Americans but that's a name that is generally inoffensive, whereas I don't think many so-called "illegitimate" people like the word—which after all has an inherent pejorative quality. Esquizombi 08:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response (for Esquizombi). Mind you, it is not a "list" of African Americans, but a category -- a category which is broken down into several different articles. Further, it uses a term ("African American") that virtually no one is offended by. The category is not "Category:Negros" is it? Lastly, the classification of "African American" is viable and is not prejorative. The classification of "negro" is not viable and is prejorative (or at least referring to an individual in such a way is likely to be perceived as such), and any such list would most likely be met with opposition as well. (I respond in order to clarify what I was attempting to say, as I realize the analogy I am attempting to draw is perhaps controversial. But I think most here understand what I'm saying.) -- Andrew Parodi 11:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we're mostly in agreement. Esquizombi 11:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: So... do those who object to the "pejorative" term, "illegitimacy," plan to expunge it where it explicitly occurs in the articles on Leone Battista Alberti, Eric Clapton, Edward Gordon Craig, Eamon de Valera, Alexander Hamilton, Henry II of Castile, Alois Hitler, Violette Leduc, Leonardo da Vinci, Ramsay MacDonald, Shaka, James Smithson, Maria Walpole and William the Conqueror? logologist|Talk 20:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One answer Well, with regard to the Eamon de Valera article: no. The Republic of Ireland has retroactively abolished illegitimacy, and indeed has passed legislation explicitly outlawing discrimination based on the circumstances of a person's birth. However, de Valera lived before this happened and as can be seen from the article, his illegitimate status did impact on his life, and is therefore very relevant to the article. And the article is the proper place for it to be addressed, not in a meaningless list of people born out of wedlock. Bastun 14:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, is useless. There is no point having this list. You can not (ad should not, thats different matter anyways) list all people born out of wedlock. --Soumyasch 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who suggested listing all people born out of wedlock? Does the List of suicides name all people known to have committed suicide? logologist|Talk 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, this is not a list of "persons born out of wedlock" but a list of persons who at birth were deemed by their societies to be "illegitimate." (For the distinction, see the List of illegitimates discussion page.) logologist|Talk 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There is nothing on Eric Clapton's page that says that he was deemed by his society as being "illegitimate" at birth. People are no longer "deemed" illegitimate. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that perhaps English is your second language or there is some other factor involved that is impeding your ability to grasp the nuance in what the rest of us are saying. To refer to someone as "an illegitimate" these days is highly offensive and very retrograde. -- Andrew Parodi 01:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Clapton states that "Eric Clapton was born in Ripley, Surrey, England, UK, as the illegitimate son of 16-year-old Patricia Molly Clapton and Edward Walter Fryer, a 24-year-old Canadian pilot. Fryer returned to his wife in Canada prior to Clapton's birth." If the information about Clapton's "illegitimacy" is inaccurate, it should be corrected and Clapton delisted.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "illegitimate," used as a noun, as "a person recognized or looked upon as illegitimate." logologist|Talk 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. You seem unable to grasp that the term "illegitimate" is not legally viable anymore in this country (the USA), nor any other English speaking country of which I am aware (England, Australia, New Zealand, etc). Therefore, to describe someone as "illegitimate" simply means that they were born out-of-wedlock, not that they are denied any rights. No one as of yet who has voted on this page can see any use in maintaining a list of people born out-of-wedlock when the very concept hardly holds any meaning anymore in most developed nations and all English speaking nations. Wikipedia's rules hold that an issue or person must be "notable" in order to warrant a page, and most of us agree that this is not an issue of notable importance.
Has Eric Clapton's out-of-wedlock birth ever been made an issue of consequence for him? Has he ever been denied any rights because of his out-of-wedlock birth? Has there ever been an OFFICIAL declaration by the country of his birth that has established and labled him as "an illegitimate"? Most likely, no. The issue of his out-of-wedlock ("illegitimate") birth is of little to no importance and is treated in his biography in passing and is not a major factor in his life. If the issue of his out-of-wedlock birth is hardly an issue on his own article, then what use is served by referencing it on a page that defines him in terms of an issue that has little to no importance on his main biographical page? I mean, what purpose is there is making lists that group people together based on issues that hardly have any meaning to the respective people or to larger society? Like someone said earlier, we may as well have a list called "List of people with red hair" (a list that would include me, which I'm sure no one cares about anyway; hey, maybe we could make a list called "List of people with red hair who were born illegitimate", another list I could be included on -- another list that would serve no purpose). -- Andrew Parodi 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. In regard to the Random House Dictionary definition of "illegitimate" as "a person recognized or looked upon as illegitimate" -- this definition does not specifically refer to a person of an out-of-wedlock birth. People can be viewed as "illegitimate" for any number of reasons. To reference the page that led me to this page: Eva Peron's power was viewed by some as "illegitimate". Mind you, Eva Peron's power wasn't viewed by some as being "illegitimate" because of her out-of-wedlock birth, but because she was not a formally elected official. In other words, the term "illegitimate" can refer to many, many things, and therefore is incredibly vague and a very weak premise upon which to base an article. -- Andrew Parodi 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me as to Clapton; I've delisted him. Evita is gone, too.
As to the Random House Dictionary, I'm afraid its definition of the noun usage for "illegitimate" does refer to a person born out of wedlock, rather than to one who usurps or misuses political power. The full entry reads: "a person recognized or looked upon as illegitimate; a bastard." I omitted the last two words before, because we're already having problems enough with unfortunate colloquial connotations. logologist|Talk 03:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing Evita from the list, and I think that it is best that you removed Eric Clapton as well. About the Random House definition, that may be that they clarify the term "illegitimate" in relation to someone born out-of-wedlock, but that doesn't change the fact that the term "illegitimate" can pertain to many different situations and circumstances. This page does not clarify the different meanings of the word, the different ways the word has been used, nor does it qualify that within this list the only people who are termed "illegitimates" are people born out-of-wedlock.

Further, an argument could feasibly be made that referring to a person as an "illegitimate" is within the realms of hate speech. Could you imagine if someone made a list called "A list of niggers"? I mean, you could probably compile a list of notable African Americans who have been referred to as "niggers" at some point in their lives, and thereby argue that because these people have been referred to by that word then the list is justified. But the word "nigger" is largely regarded as hate speech, and any list called "A list of niggers" would be perceived as a list endorsing the use of that word and endorsing the discrimination synonymous with that word -- and therefore such a list would be met with resistance.

I hesitate to use that n-word because it is so controversial, but to be frank, I find it as offensive to refer to a person as an "illegitimate" as I find it to refer to a person as a "nigger". As an earlier editor mentioned, this list is probably best to be removed because otherwise it will create a vandalism and POV nightmare. Thank you for removing Evita and Eric Clapton. Now if only I could get you to see that the entire page itself should be removed.... -- Andrew Parodi 04:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My present thinking would be to retain the list only for historic, non-living persons who were so termed in their lifetimes; and only in the same way as with a list of martyrs. For they were martyrs, of a sort. logologist|Talk 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could similar arguments — vandalism risk, possibly uncertain importance to an individual's notability — not be made for deleting other existing lists as well, for example, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people? logologist|Talk 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. To my understanding, people who are included on the "list of gay, lesbian, bisexual," are people who are self-identified as such. For example, it is widely believed that Jody Foster is a lesbian or bisexual. Reference to this is made on her biography, but to my knowledge she is not included on any GLBT list because she herself has not self-identified ("come out of the closet") as gay or bisexual. And I should add, the list is called "list of gay, lesbian or bisexual people". It is not called a "list of fags, dykes, and the confused". -- Andrew Parodi 07:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I daresay not all the individuals appearing on the List of saints self-identified as saints, either. And if "illegitimacy" is a dirty word that is banned from the Wikipedia, then it should presumably be removed everywhere that it appears in the sense under discussion. logologist|Talk 07:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In most situations, saints are designated by the given church. In most situations, lesbians, gays and bisexuals of their own volition identify themselves as such. The two issues are nearly impossible to compare. -- Andrew Parodi 07:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the List of saints analogy is particularly inappropriate. Theologically speaking, anyone is capable of committing a mortal sin while they are still alive. Hence they can't self-identify. Durova 14:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely off-topic by now (so I won't develop this further), but I do think there are cases of some Hindu "holy men" declaring themselves saints. However, that doesn't seem to be the case in the Western religions. -- Andrew Parodi 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they can hope. The future St. Stanisław Kostka, a pious if rather neurotic young man, reputedly bequeathed a sum of money for his own future canonization. Anatopism 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with lists which list people without putting the issue in the proper cultural, legal and historical context. Why not just include a few paragraphs in the Illegitimacy article which does that, with actual references in each case to secondary sources which have discussed the question of each person's "illegitimacy" and what significance it had for their life and for how they were perceived by their contemporaries and by posterity? That would be interesting. u p p l a n d 07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: If you think lists like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people do not fit Wikipedia's guidelines, you're free to nominate those lists for deletion. What's up for debate here is whether List of illegitimates fits Wikipedia's guidelines, and that's unrelated to whether any other unrelated article does. Catamorphism 07:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the deletion of either list. logologist|Talk 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's no reason to mention other lists. Catamorphism 07:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the term "illegitimate" is not a legal term anymore, my opinion is that even renaming the list something like "List of historic figures stigmatized by illegitimate birth" is not sufficient. What is an "illegitimate birth"? The term no longer has legal meaning and is now relegated to the realm of colloquial use. Under today's standards, those same individuals would not suffer any legal ramifications due to circumstances of their birth. If the article is kept and renamed, I think a better title would be something like, "Historical figures stigmatized by the categorization of 'illegitimate'".
Yes, I realize that's a very long and cumbersome title (which may be another reason the article is better to be deleted). But the important distinction such a title change would make is that it would put the focus on society's bigotry, rather than on the state of an infant. The problem was not that these people were born to unwed parents, but that society stigmatized them for being born to unwed parents. I know that sounds POV, but in reality is it not because today's absence of illegitimacy laws makes it evident that the concept was deemed inappropriate by the courts, was a "problem", and was therefore abolished. -- Andrew Parodi 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Wikipedia, somewhat to my surprise, actually does have lists of persons who have suffered from schizophrenia and from diabetes mellitus. The first ("Notable people thought to be affected by schizophrenia") appears within the "Schizophrenia" article. The second is a free-standing "List of diabetics."

