Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)

edit

I am not sure why this is in the main article space, but it should not be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete no subpages in main space. Danny Lilithborne 01:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Even ignoring reason above, this article would be deleted in a heartbeat after actual creation. -Amarkov ^babble 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly written article in desperate need of wikification that has received little to no attention. As is it is not encyclopedic. wtfunkymonkey 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above or move it to talk page of "parent" article. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move or Merge — regardless of its subpage status (which is policy for POV dispute i believe), it has sources. it may be relevant to its parent article, Amin_al-Husseini where it can be merged, or moved to its own space. i dont think the nom provided a reason to delete beyond its ___location (which is easy to fix :). JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 08:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is a test page. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there has been no reasonable attempt to merge this since it was moved to this temp page >6 months ago, I'd say there is no reason for the temp page anymore...--Isotope23 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t know what to make of this page or what its purpose is. As it stands now it’s POV and violates article names guild lines and probably topic guide lines. Seano1 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. Active POV disputes may use subpages under Talk or User space, but leaving them around is dangerous, and forbidden for article space. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Yanksox. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toysandtreasures

edit

Non-notable web shop. --fvw * 00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Arbusto 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN, spam --Steve 01:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G11) Spam for NN company.--Hús ö nd 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. wtfunkymonkey 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Philips

edit

Fails WP:BIO. Author of various self-published online works. I removed the long list of articles on his personal website. His organization is also up for afd. Arbusto 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I fail to see how this individual is notable. Xdenizen 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Well, he has quite a few google hits. That said I think he still falls short of being notable of being mentioned here on WP. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 12:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this person - crz crztalk 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~DELETE~~ (see below... waaaaay below) Yikes and goodness gracious!! My google search comes up with several sites identifying this man as being linked to terrorist groups and a "list of unindicted co-conspirators" of the 1993 WTC bombing. And here we have a Wikipedia article making him look so shiny and clean and →respectable?? Yikes! and again I strongly say... YIKES! There's no good faith effort to write a balanced, truthful article here. Wikipedia is not a propagnada machine for terrorist organizations. We must delete this until someone can verify all the hubub about his terrorist leanings or at least where all that talk is coming from. We cant ignore it. I won't buy an excuse that "it's just a smear campaign from prejudiced people who are his enemies." Where there's smoke... It would be good for people to see that these are where the man's sympathies and associations lie in a well researched article on Wikipedia, but this by no means is the beginnings of such an article. There is no excuse for this article. Wipe it completely clean until someone can write a responsible article. OfficeGirl 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the place to deal with accuracy disputes. Seano1 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions of accuracy problems are an appropriate thing to bring up in AfD. Some users seem to think that the only thing to discuss in AfD is "notability." Instead of just going along with what the nom and others concluded from the text of the article, I added information that I found. I think this man may well prove to have a degree of notability if indeed he is associated with the 1993 WTC bombing conspiracy in reliable news sources but there are other considerations. My objections fall under the catergory of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. If these problems cannot be cleared up in a responsible way before the end of the discussion period for this AfD then the article is due to be deleted. But as to notability in the article as written there was not a sufficient assertion made. OfficeGirl 22:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then go in there and Edit Boldly.while observing WP:BLP policies. Edison 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:141.158.234.96 wrote the following in the articles talk page.: Dear Wikipedia: It would be ridiculous to delete this article. Bilal Philips is a major figure of English-language Salafi Islam, which has a worldwide reach. While his name may not be known outside of the Muslim community, he is quite well-known within that community. The existing article neither mentions his several influential publications, nor his political views and role in Salafi Islam. He is controversial especially among Salafis because he belongs to one of the splintered Salafi groupings so that others attack him as a "deviant." In fact, it appears that sometime between 1991 and 1994, he was either expelled from Saudi Arabia or had his visa not renewed, so that he had to migrate to the UAE. When I am able, I will try to fix his article here, but I want to write this right now so no one deletes him. I also want to add that in general Wikipedia is poor on Islamic topics and personages. Hardly any of the famous shaykhs of the past are noticed, and many modern personages are overlooked. This is quite apart from the poor quality of many articles that omit salient facts in the subjects lives or are too one sided. Thus, to go around looking for Muslim personages to delete is not the way to go if one wants to claim universal coverage for Wikipedia.

Keep Being a good person is not a qualification for getting an article on Wikipedia; the fact that he is associated with the 1993 bombing so strongly seems to indicate notability. The article needs an NPOV rewrite, removal of all unsourced and POV statements. But the fact that he is a noted terrorist is NOT a reason for deletion. If he were a non-notable terrorist that would be one thing; to claim in the same breath that he is notable and then deletable is contradictory. This is a content dispute and should be carried on on the articles talk page. Be bold, fix the article to be NPOV. It doesn't need to be deleted. --Jayron 32 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QueryJayron, has anyone gotten hold of a single good reference source about this man? I am not sure we are in a position to say that its been established as a fact that he was connected with the 1993 WTC bombing. I absolutely agree with you that if we have that as a fact then notability has been established. But if all we get is some kind of fansite content then the article would be due to be deleted. I am very much in favor of expanding the information available on Wikipedia concerning Muslim personages and topics related to Islam, as long as the articles are done responsibly. Since there's a real possibility that Bilal Philips has been involved in such serious matters I think his topic should be handled with special care. I also don't want the article to say he is a terrorist without at least one reliable news source to back it up, since we are dealing with a very damning statement about a living person. OfficeGirl 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independently of any judgement of a person's goodness or badness, there must be documented notability to have an article. No independent verifiable mainstream press coverage is presented in the article, and I could find no mention of "Bilal Philips"" in a 4000 publication database. Blogs and websites are not good sources to establish notability. Edison 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable convert, scholar and controversy, specialy all in one. --Striver 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Is this a joke? Bilal Philips is a widely recognised and leading Islamic and comparative religion author in the English language and has appeared on regularly on at least one TV channel that I know of in the UK. He has fourteen books available on Amazon [1] and thirty-six overall according to one website [2] and not forgetting the multiple articles available on his website and others. His book The Fundamentals of Tawheed is one of the best on the subject and features in the University of South California Compendium of Muslim Texts [3]. A google search for "bilal philips" brings up over 48000 results. He appears in this list of famous muslim scholars [4] and was interviewed by the Saudi Gazette in the article. Admittedly, the article is a bit bare but deletion would be the loss of an important or potentially important biography to wiki. Wikipidian 03:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipidian, maybe you can solve this whole discussion for us with your knowledge of sources and where to find them. Do you think that you could locate some articles about this man from good reliable sources? I am inclined to believe that they are out there, but I wouldn't know where to look. Surely he has been reported about in the news somewhere. Maybe there's something in an Arab newspaper from the time he was allegedly turned away from Saudi Arabia and emigrated to UAE in the early nineties, as was suggested on the article's talk page. Maybe there's an article about his alleged connection to the people who did the 1993 WTC attack. Maybe there's an article profiling his regular television appearances and public reaction to his statements in the BBC. If he's "widely recognised", then all we need is to present the evidence that he is indeed being recognised. I'll need to see something a bit stronger and more lasting than famousmuslims.com, but truly, I can be persuaded. I've changed my position on AfD's several times when an editor has come up with some good evidence. I'm open minded. Show me. OfficeGirl 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I think you have set the bar a bit too high for notability - at least according to wiki guidelines (please refer here [5]). His 36-odd books (14 on amazon), multiple articles, website content and his notable book The Fundamentals of Tawheed in my opinion easily pass him on "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" criteria. He also passes Wikipedia:Search engine test.
But in answer to your specific questions:

(1) I know of NO CONNECTION with Bilal Philips and terrorism and would be literally astonished of any proven link. The co-conspirators WTC thing, would be slander against a living person as more than likely the claim wouldn't be verfiable.