What about a title like List of historic "illegitimates," with the word "illegitimates" placed in quotes to indicate present-day doubts about the legitimacy of that term itself, whenever it may have been applied? The article might list only deceased individuals, and only from periods when the category was legally considered valid throughout the individual's lifetime. Anatopism 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The use of parenthesis, in my opinion, makes the word less offensive because it is less likely to be interpreted as an advocacy of the term and designation. However, to my knowledge "diabetics" have never been denied rights and have not endured the stigma that those born out-of-wedlock have had to endure, so on some levels the comparison isn't precise. -- Andrew Parodi 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, improper listing. Ashibaka tock 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khalistan

edit

Anmol.2k4 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this page for deletion because it is written with a point of view , excessive use of unreliable sources.and the title "Khalistan" is wrong for the topic because "Khalistan" does not exist,lack of support from resident Punjabi's and Sikhs in India, but there was a "Movement for Khalistan" and that is the right title for the topic, and i think this whole article "a new name" should be rewritten with the help of people from sikh community "in" India and other Indians, because this topic is related to politics/people of India.We all should understand Khalistan is not a political entity and having a article is not justified, Microsoft Encarta and Britannic encyclopedia don't have an article known as "Khalistan" but they do have articles on the movement that took place decades back, and i think there are also copyright issues involved with this article because big parts of this article are written on other peoples research. Many reliable sources are used to show "one side" of their view on the topic, there are also indications that organisations banned by US and EU are involved in providing their research on the movement.I am a strong supporter to have a stub on this topic , but im afraid that such articles on wikipedia have become mouthpieces for organisation which are known for disrupting peace (assassination of one of india's prime minister, twin bomb blast in New Delhi on the eve of Diwali) in Indian sub continent.

Anmol.2k4 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: The article needs cleanup, not deletion. The movement, and their proposed homeland is well known, and the article seems to have a long list of citations. It is true that this article is perhaps biased, but AfD is not the place to remove bias. Discussion and consensus at the article page is the proper way to do so. Thanks. --Ragib 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. While I am not averse to moving it to "Movement for Khalistan" I believe it is not an appropriate title. The article needs some clean-up and NPOVification, though. --Gurubrahma 18:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. AfD is not for POV problems. David Sneek 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a valid term, even if not an officially recognized entity (see Kurdistan, for example). If the article is too POV, or there are copyright issues, that requires cleanup, not deletion. Whether or not one likes the politics of some supporters has no place in the discussion. Fan1967 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as Ragib said, it needs cleanup. If you think the article has copyright issues then please tell us specifically which text is the problem and where is the original source that its copied from? (i.e. a url or something). --Spundun 19:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: I've worked with User:Zafarnamah to get the article cleaned up significantly from its original form (check out the talk page, and history). There is an undeniable bias in the article (i.e. it is pro-Khalistan) and it does little to criticise the Khalistani militants. However, this is absolutely no reason to delete the article, and the name is perfectly acceptable too. Anmol.2k4 seems to think that bias problems in an article with such depth are easy to fix - they're not. I've on several occasions asked Indian Wikipedians to help in showing an anti-Khalistan view, but none have edited it. This issue is extremely complex, and plagued by misreporting on both sides (the stifling of media in Punjab did nothing to help this). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope one good effect of this is that more people contribute to the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knight_Online:_Damage_Mages

edit

Delete. Vanity page. EvilOverlordX 18:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. W.marsh 19:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Ciana

edit

Not notable, the entire part consisted of her being killed on a transporter pad. She doesn't even have a page on memory-alpha. Philip Stevens 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kominas

edit

Only real claim to notability is appearence on an MTV spinoff. Fightindaman 19:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being taught about at a University and being on MTV (even if it is a spin off) seems like plenty of notability Lyo 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--punjabifire 18:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC) *Keep Adding sources involves linking in a language I am not familiar with. If any would like to help me, I could send them the proper websites. Though a google search will pull up everything but the MTV interview, which is set to air on Monday. http://www.uark.edu/misc/honors/honors.info/colloquiaSpring2006.htm[reply]

I'd hardly call Muslim Wake Up! fringe press. A stop on their website confirms their notability. http://www.muslimwakeup.com

  • Comment The problem with MWU might be that it is largely blog host, and WP:MUSIC discounts such coverage. However the band might meet the qualification "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre." Esquizombi 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But there is a diffrence between a personal blog and a blog that's in a news set up. Slashdot is set up similarly and can be called a blog but things getting posted there are still a big deal(ish). According to Alexa. Muslim wakeup is ranked 50,246. And while that is certainly not actuandingly high. It's not particularly low either.[37] Lyo 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect some content is already there. W.marsh 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonak

edit

He only appeared in one scene of one movie. Philip Stevens 19:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. It's been merged, so we're left with little choice but to redirect. -Splashtalk 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Sundernath

edit

not notable, no reliable source, only linked from one article Baba Louis 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppotron

edit

Previously Prod'd for the reasons of having no clear evidence of notability, and quite probably being advertising. Delete for the same reason. I also invite other users to take a look at the articles about their films that this user has created, as if this article goes, they most likely should as well. --InShaneee 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Philosophy

edit

Challenged PROD. Original research; a previous revision of the article said that the term was coined March 23, 2006, so it's clearly not encyclopedic. Catamorphism 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old version of the article - "The term “Open Source Philosophy” (also known as: The Intrinsic Open Source Philosophy) as defined in this way (a seperate yet similar concept to the philosophy of Open Source Culture) was coined by Bhaktivedanta Jolicoeur on March 23, 2006..." This article is about open source philosophy as construed by Bhaktivedanta Jolicoeur (whoever that is). If somebody wanted to write an article about "open source philosophy" in a different sense (though I'm not sure why that doesn't just go under open source), it would be easiest to start over completely, since this article is so inappropriate for Wikipedia. Catamorphism 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect to Open source. The essay contains opinions based on examples. If the essay had listed its sources of those opinions, it could have been a good start for a new article. However, there still is no substantial difference from Open source for the basic philosophy. — Dzonatas 15:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RDR2GeneralInfo

edit

Vanity page(?) OrbitOne 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sellstate Realty

edit

Blatant advertising, not sure if they otherwise meet WP:CORP. Elkman - (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw pong

edit

Contested prod. Taken here for consensus. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Verification trumps hearts. While the Savage article implies that this is used in common parlance, a single source isn't enough. Not to impune Dan's reputation, but responding to an anonymous email from "JACK OFF WANGS" isn't the best citation we could ask for. - brenneman{L} 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry pirate

edit

non-encyclopedic: (joke) sexual position, possible hoax. Was prod and prod2 but was cleared. RJFJR 21:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first and only edit; probable sock/meatpuppet. -Colin Kimbrell 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nn neologism. --Hetar 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; the sentence beginning "Queer and feminist critiques of the angry pirate narrative" implies this can't be anything but patent nonsense. Catamorphism 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this was my entry originally. there are entries for the angry pirate in every major online sexual and slang dictionary as well as the encyclopedia of sex. the drink recipes are widely available. the possibility that the angry pirate is entirely a joke is included as a parenthetical qualifier within the text, but there is no evidence to suggest that it isn't a "real" scenario as it's included on sites alongside many socially accepted sexual practices. regardless of its status as a scenario which is acted out in actuality, it is a socially relevant narrative described in detail on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of independent sites around the web. Perhaps recategorizing under "sexual urban legends" would suffice? Davidelliot
  • Delete, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angry_dragon and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arabian_goggles, among others. Widespread pop-culture use is the only thing that gets a fake sex act like Dirty Sanchez over the bar, and "Angry pirate" doesn't have that going for it. -Colin Kimbrell 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: Notable. This is a well-known term in may circles. Though no Dirty Sanchez it is also much more notable than something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angry_dragon. I have heard references to this from acquaintances living throughout the US who do not know each other (though I admit that this is not a sufficient basis for inclusion, it is what called my attention to the wrongfulness of this AFD). More centrally, though, this is a well-cited, well-researched and well-written article. We should not let it die just because certain editors have not personally heard of this term. Also above argument that "'Queer and feminist critiques of the angry pirate narrative' implies this can't be anything but patent nonsense" mis troubling as an argument. Maybe this one line is nonsense, added to an otherwise valid article (which this is) for gag vale -- the logical solution to this problem is seemingly to simply delete the disputed sentence, not vote to delete the entire article. Interestingstuffadder 16:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you said here.
  • The article is not well-cited. It doesn't include inline citations. Also, as neither Urban Dictionary nor The Encyclopedia of Sex meet our standards for sources, the article violates WP:NOR. There are no citations from legitimate sources (newspapers, reference books, etc.).
  • The article is not well-researched. It's basically just a dictionary definition of the term, and does not provide any additional information, such as the phrase's origin and localization, or notable examples of its use.
  • The article is not well-written. As you noted, almost half of it is a bunch of joke lines about "queer and feminist critiques of the angry pirate narrative" or the acidity of female ejaculate, which don't add any encyclopedic value. It's not even well-written from a technical standpoint, as it doesn't conform to the manual of style: the article's title is not bolded, it starts with a number rather than with text, internal wikilinks are treated as external links, etc.
To be honest, I find the article even less impressive than some of the deleted examples I mentioned earlier. -Colin Kimbrell 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patton Electronics

edit

No indication of meeting WP:CORP, written as an advertisement. Apparently speedied once already (see talk). Sandstein 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, on what basis do you assert it was "apparently" speedied? Glendonflowers 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the following 3rd-party articles about Patton:

-Glendonflowers 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please take another look. The spam links have been replaced with internal wiki links. Isn't the Patton page is comparable to the RAD page (which is not slated for deletion)? Are there substantial differences? If so, please advise. Glendonflowers 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please visit http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/105/16883. Here are some more external links pointing to Patton as a player in the marketplace...

http://whitepapers.businessweek.com/detail/ORG/948134608_119.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000239990-page.html http://www.mwcmc.org/mwcmcUserDetail.php?userID=281 http://local.yahoo.com/results?stx=%22patton+electronics%22&toggle=1&qry=%22patton+electronics%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&coei=UTF-8 http://www.thomasnet.com/heading.html?what=Enclosures%3A+Electronic&searchpos=25&cid=371639&heading=26070201&navsec=products http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/105/16883 http://www.capitol-college.edu/newsevents/8920_36.shtml http://www.motionnet.com/cgi-bin/search.exe?a=sc&no=11167 http://datafire.patton.com/ http://www.elsitech.com/customer/customer_casestudiesPatton.html http://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,39025945,60010883p-39000421q,00.htm

Is this enough web presence to qualify notabillity? Glendonflowers 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Th (letter)

edit

Looks likely to be an original idea, but Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ptcamn 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (defaults to keep); I have redirected as an action of regular editing. - Liberatore(T) 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Clark (guitarist)

edit

Non notable musician Dunstan 21:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Hanson

edit

non notable Dunstan 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all three - Liberatore(T) 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Jumbolina

edit

Probable hoax - unsourced and disputed tags have already been removed so bringing it here. Bundling related Cuthbert Wimbleshorne article in same Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am bundling a third article, Rowing at the 1956 Summer Olympics, by the same author, which mentions Jumbolina. ×Meegs 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I agree with you that this is a hoax, I can assure you that Kingston-upon-Thames at least is a perfectly real place. Gwernol 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hahahaha! If this does go to BJAODN (I vote Delete too by the way) then please copy this AFD comment along with it. BigBlueFish 22:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harivansh Chaturvedi

edit

Non notable. Article does not assert the reason as to why this person is notable, and other than his post, what accomplishments make him worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Ragib 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


i know H chaturvedi, he USED TO to write books & WAS involved in CPIM(communist party in india).
  • Weak keep can i vote in this ?? , i have started this article, this guy "H. Chaturvedi" is a very well known person in higher education in india and is head at many educational organisation, if i can vote then my vote will be to keep.11,400 entries are returned by google, that is strong.

Anmol.2k4 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Not entirely sure here, since churches have often been deleted if they are less than a hundred years old and not particularily large or unusual. But I feel that 5d-4k is beyond my discretion to call anything else than a "no consensus" when the arguument is one over notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Giles Presbyterian Church (Ottawa)

edit

Delete as non-notable. Ned Scott 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, that just kind of seems more like there's more of these articles to be nominated for AfD. Just because there are others like it doesn't mean it's any more notable. This church has been around for a while, maybe if we could get some history on it in the article. That might change my mind. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice? NICE?? you know, I try to keep an open mind here.. I try to see things from other people's perspectives.. but there is nothing NICE about that article at all. I'm not saying the topic at hand isn't nice, I'm saying it's an uninformative stub, with no useful information at all, even if the church it was talking about was significant. Other than saying "this existed" that article contributes NOTHING. nice??? find yourself a Welcome to Wikipedia message and read up on some of those articles.. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic cars

edit

Robotic cars are vehicles that will be able to drive themselves, apparently. Or maybe they aren't - we don't know because they don't exist. When they do, they may or may not exhibit the features listed, and they may or may not be called robotic cars. Probably beter to wait until they've been invented, I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — Mar. 30, '06 [12:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Encyclopaedia Dramatica

edit

There are no reliable third-party sources (see WP:V, Wikipedia:Reliable sources) which discuss this non-notable website. Quote from the policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

The content of this article is unverifiable, and any discussion of its content (i.e., the entire article right now) qualifies as original research. Delete as nn and unverifiable. Ashibaka tock 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we should abandon this AfD. I will take up the nomination. Delete as a non-notable website. Ifnord 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my mind again. I take back my withdrawal and am preparing to delete this as a clear violation of WP:V and WP:NOR unless a strong argument can be given against it. Ashibaka tock 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why don't you go to every AFD and write "abstain" as your vote. Lack of voter turnout is the reason for the whitehouse's problems. Oh and why should encyclopedia dramatica go? www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Bastardman Here is the most frequent contributor. He uses the name Bastardman Hardvice 06:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason I posted anything here is because the article is on my watchlist. I feel it is my duty to comment whenever an article on my watchlist is AfD'd. I was originally going to vote keep, but when I saw the nominator's reasons and ran my own Google search, I was not strongly swayed enough to vote delete, but did not wish to vote keep either. I'm not sure what your comments about voter turnout and Bastardman have to do with my vote. Hermione1980 00:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website. Any WP:RS issues should be taken up on the articles talk page. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regardless of previous AfDs -- ED is soooo oldmeme. Catamorphism 02:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Raul654 03:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's as notable as any other website featured on Wikipedia. --Aemilia 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because all the admins of and frequent editors of encyclopedia dramatica come to wikipedia under tons of names each and alter the article to promote the website. If it's kept, the article should be reduced to a much shorter article, like "encyclopedia dramatica contains non-serious articles, which on very rare occasion are funny." April Furs Day should be left in though. I wonder if 4chan will do it this year like last. A more significant reason for is moving is that the ___domain is encyclopedia not encyclopaedia, and there is no "ae" key on keyboards, so it needs to be renamed at least. DyslexicEditor 05:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you can back up that accusation sometime? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because all the admins of and frequent editors of encyclopedia dramatica come to wikipedia under tons of names each and alter the article to promote the website." Well you can say what you want, but we (the ED admins) have explicitly told our users, and other admins for that matter, not to troll the article or stack votes pertaining to AfDs etc. Take that as you will. -Drunkenlazybastard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.212.107 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said a lot and I don't know which you refer to. I first said that many of the keep votes and edits on the article promoting the site are from ED admins and frequent contributors--you are one badlydrawnjeff (admin and frequent contributor to ED) so you proved that. Maybe you're referring to the fact that your site is rarely funny, well that's more of an opinion, not accusation. April Furs day? Well... hmm.. DyslexicEditor 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's see, I don't use "tons of names to alter the article," nor do I really go around promoting the website. The rest is a bunch of POV stuff that would never fly in an article either, but you're laying out some fairly dubious charges. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The issue of using "tons of names to alter the article" was raised the better part of a year ago (see talkpage) in connection with the repeated deletion of info from the article as to who owns ED - this question is nothing new here. --carlb 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hi everybody. I am Hardvice, an admin on encyclopedia dramatica and even I think it is unnotable enough that it does not belong on wikipedia. Hardvice 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a troll, yay for trolls, do they get to vote? SchmuckyTheCat 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and so am I talking about the article. Using the website itself as a primary source about the website isn't a verifiability problem. SchmuckyTheCat 16:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most of the facts cited in the article are self-evident from a cursory examation of the wiki and not in need of sources. --Weevlos 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. I don't really think the "no reliable third-party sources" argument is a good one, over half of our articles don't have these kind of sources. I don't care that much for the actual article, but I think it's a good way to show what kind of idiots these guys actually are. :) --Conti|✉ 16:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Non-notability claims are false, 18400 Google hits and a 32000 Alexa Ranking is a lot more than your average Wikipedia-featuring website has. While we're at that, let's make a bot randomly mark articles under Category:Websites for deletion. For example, Uncyclopedia and Kamelopedia, the first two website links that I found aren't more notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. I strongly object deleting this article, personal fights and grudges have no place in a encyclopedia. Some Wikipedians strongly dislike Encyclopedia Dramatica because they had their own personal fights with Encyclopedia Dramatica editors in the past (such as User:nathanrdotcom). Well, Wikipedia isn't your personal website. We're striving to build a online encyclopedia will all sorts of content, not just content that we particularly like. (I thought censorship was considered harmful here?) Just because you dislike something, it doesn't make it non-notable. (See GNAA, for example.) This is a online encyclopedia, not an elementary school. You can't make things go away just by deleting their articles on Wikipedia. Go pick your fights elsewhere. ~ Mpontes 23:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