(2)He appears regularly on Peace TV (available in 125 countries) [6], regularly on Itihad TV UK (no source but you gonna have to trust me that I've seen him on here) and only occasionally on Islam channel (which again has global availability) but is due to appear in the Global Peace and Unity Event organised by the channel and broadcast worldwide [7][8]. Also apparently has been on Sharjah TV [9]

(3)I don't know if he's been seen on BBC/CNN etc but here's something from a Qatar-based paper [10] and interview with IslamOnline (the web's most popular Islamic website) [11] in addition to the Saudi Gazette interview from famousmuslims.

Basically, he's widely known for his contribution to english language Islamic literature and his television appearances and the most likely reason why he hasn't appeared in the secular media so often is because he's not the hook-for-a-hand controversial imam the media like to splash on our screens. Wikipidian 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you got my vote with the Qatar paper and the IslamOnline profile. He's definitely a scholar, and he's notable enough with good evidence. I'm terribly curious where the other talk (WTC conspiracy) is coming from, and if can be tracked down, hoax or no, it would be a good thing to explain in the article what that's all about. After all, Cat Stevens has trouble getting into some countries for running his mouth and not controlling his anger, but he's not likely to bomb anything (is he?). Anyway, Keep, but clean up. OfficeGirl 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipidian. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user Wikipedian. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per Wikipidian. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Wikipedian. --Marwatt 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

edit

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO, at first glance he appears to be notable, but its just a list of his beliefs. As someone noted on my talk, "He's not any better known than other Islamic public speakers, it's just that the article has been the scene of frantic revert wars between those who find him hilarious". [12] Arbusto 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Tarret 01:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 132,000 Ghits seems quite prolific and well-known Raffles mk 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the Google results as well as the fact that he has his own set of notable critics, Zakir Naik appears notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets my idea of notable due to the number of Google hits and some of the text I read on some of those pages. Better references are needed, though. The links in the "Critics" section lead to either forum messages or articles that don't talk about Zakir Naik at all. Those links alone wouldn't convince me that he has any notable critics. SWAdair 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria, number of Google hits makes him notable, sources need to be cited though. We should use reliable sources for the article as SWAdair pointed out. Article needs some cleanup though. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very idea of "reliable" source becomes controversial in cases like this one, however the guy appears well-known in Islamic circles, as well as being widely criticised. Stammer 07:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's not very well known in the West, but he seems to have a following in India. If we keep articles on people like Maurice Bucaille and Ahmed Deedat -- who are preaching the same message about the rationality of Islam -- then we need to keep this one. But it IS an accident that he got more attention than the other fellows. Send the mockers to the other articles, that will expand them handily. Zora 08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's very well known in South Asia and Muslim communities abroad. BhaiSaab ^talk 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This dude just barely makes it across the notability threshhold for me. My biggest problem with the article is that it needs to be cleaned up for POV (in both directions-- pro and anti) and the lengthiness of it is unjustified. There's no reason to have such a long list of his beliefs. Let's prune this thing down, please. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. OfficeGirl 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with a complete revision. He is a very notable, if not the most notable, South-Asian public speaker on Islam. Admittedly the articles is amongst the poorest I've come across on wikipedia- Sources on both sides are dubious to say the least! I still don't see how some random guy on some forum qualifies as a "critic" in the encyclopedic sense...--khello 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable in some world regions(for example in Indonesia where I live in) --Nielswik_(talk) 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - What! This is a bigger joke than putting the Bilal Philips up for deletion. I'm not even going to bother with giving reasons for notability this time as it's self evident from reading the article. Wikipidian 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Must keep, he is very famous among Muslims in the UK.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.255.83.10 (talk • contribs) .
Keep - Naik is a household name in millions of Muslim homes. There are millions of people who admire him as one of the greatest preachers on earth. Would you delete the entry for, say, Billy Graham ?
The problem with unreliable sources stems from the fact that few mainstream, high-brow scholars have dealt with Naik. So, the material on him mostly comes from web forums, sites and blogs etc. I agree however that it's absurd simply to list his beliefs. The article should be pruned.Not that the Bucaille article is much different.giordaanoGiordaano 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 05:58, 9 November 2006
Strong keep - Must keep, he is very famos everywhere. And he is really doing very good and really great things not only for Muslims but for the humanity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.209.122.53 (talk • contribs) .
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research Foundation

edit

Unnotable group. No independent sources. Started by a person who also started an article on the groups founder. Also up for afd. Arbusto 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lifts two whole paragraphs from [13]. MER-C 10:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but delete copyvio. BhaiSaab ^talk 12:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 12:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with severe warning about finding verifiable independent sources per guidlines. tho i agree it looks suss, i believe nominator is being heavy handed: correctly flags {{notablility}} then the very next day puts it on AfD. this is hardly fair, cld be grounds for speeding this process? → bsnowball 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zakir Naik. There's no justification for a separate article on this man's foundation. The only claim to notability that the foundation can make is the work by Zakir Naik. A brief and tasteful article about him that mentions the foundation is all that is needed. Oh, yes, and in addition to the copyright issues, this article is a POV disaster. All the more reason to tighten things up and merge into one article. OfficeGirl 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit it to remove copyvio--Nielswik_(talk) 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above commenters after removal of any copyvio. Yamaguchi先生 05:58, 9 November 2006
Keep as long as copyvio is removed. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V and WP:CORP. --Core des at 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamel College