      • Comment Are you kidding? Uncyclopedia is not more notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica? Here, I'll use your own sources. Uncyclopedia has 499,000 Google hits even after being "banned" and a 8,201 rank on Alexa. I think you'll notice that 499,000 is more than 18400, and that 8,201 is a higher rank than 32,000. So in terms of just pure stats, Uncyclopedia is literally about 4 times more notable than ED. Also you have to take into consideration all the extremely notable newspapers Uncyclopedia has been featured in. The source? You may have heard of it, it's called Wikipedia. Unfortunately, obscenity standards prevent newspapers from featuring Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Savethemooses 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, under your search criteria Uncyclopedia still recieves four times more hits. My search "Uncyclopedia -baseball -cricket -trivia -site:wikipedia.org -site:uncyclopedia.org" still comes up with 450,000 results. ED just pales in comparasion. It's a trashy non-notable detriment to the internet and discredit to our entire generation. Uncyclopedia has been featured in The New York Times, the Boston Herald, and the London Guardian among others. Believe me, I've had four of my own articles from Uncyclopedia cited in some of these newspapers. The best ED can come up with is a linkfilter quote from a year-and-a-half ago. It would be to Wikipedia's benefit to scourge it of any evidence of its existence. --Savethemooses 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even better, if you want to see how notable each is among the people, Uncyclopedia has 5,069 hits on Google Blog Search compared with 284 with ED, which is devestatingly ironic considering ED deals almost exclusively with "drama" on blogs. Adding the restiction -livejournal.com brings ED's total down to 117, meaning over half of all references on the blogs searched come from the site ED originated from. --Savethemooses 13:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't cite Wikipedia as a media source. I mentioned Wikipedia as the one ___location where many of the media sources Uncyc has been cited in is compiled. I can give you links to those articles. The fact of the matter is that Uncyclopedia is extremely more notable than ED. --Savethemooses 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you (and the ED crew) go spreading even more misinformation about me, I'll thank you to remember one thing. I went on my 'own personal fight' because misinformation was being used about me in the LJ Drama article (and kept getting reverted back, and absolutely no attempt was made to verify the info with me which made it a violation of WP:NOR). Think about that next time you make accusations about what I supposedly did that aren't true. I remind you of WP:NPA. (Do not damage the reputation of other Wikipedians should be a policy as well). Anyways, don't use me in your little examples unless you can get your facts straight. —       natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 10:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I merely clicked the link on your webpage and noticed that you have a nice message directed to visitors from Encyclopedia Dramatica on your main page. It wasn't a personal attack, I was merely stating you have a grudge against Encyclopedia Dramatica -- it isn't a secret either, because you mention it on the main page of your site. I wasn't saying you were wrong or right; I don't know the backstory and I obviously wouldn't have any facts to back it up. Just stating that you do dislike them a lot, which I think that is true. Linking people to WP:NPA when they are only stating obvious facts is also a bit of an ad hominem, isn't it? (Also, I don't think they care about WP:NOR or any of our other policies, considering their wiki isn't Wikipedia. But that's just me.) ~ Mpontes 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woah, who are you lashing out at?! Ashibaka tock 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to attack anyone. I've just grown very tired of seeing people frivolously marking articles about things that they dislike for deletion. It's just a waste of everyone's time. ~ Mpontes 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some things do not have published reliable third-party sources, yet are still of interest and sufficient notability for listing. ED is one of them. I don't particularly like the site, but it should have an article. GreenReaper 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles there really really really are anti-furry. I thought you'd at the very least want to merge it with another article. Maybe unfunny ? DyslexicEditor 01:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of that. Disagreeing with a website's topic is not grounds for removing articles about it, and certainly not "merging" it with a redirect that you made half a year ago. The website is the item of interest, not the word they coined. GreenReaper 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTREME KEEP. Bad faith nomination. Author is self-admittedly abusing the same policy that got The Game (game) deleted; see Talk:The Game (game) for detail. This is therefore a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. Kinitawowi 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Furthermore, I nominated a website for deletion based on this same policy, and the consensus seems to be that it's notable even without any secondary sources. Maybe we should send this to DRV based on that. Ashibaka tock 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)" Uh... what's the problem? Ashibaka tock 15:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Site doesn't seem incredibly active, but more active than some foundation projects. Also, I've heard of it twice from LJer friends. And article is too big to merge into LJ's article. JeffBurdges 16:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is questionable (this is a recreate of a page twice deleted, kept the third time). This is a rather small website and rather limited in scope and activity. This article appears to be being used as a sandbox, a soapbox or an advertisement for a website; info the owners of that site don't want included has been repeatedly deleted via various means including sockpuppetry and DMCA misuse. Unless this can be dramatically cleaned up and merged somewhere else (such as a list of wikis on similar/related topics), this smacks more of "I want to advertise my website on the Wikipædia" than of actual useful encyclopædic content. I question whether we need an entire article about this one individual wiki. --carlb 17:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has only three namespace edits before this vote.
User has only one mainspace edit before this vote. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than ten namespace edits before this vote.SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has only one non-reverted namespace edit before this vote. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of this users previous edits are to one article, and they were all reverted. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in article history to indicate that contribs from this user (who has been here since January) have been a target for reversion. --carlb 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the wikis in the list of wikis do not have their own article. The website here is not notable enough. Its article is also a source for trolls (one admin even called another a troll in this vote article and they're both ED admins!!). The article is just a POV push by the site's editors to promote the site. Wikipedia is not an advertisement board. Jotunheim 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than ten name space edits before this vote, and most of those are from a revert war. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has been here since January 1 and appears to be making valid contributions. Please do not bite the newcomers --carlb 16:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn per nominator. Also as user:Keitei point out above, Wikipedia is not a lot of things. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to make a comment about this stuff in general. I should say that there are millions, maybe even TEN millions, of sites out there, and just because a site has an Alexa rank of 50000, or even 200000, doesn't automatically make it non-notable. Many of the sites with <10000 Alexa ranks are mostly sites for corporations such as ESPN.com, adultswim.com, and things that have notability outside the web. I know what the Wikipedia guidline is (and, for the record, it is NOT policy), and I must say it's pretty flawed. Something can be very popular and referenced and still have low Alexa ranks. Starmen.net and SMBHQ, for example, have Alexa ranks of 200,000 approximately, and they're still some of the most popular sites on the web. Both sites have been referenced in MAJOR PUBLICATIONS, yet all people care about around here are numbers and statistics. And people say things like "delete: non-notable" without providing any evidence. Usually those who say it is notable provide evidence to back it up. A site does not have to fall under certain statistics to be notable.
  • Keep per above reasons. notable, covered in various 'real media'. Cleanup the article if necessary, however a badly written article is hardly a reason for deletion. Also this site has a much more favorable alexa traffic ranking than yellowikis, a spam haven project using the same mediawiki software, and that article seems to have been kept (voted without logging in before, fixing this now) --timecop 07:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

There's been sockpuppetry going on here which the closing admin will need to consider. Please be advised that the user of sockpuppets in a deletion debate is a blockable offense and highly frowned upon. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was to keep the nominated articles. -- ChrisO 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan

edit
Page should be deleted and redirect to Kurds in Turkey etc..
A similar nomination has recently taken place and result was:
The result of the debate was Delete and Redirect. I considered relisting this, but it's had 14 days already and I think on strength of argument (particularly regarding the page's status as a POV fork) there is a consensus to redirect it. I've taken "redirect" to mean in this context "delete and redirect", given that there's no point in just replacing a contentous POV fork with a soft redirect that can be undone with a couple of mouse clicks. kingboyk 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
--Cool CatTalk|@ 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I'm being quoted a little out of context here. The above was my summary of a debate which I closed. Therefore they're not my words, but an interpretation of what the community said in a different debate. In no way am I an expert on this issue nor do I claim to be. --kingboyk 11:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a pov fork. The question is why should it be separate from Kurds in Turkey--Cool CatTalk|@ 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the terms listed are in general use. Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan return 27,000 and 80,000 google hits, respectively. The terms are used by many people, not just Kurds. Iranian Kurdistan has been used in numerous sources, such as [45],[46],[47],[48],[49], [50] and in Academic sources such as [51].Heja Helweda 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt explain why that can't be done with a redirect. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kurdistan by definition is a geographic region, and it spans several countries. This is different from Kurds here and there, since the term Kurd refers to a group of people not a region. So Turkish Kurdistan which is a region can not be redirected to Kurds in Turkey, a group of people. It's like redirecting apples to oranges.Heja Helweda 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it's a bit more like redirecting apple orchard to apple tree. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diyako, Kurdish ethnicity and culture are everywhere in Turkey. Except for the Black Sea region, there is hardly any city in Turkey without a Kurdish population. There are more Kurds in Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara combined than in whole SE Turkey. You are promoting seperatist undertones in Wikipedia. There is no good faith to assume.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect.It looks like it returns 27000 results but if you go to the last page of results you'll see that actual count is around 600, rest being repetitions of it on the same site[52]. And most of them are Kurdish sources. Sites like kurdistan.org, kurdistan bloggers, etc. have high repeat count of it. It is just a term made up. --levent 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO what 600? more, you spelled it with small numbers!!! Heja helweda is right: [53] 27000 also yahoo [54] hits these without repetition. Diyako Talk + 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are using the term Turkish Kurdistan, and they are obviously not Kurdish: Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research, Institute on Southeastern Europe, Al-Ahram Newspaper(Egypt), Marco Cavallini, Anitwar.com, Eurasia Research, [55], New Dawn Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, World History Archives, Planetware.com, United Press International, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Nation, Council on Foreign Relations, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Jewish Encyclopaedia, Assyrian International News Agency, The Jamestown Foundation Prism, German Cinema, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, ABC Australia, Global Defense Review, Z Magazine, The Boston Globe, Turkish Weekly, Corriere della Sera, Universtity of Stockholm (Department of Linguistics), World Music Institute, The Guardian. Heja Helweda 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you have a Kurdistan and a Kurds in Turkey article, more than enough for you to cover everything there is to say. We redirect Turkish Kurdistan to Kurds in Turkey and people still get the information they need. I very well know why you are stuck with names, that's the exact same reason I want this article to be deleted.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the link you gave above (#10), then click on the last page of results (page 10). And you'll see a note at the bottom (In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 674 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.). Now click on the link at that note[56] and you'll see the repetitions I am talking about. Actual count is not 27000, it is 674. --levent 11:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with all the critics presented of course. This is a place for sharing knowledge - also about terms that some may find unpleasant. Bertilvidet 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Wikipedia is for information and I understand where you are coming but we already have a Kurds in Turkey article, there is no need for this. I am asking for deletion and redirect, not to silence them eternally.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Kurdistan is a geographic place. Tazmaniacs 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid encyclopaedic topic. --Mais oui! 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid topic. It's obvious that bias is involved in this nomination and the delete votes. Scranchuse 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is becoming pathologic, and POV pushers don't expect me to even answer. Turkish Kurdistan is an accepted term, it IS an encyclopedic term, it is a term which has been used for quite some time, just like terms 'Ottoman Armenia' or 'Russian Armenia.' And for those googlers that relies on google to establish the notability of a term, Lord Kinross, which Turkish nationalists like to quote in every given occasion that Ataturk is cricised DO call it such, a discussion published in The Geographical Journal Vol. 122, No. 2 (June., 1956) p. 166, Lake Van and Turkish Kurdistan: A Botanical Journey: Discussion by James Marshall-Cornwall; Lord Kinross attest to that. This Wikipedia-wide Turkish ultranationalism is really becoming a disease. Just recently Smyrnas material allegedly under the pretext of dumping it to be merged on Izmir, ended up as a pretext to DELETE the entire section regarding the fire. That they have sliced the criticism on Ataturk pages, that they have gotten parasitically involved in Greek, Armenian and Kurdish matters as far as screwing and scrapping the Armenian genocide article is not enought, they even had to recruit ultranationalists. BTW Coolcat, you were right on one thing, you indeed were not Karabekir, your alter ego Tommiks was, the Tommiks who rearranged, sliced and screwed the entire integrity of the Ottoman Empire related articles and who worked in tandem with you. As for my ranting, sorry, I can't help it, after what I have learned in those two days about the 'Call for Turks' in the 10s Febuary, 2006, to invade those articles made my two days(I have my sources). Also, if I were you, I would start accumulating the evidences, since right now, I have 14 pages of evidences that would discredit you, Tommiks, Ottomanreference, Karabekir and some I'd like to not name here right now, for good..., so it would be a good idea for you to stop requesting Kurdish related articles deletions and start accumulating evidences against me, sine in few days my research will be completed Fad (ix) 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is an accepted term. Your entier post does not explain why this article is necesary. Simply the term can reditrect to Kurds in Turkey just like Syrian Kurdistan. Oh and talking about pov pushers... article is a pov fork. --Cool CatTalk|@ 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Kurdistan is a geographic name, hence different than an ethnic name like Kurds in Turkey. Geography is not the same as ethnicity. Heja Helweda 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen you even debate when articles such as anti-Turkism, which are not quite notable were created, have you even requested a merging with the article about Turkish people? Besides what you say doesn't make much sense, this article exist, the term is notable, and doesn't apear to be to be expended article. There are articles of three lines which are accepted and no one even question if they should be merged. STOP IT! Don't you guys not realise that this is WIKIPEDIA and an apolotical encyclopedia? You would be the first, if Greek, Armenian or Kurd nationalists were to go on searching after any Turkish related articles to remove or add whatever they want, but yet, THIS IS EXACTLY what is happening there with ultranationalists like you. Fad (ix) 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am just simple plain Cool Cat. --Cool CatTalk|@ 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This term is not notable because of google, google alone does not confirm notability. Turkish Kurdistan is notable, because it has been c alled such in various different works and for decades, that google was there to confirm or contradict that won't change much in this cases. Fad (ix) 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the first "Keep" vote by Heja Helweda. The article is notable and term is used widely by Kurds and non-Kurds. Cool Cat is saying it should be deleted because it belongs to Kurds of Turkey, not because it's not notable. AucamanTalk 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I just clarified that this article should be kept because it is a notable subject, and not only because google say so. Fad (ix) 03:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is reliable info. about the definition of the term: Turkish Kurdistan covers at least 17 provinces of Turkey. In the north-east, the provinces of Erzincan, Erzurum and Kars; in the centre, going from west to east and from north to south, the provinces of Malatya, Tunceli, Elazig, Bingöl, Muş, Agri, then Adiyaman, Diyarbakir, Siirt, Bitlis and Van; finally, the southern provinces of Urfa, Mardin and Çölamerik (Hakkari). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Heja Helweda 02:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People will still get their information; the page will redirect to Kurds in Turkey. Having a standalone article about Turkish Kurdistan is suggesting it has a geopolitic existence which we all know is false. What will you do when in future Turkish government decides to name SE Turkey, well, Disneyland? Call Turkish PM and complain "Oi mate, we already named it Turkish Kurdistan for ya, what you doin!"?
You have Kurdistan, you have Kurds in Turkey, more than enough, don't divide countries into nonexisting segments. God, I wonder if people are even reading these before voting.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Geography is an obvious subtopic within the broader topic. Hawkestone 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Arbusto 07:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there are some specific features. Turkish, Iranian and Syrian Kurdistan pages have to reflect on the relationships with those national states. They are also major factors in the domestic politics and histories of those states. The geographical area is clearly different from the population in the state as a whole. As an British person, I think here of what the difference would be, pre-partition, in an article on Ireland and an article on the Irish in the United Kingdom. --Duncan 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me but this is ridicilous. What we have here is a travesty of democracy. Most of these people voting here are a mob directed here by Bertilvidet. He called/informed 16 Wikipedians here just so they can vote in favor of keeping this article. Is this going to be this way? Should I ask all my friends to create Wikipedia accounts? I called only 2 Wikipedians here because I knew they were hardcore about this subject, I could have called all Turkish Wikipedians instead.
    I briefly studied Law and if there is a lawyer here, he/she is free to correct me if I am wrong. In law, decisions taken in previous cases set an example for the latter, especially with judge made laws like here with admins. Now we have a previous case/a very similar, in fact identical case that is Syrian Kurdistan, verdict was delete and redirect. If we are going to keep this article, we need a really and I mean and stress really good reason, so Wikipedia can maintain its consistent pattern of behavior.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Kurdistan was a stub, one paragraph, but these articles are notable and are good articles. Diyako Talk + 10:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurds living in South Eastern Turkey must be examined as a part of Kurds in Turkey, it does not require a seperate article. If Syrian Kurdistan redirects to Kurds in Syria, if Chinese Turkistan redirects to Xinjiang then it is quite very normal to ask the same to be done with Turkish Kurdistan. Unlike you, I am asking for equality, not priviledge.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you still are confused with the mater. First, as people said above, Region and people are different. The article Turkish Kurdistan should include the history of the region and all politics directly related to it such as how Turks occupied it, and how they are destroying it and geographical stuff. The article Kurds in Turkey should be on the Kurdish people in Turkey and should discuss the facts that how this people are oppressed so that they have no right. they are told that they do not exist. They should be Turks! Is it clear now?Diyako Talk + 11:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now at last, we are starting to see your true colors and where you are trying to lead all these good people to by pretending to have good faith. Shake the glass a little and watch the magic unfold, always works. You know, I live in Izmir and couple of days ago it was Nevruz, your opressed friends were trashing down the stores in Alsancak, probably the most beatiful district of Izmir, or was before your friends redecorated it, so I am not sure who's destroying whose property. It takes two to tango, you form and support militan groups that practice terrorism, you must bear the wrath that it will bring. As the Turkish proverb says "Who sowns wind, reaps storm". People like you are hurting Kurdish Turkish relations at an irrecoverable level, you are planting seeds of hatred between people.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The seed of hatred were planted 80 years ago by Turkish ultranationalists,geniciders and linguiciders who destroyed Anatolia. read history. Diyako Talk + 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do you recommend any particular pro-Kurdish author or should I make my own research.
http://www.google.com.tr/search?hl=tr&q=turks+genocidal+maniacs+biji+kurdistan+blame+the+turks&btnG=Ara&meta=
Hey I got 3 hits.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Becuase maybe you cannot google or at least censor it!.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish_crimes_pictures.htm