edit

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? There are only two sources of trivial mention, which fails WP:CORP. No google news hits. One mention is "Determined to apply academic rigor to his pursuit, Mr. Villella took several online courses from Flamel College, which keeps a post office box in Sacramento ..."[14] WP:CORP is clear and this fails criteria. Arbusto 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed. --humblefool ® 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many google hits and enough people claiming certificates from the school to make it worth keeping. In particular, author Dennis Hauck [15] prominently claims to be an instructer there [16]. Further verifiable through references from the New York Times and other sources (which this nom has sought to remove [17]). I think we should document as many of these types of schools as we can, expanding our coverage beyond the bare bones List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that wikipedia carefully maintains (as per the list guideline, which mandates articles for list components). An alternative would be to merge info into the list, but there is probably enough meat to maintain a separate article. --JJay 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Conspiracy people claiming "certificates" from a PO Box is not a criteria for inclusion. There is not enough independent, RS sources for an article on this unaccredited school. WP:CORP is the criteria, and you have included trival sources that mention this in passing (read WP:CORP #1 to see why this fails). You have trivial mentions and no article that actually discusses this school. The NY Times (I linked above, but you omitted in your reference) says in one sentence its a PO Box and that's it. Also as you have been told before, just because I added it to a list does not mean wikipedia must keep it. Arbusto 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wp:Corp is a guideline. I consider it a stretch when applied to a school. For example, few schools are "listed on ranking indices" or have share prices "used to calculate stock market indices". Few schools have share prices full stop. However, the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline does state that: Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. [18]. I consider that further justification for keeping articles of this type. Otherwise, my reasons for wanting to maintain the article are explained above. --JJay 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying we should keep this because I added it to the unaccredited list? Arbusto 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my first comment for numerous reasons why this article should be kept (and expanded). --JJay 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No response with substance? Arbusto 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To clarify, this is a bunch of woowoos I've heard of before, but even given that I was unable to find multiple independent non-trivial sources online or any other indication of notability. Which is too bad really, because I'd actually like to keep this one... I think its kinduv funny. JoshuaZ 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xdenizen 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't see why an unaccredited school needs an article on Wikipedia, no assertion of notability. IMO, this school sounds like some half-past six school. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment A) What makes you think that users will do so? B) Since when was that an inclusion criterion? JoshuaZ 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering that this is an unaccredited college, perhaps wp:corp should be used for consideration, contra to an above comment. --Dennisthe2 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcus1234 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per JJay, it is more than reasonable that readers will turn to Wikipedia for this information. Yamaguchi先生 06:00, 9 November 2006
Keep JJay makes a strong argument. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please. This is a "school" that gives degrees in ghost hunting. Did you even review the article? Arbusto 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its about as useful in the real world as a college giving a degree in Turfgrass Management (Ohio State), Poultry Science (Univ of MD), or video gaming. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those are all large industries (and Poultry Science is to be blunt necessary for the standard of living in most developed nations). Ghost hunting on the other hand...(note, I don't think this actually has much to do with notability anyways, but its worth noting). JoshuaZ 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please assume good faith that those who have commented have reviewed the article. This is a unique and interesting school, with verifiable coverage (i.e. New York Times) that without a doubt should be included on a project aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Silensor 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifable? The NY Times' trival mention is posted at the start of this nom says it based from a PO Box. Explain how it meets WP:CORP. Also unique isn't a criteria for inclusion. Arbusto 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this is an institution with any academic standing, and after an admittedl brief check I can't verify any of the article from reliable independent secondary sources. Guy 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the basis for that statement? I provided three references when I addded material to the article including the NY Times. They are all reliable, independent and secondary. --JJay 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article I linked from the NY times at the top and is cited in the article simply states it is a PO Box. That is also on its webpage. Hardly passes any WP:V of a study body, history, etc. Arbusto 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V miserably. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits should be the primary reason we include an article, but whatever. Based on the numbers there is no consensus to delete, thankfully arguments other than the google hits were presented, and per JJay's argument and evidence there does seem to be reliable information written about this topic. I suggest actually citing it in the article, which is about 0.02% as long as this AfD. W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newport University (California)

edit

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? Created by Drsalleh (talk · contribs), who's only made 3 article edits. Approved by California's consumer department (NOT education), thus must pass WP:CORP. Possible diploma mill.[19] Arbusto 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well summarized nomination. JoshuaZ 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Do not mismatch stub with delete candidate. Tulkolahten 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited or not, this school brings in over 385,000 relevant Google hits. What are the requirements for obtaining an .edu ___domain name, does anyone know? Silensor 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It depends very much how and when you got it. I know someone who technically owns Miskatonic.edu (see Miskatonic University). My impression is that it has gotten harder in the last few years. JoshuaZ 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see relevant hits. Wikipedia and mirrors, and the Chronicle for Higher Education talks about "Christopher Newport University." Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unaccredited colleges should not have articles. They are nothing more than non-notable corporations. --- RockMFR 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor, it seems to have gained some notoriety. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass WP:CORP? How many students attend? Does it have a campus? The only place that knows of this is a divison of California Department of Consumer Affairs NOT any academic accreditor nor the Department of Education. Arbusto 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a school. Just because it is a private company does not mean it is not a school. Unacredited is not the same a not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools which are unaccredited are in many ways only schools in so far as they claim to be schools. It isn't clear to me why they shouldn't be treated a corporations. JoshuaZ 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acreddited simply means officially recognized. While unaccredited may mean it is not notable, it really only means it is not officially recognized, by whatever officials happen to be in charge of accrediting, not that it is neccesarily not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unaccredited doens't mean not-notable. Bob Jones University is an obvious counterexample. However, it does make it reasonable to apply WP:CORP. This university seems to fail it. JoshuaZ 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not need to meet every notability requirement it may fall under, only one(unless I am wrong). My stance is that while it may be a CORP, it is still a SCHOOL, and if it meets one of them, as opposed to all of them, it is fine. Yes, it is a CORP, but it is still a SCHOOL. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we have a consensus about corporations. We have no consensus abotu schools. So it maybe makes sense to differ to the one we have an actual consensus on? JoshuaZ 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so, because that consensus was not neccesarily made with schools in mind. To be frank, it seems like a bit of a stretch to apply CORP to a school simply because it is not accredited. After all, acredited schools can be private corperations aswell, I don't see the connection. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This place is for-profit, see policies on WP:CORP. And thus, is much different a public high school. It lacks sources and notability. Arbusto 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article needs to be expanded. We seem to have an arbitrary distinction between accredited and unaccredited schools that seems to have no factual basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Newport U. would seem to be no different from any other non-public university or school. Alansohn 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A public institution must have accreditation implies notability. Unaccredited schools like Bob Jones University have established notability with the number of students and articles, etc. Do have nothing like that here? Any articles for notability? Any statistics IF ANYONE ATTENDS? Arbusto 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with nomination. Nothing here suggesting notability. It apparently exists, is located in Newport, and is unaccredited. Wikipedia is not a directory. —ptk✰fgs 06:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Silensor. --ManiF 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This place is "for profit" in this link that comes up as the top ten ghits supplied by Silensor. Can anyone explain how this meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, it is still a school, even if they make profit. Most major schools profit. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, most private schools are non-profit (all public are non-profit by definition), which gives them different tax stuctures and incentives. Moreover, its an unaccredited school that we can't verfiy academics nor do we have any WP:RS to write an article with. Please supply some WP:RS if you wish to expand this instead of keeping it as a two sentence stub. You can't even answer my basic question: HOW MNY STUDENTS CLAIM TO ATTEND? Arbusto 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silensor. Notable Google hit count and commenters above suggest that our readers will look to Wikipedia for neutral coverage of this educational institution regardless of its accreditations or lack thereof. Yamaguchi先生 06:04, 9 November 2006