Diyako Talk + 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:))) I know about this website. Check out its contact information: Mailing Address P.O. Box 9426 Glendale, CA 91206 . Yes, that Glendale, it is one of the many websites made by Armenians. Anyway, what's next? Hellenicnews.com?--Kagan the Barbarian 12:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants information on the topic can easily find it on the internet, most of it will however be one-sided pro-Kurdish. An article here on Wikipedia will be a more balanced outcome of negotiations and compromises between different approaches (Kurds, Turks, Iranians and outsiders). Bertilvidet 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That just came from a person who spamed this vfd on over 15 talk pages. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far I ignore the personal attack in order to keep a friendly environment where we can work together despite disagreements. Bertilvidet 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but some people see the word offensive to their biased POV therefore they want to censor it!!. Diyako Talk + 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O yeah, shout "RAPE!!!", play the lady in distress, always works. Nobody is censoring anything, we are asking for it to redirect to Kurds in Turkey and information be moved there. I repeat, the exact same reason you want this name to stay is the exact same reason I want it deleted.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding, This fact that despite of existence of such a term Turkish government wants it be censored is notable enough and can be explained in the article.!!! Diyako Talk + 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to civility. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the past days, the article has been edited to change its focus from geography to the definition and history of the term. I think that it is now a correctly named article, that could exist next to a possible future Southeastern Anatolia which would cover the geographical region.--Hippalus 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. I consider this another option.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know what are the differences between Kurdistan and Kurd in Turkey. They are the same articles. So why do some editors persist on keeping ? Welli I think it is because of politics. I haven't blamed anyone being hater of Turks, but I should start to think of it. Since there is no place called Kurdistan neither geog. nor politically and historically. It is just an unrealistic wish of Kurds. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Greater Albania is an unrealistic wish of the Albanians. Alexander 007 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Albania ? What is that ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison: Greater Albania, main article; Chameria, an adjunct. Kurdistan, main article; Turkish Kurdistan, an adjunct. Alexander 007 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a Kurdistan article. There is no French Germany article or Spanish Albenia...
Heja Helweda suggests its just a geographic region. What you say does not agree with his claim. Hence the nature of the dispute.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no realities to support French Germany (fiction) or Spanish Albenia (fiction). There is a reality behind Turkish Kurdistan. Alexander 007 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Some people in germany claim ownership to all of europe. They are often known as Neo Nazis. There are no such official claim by the German Government though. You do not have to respond the second I post. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respond when and if I want to respond. Your Spanish Albenia comparison was so lame, I wasn't even going to respond. Alexander 007 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont care when you respond. Just pointing out you dont have to respond the minute I post. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should you care, it is not your business. Why should I respond one hour later when I'm at the keyboard now. I don't care if it creates edit conflicts for you. Alexander 007 19:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When have we begun to describe geography according to ethnicity ? Who told you that it was always called Kurdistan ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please write your idea.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He cant, he doesnt know english. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean he even doesn't know what's happening in this page :) --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He knows whats going on. He just has no idea what we are discusing so its a blind vote. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then he doesn't know what's happening on this page. To wit: this is a discussion, not a vote. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that we are voting just for nothing ? Look around you. editors come here to vote for deletion. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what's going on; I've seen plenty of these things go down. The purpose of AfD is the use a polling format to bring out the best arguments for keeping or deleting an article in order to write the best encyclopedia we can. Since the discussion format resembles a vote, many people take it to be one, and believe that they can "win" by attracting superior numbers of "voters". However, majority doesn't rule in these discussions - the best arguments rule. A swarm of "votes" which add no reasons for keeping an article are not given equal weight with a handful of thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments that demonsrate understanding of the situation and of the relevant Wiki-policies and guidelines. The strongest argument I'm seeing given for deletion is that the article is a POV fork - a second article on the same topic as an existing one, presenting it from a different perspective. If you disagree, then explain why it isn't one. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What will happen when I create an article about Southeastern Anatolia? It is the geopolitical name for the region. It will be POV fork, right? And which article will be the deleted one, mine, which is Turkey's internationally recognized geopolitic map and name for the region or the Turkish Kurdistan which is recognized as such by who? BBC? The Guardian perhaps?--Kagan the Barbarian 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chameria and Cham Albanians. Chameria and Thesprotia. No fork there, no fork here. Maybe a spork. Alexander 007 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does seem like a fork. Besides Chameria article says little, just that it is the Albanian name for the region and it consisted of this and that territory, that's it. What about this: Turkish Kurdistan, it starts with this sentence:
"Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê) is an unofficial name for the Southeastern part of Turkey predominantly inhabited by Kurds."
And ends showing photos from the region. Yeah very similar to the Albanian thing.
I think the answer is I create an article about Southeastern Anatolia and let's see what will happen then.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This only proves that the article needs to be rewritten. The point is, as ChrisO noted, that the arguments are not the same; many Kurds do not live in Turkish Kurdistan, and many Turks do live in Turkish Kurdistan. And also there's the region's economy to treat, thing that can hardly be done adequately in Kurds in Turkey. This is my view.--Aldux 22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you are comprehending what I am saying? The region already has a name, it is geopoliticaly Southeastern Anatolia, historically Upper Mesopotamia. Turkish Kurdistan should be under these titles. It means nothing alone that you got 1,450,000 hits with Turkish Kurdistan, I googled "Irish Empire" and got 1,630,000 hits, I guess we need to create an Irish Empire article based on this, eh? Please, please, I praise reason and logic.--Kagan the Barbarian 10:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument of redirecting to Kurds in Turkey is not convincing at all, and should be abandoned. However, Adkagansu's proposal to redirect to Southeastern Anatolia is something else. It would be, however, like redirecting Chameria to Thesprotia, which doesn't seem much better than two separate articles; it rather seems worse. Alexander 007 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Strongly Delete and Redirect AGREE WITH TuzsuzDeliBekir--hybrid lily 18:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC) -- this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet-- Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Strongly Delete and Redirect agree with Tuzsuz, coolcat and others--Shanex 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) -- this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet --Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The region has already a name , Southeastern Anatolia.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BIG MISTAKE BY ME: As Bekir pointed out, its geopolitic name is Southeastern Anatolia, not Southeastern Turkey, sorry, awful mistake.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point its historical name, Mesopotamia--TuzsuzDeliBekir 07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is like calling eastern france western germany. Why cant we use the official regional names rather than pov ones such as this? --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Becuse its called Kurdistan called by Kurds :)--TuzsuzDeliBekir 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-existent. Period. redirect to Southeastern Anatolia if necessary, and work on Kurds in Turkey. --Cretanforever 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Southeastern Turkey, merge most of the content on the Kurdish Issue with Kurds in Turkey. This thing has obviously turned into an arena where Greek nationalists can satisfy their needs. This is an encyclopedia and you officially dont call a place Kurdistan just because most people there are Kurdish. It would be a shame to see Wikipedia as a part of dirty games like this. (Metb82 01:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
hmmm...let me see...there are about 35 users who have voted so far,and among them there are-if i am not wrong- 3 Greeks(me incuded).u really should not blame the greeks for every single thing that u do not like.:)--Hectorian 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually Hectorian,i had good intentions for the greek people before i came here..Before seeing the massacres against Turks being removed, before trying to deal with all the POV things against Turks,etc.....You know after reading so much History of Civilizations,you expect Greeks to be larger and less grudging than that.. (Metb82 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
all i am saying is not to blame the greeks for virtually everything.the Greeks users represent a tiny minority in this voting process.--Hectorian 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete and Redirect'. Kurdistan is not an actual geographic ___location. Rather, "Kurdistan" refers to a regional ethnic identity existing across states. Ethnicities exist within and across political borders. Thus an article called "Turkish Kurdistan" would have to deal with ethnic Turks, if such a body exists anymore, living in a region titled "Kurdistan," assuming one existed. The article seems to suggest the content concerns Turkish administrated Kurdistan but since a state with that name has never and does not currently exist then it is impossible to determine the nature of the Turkish administration of it. --Strothra 18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep definately notable, even if just for an explanation of the term. - FrancisTyers 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Existing and notable subject, distinct from the suggested redirect target. Mukadderat 21:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The very fact that it has caused this much controversy is an easy lock to say its notable and is in normal usage. We have articles on many ideas which do not exist in the physical world. This is no different. -Mask   23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There is no reason that this information could not be somewhere else, particularly in Kurdistan. That article is the important one - regional subsections of that article can be accomplished with subheadings. It is the content that matters, not the name at the top of the article. Joey 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprized how many people make this argument without giving it a thought. In wikipedia things work in exactly an opposite way: if the topic grows, it is separated from a larger article, not merged into. Did you happen to look at the article you are suggesting to eliminate? It is ten times larger than most of pokemon articles. Mukadderat 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My vote stands, and no amount of brow-beating is going to make me change it. Just so you know, I find the implications that I voted 'without giving it a thought' and without 'look[ing] at the article' borderline offencive, and certainly think they are not displaying an assumption of good faith. Joey 17:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't want you to change your vote. It is not the good faith that is questioned. It is the logic. Yor argument does not provide the reason of your vote. If you had given the reason, it could have been possible I'd changed my vote instead. Your explanation basically says "I like it all in one big article", and it is fine with me; I dont want to beat anyone's brows; tastes differ, I know. But this is the reason why I concluded that you probably didn't give it much thought: if you had, you'd explain your reasoning: why subheadings are better than subarticles. In particular you didn't bother to explain what is wrong with my explanation: wikipedia articles breed most often by spawning rather than by merging. You preferred to play offended instead. Mukadderat 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally, I do not feel that article should exist at all but it seems that certain politically motivated individuals with a lack of much anthropological knowledge concerning culture-political interaction are determined to keep it. If it is going to be kept it might as well be merged in order to enframe it in a wider context.--Strothra 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current rewritten version on the concept of Turkish Kurdistan. u p p l a n d 08:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have articles on fictional planets in Star Trek, then we can have articles on fictional places in Turkey, that assuming that the place is only made up my Kurdish separatists. Unlike fictional star trek planets, there are some (sane) people who actually believe that these places exist, and there is probably some historical evidence that backs them up. At the very least, the articles should exist to explain the controversy over the terms. --Rayc 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another attempt to wipe out all things Kurdish on WP. I think that the assumption of good faith has been indulged too long by too many on this. Carlossuarez46 00:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A suggested solution