What are some of these links that cover this subject? Post them here. We have NOTHING to write an article with. Arbusto 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silensor, there is significant Google coverage here... I think a strong argument can therefore be made regarding its notability. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You "think an argument can be made"? Of that ghit count what are some WP:RS we can write an article with? I see forums, ads, and a bunch of other places with the "Newport University" not tied to this. Also how does this meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for all those "per Silensor" keeps: most of the Google hits returned are not about the Newport University on Newport Beach at all, but about the Cristopher Newport University. When you search for "NEwport University" California -"Christopher Newport", you already drop to 13,500 Ghits[20]. Many of those are still false positives, but you get the idea. As for the number of students: they seem to have had a grand total of 8 graduates in 1993[21], and are not listed in the COOL database[22]. As far as I can see, it is an unaccredited correspondence law school with some 10 to 15 students each year[23]. Since OCtober 2004, only two first years students passed the "Baby Bar"[24]. Apart from their own website and such statistics which prove existence (although with a very limited number of correspondence students), I am unable to find any reviews, discussions, or other WP:V sources to show any notability. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comment and per nom. Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, but this is because of concerns over sources that indicate notability. --SunStar Net 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the school is registered with California for the bar exam [25]. It is also my understanding that Newport students can take the California licensing exam in clinical psychology and family counseling. Second, there are reliable sources available for the school, for example the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah (pay site) [26]. Third, whatever you may think of these types of schools, people are getting degrees from Newport and sometimes working in positions of authority. That can cause controversy. Stanley Blondek, an expert witness and California prison youth counselor who claimed a masters and PhD from Newport (but repeatedly failed the California licensing exam) is an example (pay site) [27]. Fourth, Wikipedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work. We should be doing articles on all schools, accredited and unaccredited. Our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is a very limited start but provides no real information and is unsourced (but does include Newport). We need articles on the underlying institutions. --JJay 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Registered with the bar examin means what? According to that page, "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." So your link means the bar has heard of this place before, but it doesn't know if its reilable.

You seem not particularly well informed of the requirements for admission to the bar in the state of California. Schools must fully adhere to bar exam rule XIX related to law study in unaccredited shools [28]. This requires state licensing, inspection, a qualified faculty, classroom study, library, etc. The requirements are not easy to meet. --JJay 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review [29] and feel free to provide [WP:RS]] for each criteria. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??? California sets standards for allowing students from various institutions to sit for the bar exam and in the case of unaccredited schools, bar exam rule XIX is applicable (as indicated in my previous post). It is not up to me to "provide WP:RS for each criteria". The school is listed on the California bar exam website, meaning they have passed inspection and adhere to the clauses of rule XIX. Pretty simple really. If you believe that is not the case please enlighten us. --JJay 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people can walk in and take the test. Does American Bar Association accredit law schools: YES. Does Newport have accreditation: NO. Has this been called a diploma mill: YES. Can the California Bar Association say this provides an good/quality education: NO. Does this place meet the standards for the California Bar Accreditation[30]: NO. Does California of Bar Examiners approve or accredit correspondence schools: NO.[31] Have you given any reason why this for-profit place meets WP:CORP: NO. Arbusto 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed the school is accredited. That is not at issue. Your statement that "people can walk in and take the test" is false. The school has to be inspected and must adhere to a series of requirements. That is why few schools are on the list. Your comment that the school has been called a "diploma mill" is completely unproven. Provide proof of that statement. The California Bar's non-opinion of unaccredited schools is not the issue here either. Finally, WP/Corp is a guideline that should not apply to schools for obvious reasons. The interest of these types of articles is to have background information on institutions of higher learning that are awarding degrees to people that sometimes achieve positions of authority (in this case potential lawyers, social workers, psychologists). That is inherently notable and supercedes WP/Corp and its fixation on stock prices. --JJay 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have two sources that question its academics, and no one disputes its for-profit nature. 1) Here. 2) In an article in South China Morning Post Stella Lee's article "Overseas university under investigation in Hong Kong" states "The Newport University of California which is not accredited by the American education authorities, started offering courses ... through distance learning courses." This was in relation to Newport's "classes" which "are not in the form of instruction, we just ask the students to raise their questions and discuss them with experts." This again is a trival mention in the paper, but leads use to question Newport's seriousness as a "school"

You still haven't offered any sources as to how this business meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cearly haven't read the first source, which never calls the school a diploma mill. Nor does the second source, apparently. The only person making that claim is you, but without proof. If you question Newport's "seriousness" take it up with the Bar association of California. --JJay 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Your insisting we keep an article for a ten year old Salt Lake newspaper that calls this place a diploma mill is more of a reason to delete. That is, no one has provided any criticism in the article about its ppor quality of instruction. Thus, your link makes us more skeptical about the article meeting WP:V. The article says nothing about criticism, which is very misleading per your one article. Readers, right now, get the false impression that is place's academics aren't questionable per the one source you mentioned.

3) Lastly, as you have been told just because I added this to the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean we keep it. We kept WP:V and notable unaccredited schools. One article from ten years ago does not prove notablity. Arbusto 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) While the school is not accredited, the fact that several state bodies do provide some level of recognition to the school is not only evidence of verifiability, it also goes a long way to establishing notability in the context of a university. 2) The source is independent, reliable and verifiable. There is simply no criteria that the source must be recent OR that it must be positive. "Non-trivial coverage" is timeless. As the source is provided, readers can make their own impression of the article's characterization. 3) A reminder that a school's presence on the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean it should be deleted. 4) The time has come to address the evidence of notability and get past the fact that it is unaccredited. There is simply no standard whatsoever that makes an accredited school notable OR makes an unaccredited school a non-notable target for deletion. Alansohn 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Its on a list for california's consumer division with 1800 of other unaccrediteds; hardly notable. Review WP:CORP. 2) You have one article from ten years ago. Review WP:CORP. 3) Yes. No one said otherwise. 4) Yes, notability is important. How does it pass WP:CORP? Arbusto 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the arguments and research provided by Fram. 10-15 graduates per year is insufficient justification for an article. -Kubigula (ave) 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note to closing admin. no user who voted to retain this has provided evidence of it passing WP:CORP. According to this "university's" website ten to fifteen people "graduate" this place a year. We have no independent or verifable statistics or facts about anything. This has serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is false. There is no information regarding student numbers on the school's website. The link provided by User:Fram shows eight law school graduates in 1993 and is from a California education site. The school also has numerous other programs. Finally, WP:Corp is a guideline. It is entirely debateable whether it should apply to a school. And numerous valid reasons have been given for keeping the article. Regarding WP:V, as indicated above, sources exist that confirm the school, its programs and that students are eligible to sit for the bar. There are no WP:V issues, serious or otherwise, with the basic facts of the article.--JJay 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is for-profit.[32] How does it meet WP:CORP?

2) It is NOT accredited by the California bar as I noted above. Allowing people to take a test is different than accreditation.

3) According to the org. you are citing "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools."

4)[33] One source describes "Newport" as " A couple of clunker cars sit in the driveway of a 40-year-old brick house, which sits squarely in a commercial zone: a hardware store in back, an equipment-rental company in front and a McDonald's expanding up the street. The back yard has an old cedar fence, a rusting clothesline and an overgrown shade tree. Inside the house, a secondhand desk, some office chairs, bookshelves and a pair of torch lamps are assembled in the living room. Welcome to Newport..." Also note the title of the article.