edit

I suggest we create a page called Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan and put all sides of each argument there. Then, at the top of each disputed Kurd or Kurdistan related page, we can put a link which says "See also Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan". What about this? Merecat 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a good idea, I think. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous, it is really pathetic to see how people can give away simply because some ultranationalists are very vocal and by constant lobbying they can dictate what to do. We should simply stick to Wikipedia policies. Is there something called 'Turkish Kurdistan' ? Yes, there is such a thing, Is this term notable? Yes! IT IS! I can cite here various articles, I have access to various servers of notable journals, and this term is very often used. The last question to ask is, are there materials in that article? Yes! THERE ARE. There are various sub of less notable terms which will never get deleted, merged. They have even merged Smyrna the ancient city with Izmir, and in the same token they have removed the entire section about Smyrna fire which is still considered one of the worst fires in history, there are even some comparing it with the burning of Rome. When will anyone attempt to merge the city of Ur with its current ___location? I say, this is ENOUGHT!!! ENOUGHT! I have attempted blind eyes for few days, but unless people stop sleeping on gas and no one answers this will continue again and again. Also it is amusing to see that some member still brag 'neutrality' request, when this one same member in his own userpage indicated clearly why he was on Wikipedia, which he said was to counter Armenian, Greek and Kurdish POV pushing. Fad (ix) 00:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Turk, I speak my heart, I don't hide behind devious words or schemes. I won't kiss you on the cheek, and dig your grave behind your back. I see you made a background search on me. I like attention, you may keep stalking me. Anyway, I have no beef with neutral Greek, Armenian and Kurdish users. With one neutral Greek user, Hectorian, I believe we did a great job on making Turkish Cypriots page as NPOV as possible, which was repeatedly edited before. He proved his good faith to me many times and earned my trust.
It is a fact there is a lot of POV pushing going on Turkey, Armenia, Greece and Kurdistan related articles. And I believe Turkish voice is definitely not heard as much as it should be. I've seen hardcore Wikipedian Armenian, Greek and Kurdish users here who spare many hours a day here and almost none Turkish. Most Turkish users here either spare little time for this or have little interest in what's going on or are busy with editing Turkish Viki or suffer from limited language skills. Now I have the feeling some people are uncomfortable with Turks rising their voice.
Anyway back to the subject here; what we have is a very legitimate case. I have examples in front of me such Chinese Turkistan and Syrian Kurdistan. I'll demand my friends to create a Southeastern Anatolia page which is the geopolitic name for the region, internationally recognized, unlike Turkish Kurdistan which has been made popular only by certain media organizations. If you ask me there are 2 decent solutions to this subject:

1. Rewrite and shorten Turkish Kurdistan page so it won't act as if TK is a breakaway de facto state in Southeastern Turkey. At the beginnig of the article it should say "For the geopolitic Turkish region see Southeastern Anatolia" or something like that, whatever the proper language is. But this will, in my opinion, be POV fork. 2. Delete the entire article and move the information to Southeastern Anatolia. Turkish Kurdistan will redirect to this page and in it the unofficial name will be mentioned like in Chinese Turkistan. This I think is the most decent thing to do. I really don't understand people who fail to see the legitimate argument here. I am having a hard time assuming good faith.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background search? What background search? I knew all this all along, since you are one of the Turks who registered in the 10s February 2006. And you are absolutly wrong and you know it when you claim that Greeks, Armenians and Kurds were much active while Turks were not. There are more active Turks and always has been than Armenians, Greeks and Kurds combined. There are at least one Turk in everything related to Armenians, Greeks and Kurds when the slightest political scheme is concerned. And now, with the call for Turks in the 10s February 2006, the amount of POV pushers has just jumped to another fold. No one is saying to stop contributing, in fact I will more than ever welcome a Turk that at least is honest enought to admit for what he is here and also assume his Turkishness, than some dishonest people hidding this all together and both of us know that in this sphere of activity(Kurdish, Armenian and Greek issues) this type of people aren't in shortage. And if you pay attention, there is a clear disproportion between nationalist Turks ivading Kurdish, Armenian and Greek articles than the other way around and if you were honest enought you would have no problem admitting that, but this is not what you do, you are claiming to the contrary. Just for your information, here we have another example of how ultranationalists dictate Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Khoikhoi
This guy has been fair with everyone requesting concessions from every sides, but yet your fellows will in mass try to hijack a request for adminiship. Claiming that he push Greek POV which BTW is ridiculous when he himself as reverted Greek POVs.
Comming to this poll, most here don't even know for what they are voting, a member has even gone as far as placing statistics of the last Turkish election. By the same token I should also present the statistics of the last Canadian election to advance that French Quebecers are not French Quebecers because they have voted more for the Conservative right party which always was against French Quebecers identity and values, than the Liberals [57] . Or maybe we should merge articles about Upper or 'Downer' Canada, etc. The question here is, IS THERE SOMETHING CALLED TURKISH KURDISTAN??? The answer IS obvious, this term IS notable, the article IS expanded enought. This is what it is, and if you truly are against POV pushing, you will stop doing that. I myself disagree with the maps of Turkish Kurdistan, because it also claims what is called 'Ottoman Armenia,' but Wikipedia IS NOT about what I think, but what positions are, a coverage of positions. Fad (ix) 20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

edit

Figures for the 2004 Turkish Provincial Elections (electing members of the Provincial Assemblies) in the 'at least' 17 Turkish provinces covered by the article (former Category: Kurdistan in wikipedia covered 20 provinces, therefore their number is displaying an unmistakably decreasing trend!!!).

  • In Turkey, there are general, provincial and municipal elections. People usually think in terms of the country, the 81 provinces and their specific municipality. The last general election was in 2002. Therefore, these 2004 figures are not only more recent but also, I would say, coherent with the panorama presented by the previous general elections. Provincial elections and municipal elections were held simultaneously. Provincial figures reflect the political choices of the voters better than the municipal ones. My choice for using the provincial figures instead of the municipal ones does not work to the disadvantage of any party. The party that was closest to promoting a Turkish K. agenda (let's say, people thinking in terms of a region whose mint they have struck themselves, with a name of their own preference) in these elections was the SHP (which is actually a tiny but nation-wide center-left party, and it that had struck a deal for the southeast with the HADEP-DEHAP pedigree for these elections). Any argument with an intention to relativize the definition of non-SHP voters can also be countered by arguments, possibly in stronger terms, for defining the SHP-voter profile as well. In Turkey, it is obligatory to vote in elections (you can vote blank if you want to, but you have to go to the polls), therefore, I would say, that the popular political viewpoint trends are rather well reflected in the numbers that come out of these polls (without having to draw comparisons with elsewhere). I start from the southeastern tip of the country and confine the figures to those parties that scored over 10 % in a given province, unless otherwise relevant or interesting. Very briefly, AKP is the party in power in Turkey, DYP is national center-right, CHP is national center-left, SP is religious-right, MHP is Turkish nationalist-right.

Hakkari Province: SHP 46,56 % - AKP 32,03 %
Şırnak Province: SHP 37,27 % - AKP 24,97 - DYP 16,82 %
Mardin Province: SHP 27,12 % - AKP 23,23 % - DYP 13,43 % - CHP 11,75 %
Batman Province: SHP 49,69 % - AKP 17,76 % - SP 10,57 %
Diyarbakır Province: SHP 41,84 % - AKP 30,79 %
Tunceli Province: SHP 23,01 % - CHP 19,71 % - AKP 16,93 %
Siirt Province: AKP 39,23 % - SHP 27,72 %
Bingöl Province: AKP 44,30 % - SHP 14,77 % - SP 13,42 %
Muş Province: AKP 31,20 % - SHP 29,56 %
Bitlis Province: AKP 29,11 % - SHP 15,19 % - SP 11,72 %
Van Province: AKP 44,83 % - SHP 26,66 %
Ağrı Province: AKP 34,66 % - SHP 19,21 %
Elazığ Province: AKP 33,20 % - DYP 28,96 % - SP 13,67 % - MHP 7,90 % - SHP 3,69 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Malatya Province: AKP 47,57 % - CHP 16,43 % - MHP 15,20 % - SP 5,93 % - SHP 4,25 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Erzincan Province: AKP 40,61 % - CHP 21,24 % - MHP 16,85 % - SHP 4,25 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Erzurum Province: AKP 48,61 % - MHP 18,86 % - DYP 8,49 % - SP 5,01 % - SHP 4,08 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Adıyaman Province: AKP 41,11 % - SP 15,04 % - CHP 13,09 % - DYP 10,41 % - SHP 6,54 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Kars Province: AKP 40,21 % - MHP 16,40 % - CHP 11,13 % - DYP 9,46 % - SHP 8,89 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Source: [58]

As a side-note and strictly as a metaphor, I find it a pity that, instead of developping the articles on Sezen Aksu and Dario Moreno, I had to spend time looking for and presenting these figures to balance the dishwater of the out-of-touch, the know-not, the prejudiced and the agenda promoter.

(This is the second message I am posting. I voted above.) --Cretanforever 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind people that these are not relevant to 'Iranian' and 'Iraqi' Kurdistan who are also both being deleted (and should be) --Kash 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten & expanded

edit

I've rewritten the article to focus it more on the concept of a "Turkish Kurdistan" (where it's deemed to be, why it doesn't exist as a political entity, etc). If you've already voted here, please take a look at the revised article and consider whether you might want to adjust your vote. -- ChrisO 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I changed my vote.--Hippalus 08:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For comparisons of content quality, approach and tone. Padania. p.s There is no article for "Italian Padania" --Cretanforever 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Tsuki no Misaki since they have indeed all been merged. -Splashtalk 23:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebi zaka and a lot of similar articles

edit

Someone has spent a great deal of effort to make decent stubs (if in bad English) for all the roads in his neighbourhood. However, it's unfortunate that all of these roads very much appear to be non-notable, and that Wikipedia is not a travel guide to the suburbs of the world. We've had this discussion already for a smaller number of substantially identical Tokyo road stubs here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meiji zaka.

The articles up for deletion as non-notable are:

Hebi zaka, Shiomi zaka, Yuurei zaka, Gyoran zaka, Isarago zaka, Tenjinn zaka, Katsura zaka, Zakuro zaka, Anzenji zaka, Hora zaka, Hijiri zaka, Yoshimi zaka, Hiyoshi zaka, Katura zaka, Zekkou-zaka.

I've not AfD-tagged all of them to save time, but I've notified the creator. To that list one might add much of what else is linked from Tsuki no Misaki, but that's for another AfD. Sandstein 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fg2 and Arbustoo, would either of you care to comment on why you would like to merge or keep these articles? There's hardly enough of encyclopedic interest in all of them to warrant one article, if that. See also the previous AfD. Best regards, Sandstein 07:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's derivation of names, historical background etc. Collectively, it could make a nice article about a part of Minato. Fg2 10:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Women

edit

Really unnecesary. We have a Kurdish people... --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Studios

edit

The article is about the virtual residence of a "virtual band" and is crufty. Apparently the virtual band itself is notable. It should be deleted, or at very least, merged and redirected to the band's article, which is what I boldly did earlier, only to be reversed. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turophobia

edit

Google cannot confirm this beyond subculture use; it does not appear to be defined in any dictionary I have seen. Chris 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VocalTec

edit

Wrongly Bundled with AfD for Lior Haramaty

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 17:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designfenzider,

edit

Bundled with AfD for Lior Haramaty

This company is pretty noticeable (to say the least) in the industry, with works in the Met museum, the Tel Aviv Museum and others. You can see the long list of publications on the company's website, and I included here a short list of google retrieved links - I can assure you that no Google bombing was done by Designfenzider,. The entries are all related to either bloggers that are excited about the designs, publication that had articles about the company and the designer (worldwide, see this month ID magazine, Wallpaper magazine, last week's NYT business section), stores that are selling the company's products and directory entries that got picked up (I guess. for good or worse) from dmoz.

The main designer, Ron Gilad (another article-that-should-be-written), is well known and established. Objects are sold world-wide from galleries in Paris, stored in Tokyo to the MoMA and Cooper-Hewitt stores in NY.

Of course, the issue if this or any other company should be listed in here is up for debate, but to say this is not a known company or that it was trying to skew search results is just incorrect. If anything, this article should be expended by someone from the Design industry or academic world. My two cents – it’s up to the rest of you (the world) to take it from here…


[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

    • Thanks for the links - some interesting designs there all right. Afraid dear ingo is currently a bit outside my price range - but maybe when I win the Lottery :-) Dlyons493 Talk


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary kraft

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 Speedily deleted as per tags.  (aeropagitica)  23:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollerina

edit

Delete. Patent nonsense. Crystallina 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement in British Education

edit

First nomination was here. Was in December 2005, and result was "no consensus". Nominating for three reasons. Firstly, the topic is almost necessarily some form of original research. It has to quote "recent studies", which to me is OR. Secondly, as mentioned in the last nomiination, the topic is "nebulous"; what precisely does it mean? Is it talking about different factors that affect educational performance? In that case, it should probably be part of the Education in the United Kingdom article (which itself needs a huge makeover). If it is about educational sociology, it should in the Education article. It seems to fill none of these roles, and for me can never; it is hopelessly unfocussed. Finally, what does it have to do with education in the UK? The current article has nothing to do with it, and I cannot see how it ever can be. What specifically is there about education in the UK that deserves an article of this kind (whatever "kind" of article it is)? Batmanand | Talk 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSBI Forums

edit

Delete. Author contested {{prod}}. Web forum with no Alexa rank, 39 users, and 30 posts; does not come close to WP:WEB Vslashg (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wylie Fisher

edit

A case of WP:AUTO, poor google score [74]. Doubt this will pass WP:BIO Eivindt@c 00:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Punk

edit

What's said in this article amounts to the equivalent of saying there is a "Punk Voter" subculture of punk or something, which is absurd. It's a website, sure, that talks about a political category laid over a social one (people who are both conservative and punk), but the two have no special meaning in conjunction. I could say Libertarian punk, Republican punk, Constitutionalist punk, Democrat punk, but none of these have special meaning (unlike, say, anarcho-punk, which is a particular social subgroup and would merit discussion as such). The article reads like a debate (or at least one side of it), and isn't linked to any social movement except that tied to the website, which was just a reactionary jab at Punk Voter anyway. Not to mention (like I've said), I see the article as something full of broad (and generally incorrect or meaningless) generalizations, mixed with unencyclopedic and non-NPOV claims. I would say just change it to be an article about the website, but that (judging by the previous discussion) there's a consensus that it's worth having an article at all. 149.43.x.x 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep maybe Conservative Punks don't match your idealistic image of a Punk, that doesn't change the fact that they exist. --Boborok 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't appreciate you throwing it back at me like that. I never said anybody has to meet any "idealistic image." I can't tell you how to vote (here or anywhere else), but why don't you address the issues at hand? Please don't throw back comments that seem to do nothing but incense this discussion; nobody's here to debate what punks are and aren't allowed to do. If someone put up an article called "Liberal Punks," I'd nominate it for deletion just as quickly. 149.43.x.x 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, term gets roughly 70k google hits, along with mentions in the Guardian UK, NYT and MSNBC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Google hits aren't the only measure of relevance or encyclopedic merit. I never contested the fact that this website exists or that it's newsworthy. I'm pointing out that it doesn't constitute in any way a subculture or social movement, as the article claims; it's just a website, a group of people who read it, and the ensuing media attention. Read the article - it's totally non-NPOV and makes sweeping generalizations, and seems to be mostly original research or stuff cut straight from the website. How would you address my statement that nothing here makes it encyclopedic unless we want an entry about this website? (I have no problem with that, but in the last AfD nomination, those in favor only argued that this was only encyclopedic because it was some sort of social movement/subculture, and would not be encyclopedic otherwise. If we do want an article about the actual website though, it needs to be redone almost entirely.) 149.43.x.x 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So clean the article up so we can have the article about the notable website and the notable movement. The media mentions more than cover it, there's plenty of reliable sources to work off of. Cleanup isn't a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; also comes across as original research. Catamorphism 02:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nom seems to have an issue with the concept, not as much the article, which could certainly use some cleanup. Are you saying you're in favor of deleting based on concepts? Do media mentions mean nothing to you at all? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I don't know what "deleting based on concepts" means, but the concept of a "conservative punk" seems dubious. A lot of things are mentioned in the media; that doesn't establish notability. If there's a conservative punk manifesto published in book form, or a political party or officially incorporated organization that advocates "conservative punk" views, those would be some of the things that might establish notability. As it is, it sounds like just one of the many labels adopted by people who wank about politics on the Internet that have little relationship to any real-life political movement. Catamorphism 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting. Verifability is typically the way to go on these, and this concept easily meets that standard. Different strokes, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The news articles you cited above all center around Nick Rizzuto and his web site, and journalists aren't immune from the mistake of confusing a single web site with a significant political movement. I'm still skeptical as to whether "conservative punks" exist as a political movement beyond this one web site. Verifiability would mean verifying that they do, and that hasn't been demonstrated. Catamorphism 03:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And they also discuss the concept. Your skepticism should be quelled by the Guardian article at least, but whatever works for you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think anyone is debating the fact that someone could, in theory, be conservative and punk. No one is denying the fact that this has been mentioned in the news, no doubt much moreso since this website launched. But the fact remains that this doesn't necessarily lend legitimacy to this as a social movement, and certainly not as a subculture of punk. Like I said, I'd nominate for deletion "Liberal Punk" just as quickly, even though liberal punks are apparently omnipresent - because "Liberal Punk" isn't a term that means anything much more than the two words that make it up, and we've got articles for both of those words already.149.43.x.x 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The reliable sources disagree with you. And if there were similar sources and coverage for "liberal punk," I'd oppose you the same way. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Show me where a reliable source explains, in socio-cultural terms, how Conservative Punk is anything more than a group of punks who are conservative. Look at Punk Voter - can we expand that to be a page long diatribe about how the Punk Voter subculture of punk is a rallying point for all liberal punks, and then enumerate some stereotypical set of liberal/punk beliefs? There's no such evidence my hypothetical case or in this situation, and thus "Conservative Punk" is in no way a subculture of punk. The only reason the phrase "Conservative Punk" gets so much press is because it's the name of the site! If Punk Voter were called Liberal Punk, you would be flat out wrong. In addition, show me where this "movement" actually connects conservative punks with the Conservative Punk website, and not the other way around. That is, if this is some social movement, you'll have to demonstrate that the website sprung from it, and not vice-versa. As I see it, there's no evidence for that, and so this amounts to nothing more than a website started by some punks to do their own thing. And that's fine, and it may merit an article as such, but there's absolutely no evidence to support the claims of nearly all of what's in this article right now. 149.43.x.x 03:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: If we're going to keep talking past each other, perhaps you'd like me to do a re-write of the article, taking out everything that's unsubstantiated, original research, or whatever. I'm sure that's a reasonable alternative to deletion (except that many suggested an article like that wasn't worth having - but that's not the issue at hand), if you insist that this website itself has encyclopedic merit.149.43.x.x 04:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_24&oldid=1142647225"