5) Hence serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter whether the school is accredited or not. It exists and someone cared enough to write an article about it, therefore is worthy of an article. If it is a diploma mill, put this in the article. Actually, articles on diploma mills would be an excellent public service, since it would out them as such to any potential student who doesn't realise what the institution is. If it is a diploma mill, that makes it more notable than if it were just a small, unaccredited college. *jb 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to wikipedia. However, you failed to offer sources for WP:V. Can we properly assert it is a university or a for-profit diploma mill? No one has offer evidence for either. Thus, academics aside this is for-profit. How does it meet WP:CORP? Do we have enough sources to write a NPOV article about this business? I don't think so. Arbusto 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — No verification on university's "status" - delete per the WP:V issues mentioned above. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we're apparently unable to independently verify the noteability of this institution. It should not be deleted merely because it is unaccredited but that does it make it much more difficult to establish noteability as it's not listed in IPEDS. --ElKevbo 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per nom's convincing rebuttals to all counterarguments raised. Also, Delete because no schools are notable! :) Xtifr _tälk 11:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems as though everything wrong with this article is that it's incomplete. So why are we here yapping about it? ST47Talk 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point if we can't find WP:RS and WP:V then we don't have enough to write an accurate article. And inaccurate articles should get deleted. Arbusto 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Fram and WP:V. I believe this one is noteworthy, but that's no good if we can't verify through independent sources, and it seems as if we can't. Shimeru 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio from [34]. MER-C 10:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ... and deleted as empty and unexpandable due to verifiability issues. Guy 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Online University

edit

Unnotable, unaccredited "school." Anyone even attend this place? Anyone even know what city this place claims to be in? Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination
Delete per WP:ADS, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP. Couldn't find anything about the site on Alexa.--TBCΦtalk? 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TBC edit conflicted to say essentially what I was going to say. To expand slightly, using either WP:WEB or WP:CORP this institution is non-notable. JoshuaZ 05:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP, not a notable online university. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:V - material that doesn't meet it shouldn't be in one article or another. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Turkel

edit

A webmaster of a online "ministry" and author of one self-published book. Arbusto 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tekton Apologetics Ministries which is currently a redirect to Turkel. The ministry meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't this be a "Move" instead? Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, technically yes. The point in calling it a merge was that the article should primarily be about the ministry with the merged material being, well merged material. JoshuaZ 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. While I am unfamiliar with the Christian apologetics movement, it seems clear that the article doesn't meet WP:V. The only sources sited are either Web sites belonging to the subject or his critics. What we need is a few neutral, unbiased sources to establish notability. As of now, the article fails to assert that subject and the ministry are adequately notable. Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does the ministry meet WP:Web? What are all the non-trivial sources? How is it an independent web site? If someone can improve the article, and make it obvious why this is notable, I have no problem with it staying. If not, delete it and the ministry entry. I don't see anyone writing scholarly pieces about Turkel or the Ministry, but again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)
Keep or at least Merge to Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Holding is clearly very well known to both Christians and antitheists. 58.162.2.122 08:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There was RECENTLY a vote on this whole matter and the vote was to keep. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JP_Holding

Also: 1) The leading atheist website www.infidels.org lists 40 Christian apologists and JP Holding is listed among them (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)

2) Next, well known Christians have spoken favorably of his ministry (if memory serves Hank Hanegraaff" The Bible answer man" on the radio spoke well of Holding for example). Here is a link to one of Holdings articles at his website: When apologetics was evangelism by JP Holding

3) Many well known atheists disparage Holding and these atheists are listed among Wikipedia subject headings. What better recommendation of your relevance can you get than the public disparagement of those who oppose your viewpoint!

I cite:

G.A. Wells (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html )

Farrell Till (see: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html )

Holding returns the disparagement here:

G.A. Wells http://www.tektonics.org/TK-W.html

Farrell Till http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html

4) Even the www.infidels.org website has mentioned Holding in rather favorable terms.

I cite:

"Updated the author page of Kyle J. Gerkin with an added link to the "Scholarly Diplomacy Series." (Off Site)

Kyle J. Gerkin and J.P. Holding amicably engage each other in an and ongoing discussion of their differing worldviews. The goal is to tear down the wall of antipathy that too often divides Christians and skeptics, so as to foster a respectful understanding of those differences."

taken from: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2003/may2003.shtml

5) Holding's website gets a lot off traffic and his articles often get high rankings on the search engines as many people link to them.

6) Holding has been published.

7) I know that many evangelical ministers are aware of Holding. I spoke to one last month and he is aware of Holding. ken 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

- Comment first of all, if over a year ago is "recently" then yes, there was a "recent" vote on this. Second of all, due to full disclosure provisions, I will note that ken created this article, and is the main contributor.--Andrew c 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also want to note that the nominator, possibly after people suggested a merge, did an out of process blanking and redirect of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Sorry, you can't bypass AfD by redirecting articles (if that was the intent). --Andrew c 16:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you mean Ken, not the nominator (me). It was he who redirected it. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Additional comment. A correction to Andrew's post. I did create the article but about half the article was created by other Wikipedians by their additions to the article because JP Holding is well known among many atheist apologists and Christian apologists. ken 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
    - I apologize if I mischaracterized ken. I just wanted to make sure AfD Wikietiquette was being applied (regarding Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.).--Andrew c 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JoshuaZ. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Impressive Guy. Well referenced and presented. nascarfan1 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. Also note that the user account is User:Nascarfan1 while the user page is at User:NASCARfan1. Fys. Ta fys aym. 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How does this meet WP:WEB (for the merge people) and how does this meet WP:BIO for the keep people? So we have 3 votes for k two are new users and one is the original author. I should have speedied this as it doesn't assert notability. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — If you ask me, this article fails WP:V, and the entire article seems to exist in order to promote JP Holding - not to present it in an encyclopedic manner. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy is only notable inside his own head. Laurence Boyce 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable and verifiable third party mainstream references presented to establish notability. Edison 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science

edit

No independent sources and no claims of notability. Vague description of what it is does not directly assert is goals or importance. Arbusto 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Look at the list of founding members. Anything founded by them and chaired until the end of his life by Linus Pauling is clearly notable. --Bduke 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unaccredited school [35]. No verifiable evidence that pauling had anything to do with it (according to the IAS's homepage it was founded by Roger Billings in 1985, so Pauling could not have founded it in 1980). Has a snazzy name, though. --Charlene 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This vote should be reconsidered, as it is clearly not related to a school, a subject that several individuals seem to confuse, including the nominator. If this vote is not recast based on the fact that it is an organization, it should be ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Charlene and nom. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per new info presuming that the claims can be sourced. JoshuaZ 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, advertising. Sandstein 06:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Keep after the confusion with the school has been cleaned up. Sandstein 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Khoi khoi 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Take a look at History of IAS. I think you are confusing two quite different things - an unaccredited school and an International Professional Society. That link is off the one on this article and it is presumably where the author of the article (not me) got the information about Pauling. Or are you all saying this web site is a fraud? --Bduke 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify further. The school web site is here. It is mentioned above but not given. It is even more confusing. There is also International Academy of Sciences. Note the plural "Sciences". And then there is World Academy of Science. We are discussing [36]. --Bduke 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If so, we should probably have an article about the legitimate IAS here with a one-line note about the school. JoshuaZ 07:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable NGO, with numerous Nobel laureates as members. It's a big deal. The problem here is the confusion between the NGO and the small unaccredited school in Missouri. COGDEN 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per COGDEN, to delete this would be a mistake. Silensor 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs cleaned up and sourced to be kept. Arbusto 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm deeply uneasy about this one. There seem to be a lot of these obscure institutions claiming large numbers of Nobel laureates as members, and all claiming to be terribly important and prestigious, but curiously they run out of PO boxes in places like Eichstaett or Huddersfield. Looks to me more like self-aggrandisement than anything else. Weak delete, though I could be persuaded otherwise. WMMartin 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is not one of them. This is one of those organizations that Nobel laureates put on their resume. See, for example, [37], [38], and [39]. The problem is, the Missouri organization has not actively discouraged people from confusing the two organizations. See this site from the Missouri organization, which has a big seal and a picture of Neils Bohr, and says "Current Membership: 11". O 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A notable international organization. The fact that it was founded by Linus Pauling, John Kendrew, Alexander Todd, Andrei Sakharov, Konrad Lorenz and Ilya Prigogine, would have to be one of the clearest and most concise claims of notability possible. A Thursday night poker game founded by this group would probably be notable. Cleanup to explain that the other organizations are NOT affiliated with this one, would go a long way to clearing up confusion for potential readers of this article and for this who have voted to delete based on an incorrect understanding of what this organization is. Alansohn 05:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:RS. Arbusto 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am almost certain we already deleted this once under another title. I seem to recall that the claims are all down to letters form the illustrious supporting the idea (but not actually doing or promising anything), and the balance turned out to be unverifiable. Guy 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall something too, but I recall it being an article on the unaccredited school. However I can not find it. --Bduke 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. There was an article about the Missouri organization, now deleted. COGDEN 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri). Arbusto 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The IAS is certainly notable, and it looks like the school confusion has been cleaned up in the article. ~ BigrTex 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no major edits have been made since I opened this afd. Arbusto 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Arbusto/oo created the original AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri), the fact that he still believes this article to be for a school is baffling. IT'S NOT A SCHOOL! It's an organization that was founded by several world-renowned scientists, including the odd Nobel Prize-winner or two, and BigrTex is trying to point out that you either seem to be terribly confused or just plain vindictive that an organization with a similar name exists to an article you had earlier deleted. Stating in your excuse for nomination that it makes "no claims of notability" and "does not directly assert is goals or importance" is directly contradicted by the simplest reading of the text of the article. This nomination should be withdrawn. Alansohn 07:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Where did I call this a school? 2) Your bad behavior and attacks of various people is a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Arbusto 07:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every delete vote seems to believe that this is an article for a school, the usual and customary target of your attacks. You have never clarified this to any of those who have blindly followed your nomination, and your confirmation that you had deleted a school with the same name never mentions that THIS IS NOT A SCHOOL, IT'S A SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION. The individuals who switched their votes did so upon realizing that this AfD is not for a school. While I cannot assume in this case that you are operating in bad faith, the fact that you have never clarified the nature of this AfD leaves this nomination and your motives in question. Alansohn 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't admit you were wrong. Your recent comments to new users and myself are out of line. If you can't follow WP:CIVIL then don't edit wikipedia. Arbusto 20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, you have stood idly by allowing others to be misled into voting to delete an article on the assumption that it's a school. When are you finally going to clean up this mess and clarify that this is an article for an organization and not a school? This whole AfD is starting to appear deliberately fraudulent and just a casual mistake. Alansohn 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I starting to see a trend. Helical Rift 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projectw

edit

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Marked as a speedy, which was then disputed. I'm not sure, they get a reasonable number of google hits but then again that number will be hugely inflated for these kinds of sites. No vote. --fvw * 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats true but they do boast a membership of over 300,000 registered members in just about 2 years. I believe that is a large enough pool of people to permit us to make a wiki about it. It is one of the largest players in the warez scene and i have seen much smaller boards have a wiki. -Zabzu

That assumes that they aren't lying. Or creating thousands of fake accounts, which is the same thing, really. Either way, every single source I found on google was either a primary source, a blog, a personal website, or just using their email addresses to recognize contributions. Fails WP:NOTE because of lack of multiple reliable secondary sources, thus delete. -Amarkov ^babble 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hold on, can i have the admins of the site come and talk to give a reliable second source and prove he validity of all 300,000 members

here are the service stats of the board alone

Server Load: 2342 pages served in previous 5 minutes. Page generation time: 0.25508 seconds - SQL queries: 18

Our users have posted a total of 2347368 articles We have 300415 registered users The newest registered user is avrillirva In total there are 435 users online :: 354 Registered, 35 Hidden and 46 Guests [ Administrators ] [ Moderators ] [ VIP ] [ Donator ] Most users ever online was 1116 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 16:14

are you serious why to delete this page ?? ProjectW is the best !!!!!!

^ Yes, ProjectW is the shiz!

Weak delete Though the article does seem to fail the criterias of WP:WEB, an Alexa ranking of 2,047 is quite impressive. --TBCΦtalk? 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly, just give it a chance. The majority of the sites members are european and its the middle of the night there. Give it 12 hours so they can see the wiki and respond accordingly.

-- note that the above unsigned comment was left by user Zabzu --

Delete per nomination. I don't hold an Alexa ranking, especially in this context, above WP:WEB. This article is non-encyclopedic, doesn't cite sources, and reads more like a poorly written review verging on masturbatory spam -- wtfunkymonkey 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special here; any forum that requires that users register to even view the forums is bound to have a high membership count, but that's definitely not a useful number for active posters. --humblefool® 03:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this page has been linked to, with instructions on how to post to it, on their forums. I left them a note discouraging that. --humblefool ® 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectW gains over 500 new members a day. It has 2347603 articles. I have seen much smaller sites have wikis and i think you should give our a chance, the site can only grow. We have members from almost every single country in the world. As soon as the Admins get on i can access the tracker info to show you how large and well represented projectw is.

You're entirely missing the point. You must have reliable secondary sources to get an article. We don't keep articles because their subject is big, without reliable secondary sources. -Amarkov ^babble 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources to back up the content? Warez boards are usually not officially listed as warez but i can prove that it is one of the 20 largest phpbb boards.

omg! all this discussion... ok, but to come to the point.. can we have the article or not?

here is a source, on of the 20 largest warez board, in fact projectw would be number 9 http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=phpBB,all&sort=members they refuse to lost Warez boards and other adult content but in fact if you sort by members ou will find projectw fits into 9th place

OK. 9th largest warez board. We'll assume it's true.

Is projectw notable for that reason alone? 9th isn't all that impressive.
If not, is projectw more notable than any other big warez board? If so, why?

If you can't answer these questions, the article will likely be deleted. humblefool ® 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More important is this:

Are there reliable secondary sources on which to base the content?

If there aren't, the article will almost definitely be deleted. -Amarkov ^babble 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i still do not understand what you mean by secondary sources. IS big-baords not a secondary source?

And no projectw is also notable for the fact that It is the largest warez forum on the internet. When people download warez they have two choices, a bittorrent client or a forum and the number one forum is Us.

Also ProjectW beats the other warez competition in the fact that we have almost double the members of our two competitors and we are affiliated wiht other large warez sites such as katz.ws

Now wait. Are you the largest warez site, or 9th largest? You've claimed both. Also, Bigboard's rankings are based on self-reporting by the sites, which is unreliable at best. Has the site been mentioned in the media at all? Size *alone* isn't a reason to have a Wikipedia article. --humblefool ® 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Largest Warez Board and the 9th Largest phpbb board. That clear? Also this is the most reliable way to track the size of these boards.

It. Does. Not. Matter. You. Need. Reliable. Secondary. Sources. NOTHING which mechanically gathers info is a secondary source, nor is something that just blindly uses what's been reported by the primary source. Please, read WP:NOTE and WP:V. For that matter, you really should just read all the policies and guidelines. -Amarkov ^babble 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:WEB. Kavadi carrier 06:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blindingly obvious web forum vanity. Please discount all puppets. JIP | Talk 12:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources cited means it does not pass WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 14:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is one of those cases where lots of g-hits does not imply notability. Any site devoted to the Warez scene has the potential to be drastically over rated by the google test as a result of top100 lists, leech sites, mirrors, and content hosting sites. In very rare cases (such as the Pirate Bay) outside media attention makes a pirating site notable. In this case, the article reads like a teaser for the forum, and I honestly don't see how a well formatted NPOV article could say anything beyond "ProjectW is a warez community with a good number of members". -bobby 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Very Very Very Strongest and hardest delete Nothing else to say. Just delete. --SkyWalker 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no reliable sources present to verify anything. If we remove everything that is unsourced or unimportant, this is what we are left with:

ProjectW is a 300,000 member strong warez community. It's currently in the top-20 largest phpBB boards on the web --Wafulz 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it and protect the page - Warezcruft! Just what we needed. Fails WP:V, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. Trifecta. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep the thing~~ delete - I don't see anyone saying that the group is not being used by the number suggested. As such it is notable whatever anyone thinks about it. The article is very badly written but that is no excuse to delete it - if people don't like the article then well and good tell the writers to improve it or make it a stub - an AfD is a decision on the name in the Wikipedia space not about the contents of the article. If the contents are bad, but the name is encylopedic then the proper action is to ask for it to be improved not to delete --Mike 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not the obligation of those in an AfD debate to prove something is not notable. It is the obligation of those seeking to keep an article to show multiple independent mainstream coverage of it. Claims of how many members there are from the website itself are not verifiable or independent. I found no mention of "Projectw" in a database of 4,000 publications, but I did find numerous articles about the persons operating such sites getting convictions for software privacy. Warez is notable, this one site is not so far. Edison 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the article makes a claim, I'm afraid the onus is on those deleting to make the case that it is a false claim (or that having requested proper citation to verify no verificaton has been produced). However, based on your own evidence of a lack in 4000 publciations, I satisfied there is clear evidence of non-notability - thanks! --Mike 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because of WP:V, not to mention WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV ~ BigrTex 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core des at 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pierce

edit

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Pierce was a member of two notable bands, Spacemen 3 and Spiritualized, both of which have released albums on major labels [40] [41].--TBCΦtalk? 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the nominator that this subject fails to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. This subject has in fact gone on a national tour in Britain. For more information, please view this this webpage. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable - Spacemen 3 were one of the more influential British alternative groups of the late 1980s, and Spiritualized have enjoyed chart success in Britain. Spiritualized alone satisfy most of the criteria in the "Musicians and ensembles" section of WP:MUSIC, and Pierce himself satisfies most of the "Composers and lyricists" section. Frivolous AfD - people should really do some research before whacking tags on articles. Tpth 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had never heard of this artist or his bands, but upon review of his page and the page for Spiritualized it is clear that the notability requirements are met. Eron 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Spiritualised is clearly notable and thus the individual in question is too. Xdenizen 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, he meets the notability requirements though I've never heard of him before. His albums have enjoyed success in the UK charts. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Spiritualized clearly meet WP:MUSIC, Ladies And Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space makes frequent appearances in greatest albums lists. Catchpole 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable enough to have an article of his own outside of his 2 notable groups. Ac@osr 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I actually tried speedy keeping this one, but another user thought I was a bit quick in my decision. Either way, Pierce clearly meets notability guidelines per what everyone above is saying. →Bobby← 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per commenters above, the subject meets our WP:BIO notes. Yamaguchi先生 06:09, 9 November 2006
Keep Spacemen 3 and Spiritualized are incredibly influential and J. Spaceman (Jason Pierce) is a contemporary, working songwriter/composer/performer. 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was merge. W.marsh 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. James the Fisherman Episcopal Church

edit

disputed PROD for NN-local church delete DesertSky85451 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, no more notable than any other church.--TBCΦtalk? 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge to appropriate diocese or locality. Un focused 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC and nom. There is nothing to distinguish this church from any other church. JoshuaZ 05:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn church, nothing more. We should introduce the places of worship criteria sooner or later. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to here or here. While the church is not notable enough for its own page, there is no reason to delete a decent article when it would greatly improve either of the two relevant pages I mention above. -bobby 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If merged, it should be with the article on the community. Articles for the dioceses of the Episcopal Church don't usually include mentions of the individual parishes of the dioceses. The cathedral parish is an exception; I can see an exception for a very notable parish, but this isn't one of those. -- Bpmullins | Talk 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn parish church, parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamorada, Florida (or to the diocese page as mentioned above). Doesn't need its own article but that doesn't mean that the information can't be useful elsewhere. If anyone's interested in expanding the article, I'd be interested in knowing why it changed its name so often. JYolkowski // talk 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, nn ~ BigrTex 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five Miles From Woodstock

edit

Article fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. There's no presence on Google for this band beyond wiki and its mirrors, plus a myspace page. The news article about the band member's survival of a plane crash did not mention the band. -- Whpq 01:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It seems a bit strange that a band that is supposedly "seeing a rise of 500% [record sales] on last year and requests for a gig in Italy" only has thirty relevant results on Google, most of which are from Wikipedia and mySpace.--TBCΦtalk? 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - that 500% increase could be pretty easily explained if thier previous sales figures were in the area of two. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as NN and almost definite vanity. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The Band is does not meet WP notablity standards and this article does compromise the integrity of WP. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 07:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verification, and no claim to satisfy WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a member of the band, and this article has only just come to my attention (it has not been written by us). It is largely incorrect and I will fix it ASAP. First, a few of the comments below need correction. The news article about Alex Milner-Smith's survival of a plane crash DOES mention the band, please read it properly. The main results from Google are not Wikipedia and MySpace, but the band's official page, [42]. We are also featured on current West End Les Mis actor Gina Beck's website: [43]. The sales figures are made up, I will edit them. We currently are under contract with EggNog Records and TuneCore Distributors: our album "Trash Talk" will be on sale from all digital music stores (including iTunes) from December 2006. We have toured France and Italy, I will post up articles ASAP. Thankyou for the comments.--ED

Comment - I did read the plane crash article, and I stand by my original statement in the nomination. What the article states, is a quote from Alex Milner-Smith

He would also like to return to playing in his rock band: "I'm a guitar player but luckily I play the drums as well. I might have to play those for a while until my fingers heal."

This provides nothing in the way of verifiability. In any case, the article is a poor choice for reference as the article is not about the band, but about the victim of a plane crash. For the refernces that you are adding, please review WP:V, and WP:MUSIC as there are the criteria being applied. -- Whpq 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair enough, sensible point. I'm not advocating that this article should be kept on, by the way. I have no idea who wrote it. I will supply the correct information and then leave it to your sensible judgement. All the best. -- ED.

Delete, fails WP:BAND and WP:V. Additional notability metric: no listeners on Last.fm. Maybe after the album hits the market.--Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Be careful with autobiographical stuff. Still, if you want to keep the article, in light of the fact that the band has no major label releases, please provide links to reviews in reliable sources. If you have recieved reviews by music critics in newspapers, trade journals, magazines, etc., PLEASE PROVIDE THEM. Make sure the reviews are a) extensive and b) from reliable sources (click the link above for reliable sources) and the article becomes inherently keepable. In the absence of such evidence, it will be deletable. I will change my vote when and if the evidence of notability arrives. --Jayron 32 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though reading like an advert currently, an article on this band should be on wikipedia. One band member is famous in New Zealand after their plane crash, and many articles can be found on himin the NZ press. Also the motion from the JCR of Brasenose College, Oxford to make them the college's official band makes them a legitimate article. (Though should be made to read objectively). TGHB
Delete Sorry, the band has not demonstrated enough notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Imperium

edit

Non-notable online game. Looks like it fails WP:V and WP:WEB as there appears to be no reliable independent coverage. Delete as such. Wickethewok 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator here. I vote Keep, as this page grew out of and enhances the List of Multiplayer Browser Games. This game meets the threshold of notability established by this list, though this could be indicitive of a need for a wider cull. However, the list has survived at least one deletion attempt based on this logic, so instead I expand it. Isotoad 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the List of Multiplayer Browser Games entry deserves to be deleted, I don't see any reason why this entry shouldn't stay. WP:WEB seems to have been seriously eroded by these online games. Probably should address the root of the problem. I vote Keep. --Valeyard 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is mentioned here as an alliance with EVE Online, but I'm not sure if that is the same Vox Imperium. T Rex | talk 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the same one; that's an in-game group. No vote. --humblefool ® 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, as a player of EVE Online, that's a (defunct, as far as I know... my alliance fought their last remnants half a year ago) in-game alliance. Never heard of the game mentioned in the article: I'll vote delete as it appears to fail WP:WEB. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would have voted keep if I thought it was notable, but it has such a low Alexa rank that it doesn't even come up on traffic rankings. There are easily ten thousand browser games out there that should get articles before one can be justified for Vox Imperium. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 05:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your comment has merit, but the notibility of this particular browser game is not contained simply in its Alexa rank. The tens of thousands of games you mention are largely uninspried clones of Gangwars. What caught my eye about Vox is its graphics -- it is one of the few games that is attempting to do something other than text. Look at the screenshot attached to the article. Much of Vox's notibility comes from its use of new web technologies. If this was just a Kings of Chaos script, I never would have made the page. Isotoad 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of meeting WP:WEB, no third-party sources. It's hard for anything on the web created in "late August 2006" to be notable by now. Sandstein 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - faile WP:V, and no notability established. -- Whpq 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, never heard of this game idea before. Why delete this article? Because the game sounds like about 10,000 other non-notable free broswer based strategy games going round the web, many of which try (or have their fans try) to get articles on wiki to drum up extra players. The Kinslayer 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Kinslayer said. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamerNode

edit

Website/company/forums that appear to fail WP:WEB, WP:CORP, and WP:V. There doesn't seem to be any reliable independent coverage on the subject. Biggest claims to fame seems to be that it has a lot of pages and the staff attends gaming trade events. Delete. Wickethewok 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The site has been updated with references, including some that may bear looking at.

Delete - per nom. --wtfunkymonkey 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Xdenizen 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - independent media coverage added. --Yeldarb 2 06:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a press release, which is not independent at all. Wickethewok 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source, PR Newswire's Brian Anderson, is an independent source, according to the WP guidelines. Since the article was neither written nor circulated by the subject of the article, that seems to fulfill the criteria.--Yeldarb 2 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PR Newswire looks to be essentially an ad/PR agency of sorts - basically a company hired to make press releases. Wickethewok 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to PR Newswire's own site, "PR Newswire is the world's leading corporate news distribution, targeting and monitoring / measurement measurement service." The article in question was written independently of GamerNode's influence in an earnest attempt to raise the profile of the website. The fact that it was written and circulated by a PR distribution service does not dilute its independence. Additionally, I have added more information to the entry, including distribution info for both a magazine and several websites.

You'd trust a company that publishes press releases to assert it's own notability? I wouldn't. (P.S. PR Newswire is actually a notable company.) MER-C 10:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that GamerNode didn't publish or write the release. PR Newswire regularly writes and circulates profile stories on businesses it considers noteworthy. The only participation GamerNode had in the creation or dissemination of the profile story by Brian Anderson was accepting the interview request from PR Newswire. PR Newswire simply does not write press releases on the behalf of its clients (which, according to the company directory accessed on 6 November at 11:30 PST, does not include GamerNode.com, GamerNode, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries). While the article certainly appears to be a press release, it is not.--Yeldarb 2 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per independent coverage added. --MrBlondeX 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep-- apbsniper 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) No such user; comment was actually written by 68.209.233.89 (talk · contribs). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasons stated above. --Varsindarkin 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - look, accountless sockpuppets! PR Newswire gives press releases. I used to send them press releases when I worked for Gateway. "PR Newswire is the world leader in the electronic delivery of news releases and company-to-press information directly from companies, institutions and agencies to the media, financial community and consumers." Spare me. WP:WEB failed. WP:RS failed. WP:CORP failed. Nice site thou.Very weak keep - Site asserts at least some kind of notability.--Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per independent coverage added. --xkesterx 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) — Xkersetx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on first inspection, it seemed to have passed WP:WEB, but all the references are just brief mentions of the site... sites like IGN mention hundreds of smaller websites in rumor-esque articles. --- RockMFR 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if the sites mention it in passing, shouldn't having material published each issue in a magazine which is not connected to the site count?--probescusv2 Note: User's first edit. --NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable website that fails the WP:WEB criterias. Numerous sockpuppets don't help the situation either.--TBCΦtalk? 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Website's main claim of notability is that it provides hosting for the Black Mesa Source forums. Otherwise, it's just another game news site that fails WP:WEB. This doesn't mean it's a bad site, just that it isn't encyclopedic. --Alan Au 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB failed. WP:RS failed. WP:CORP failed. I actually don't mind the sock and meatpuppets, since the Admins aren't gonna be fooled for a second and AfDs aren't a hand count. I'm finding it funny to watch mentally hilarious people (retards) thinking they are being all cunning and sneaky by posting 'keep' and not signing their post or using a false name when we can just click 'history' and see who ACTUALLY made the comment. Do the orderlies know these cretins are using the computers unsupervised? The Kinslayer 10:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd lay off on the personal attacks. That being said, it is useless. Sock/meat-puppetry, especially blatant cases like this, usually end up backfiring by annoying other users and making them vote to delete the article anyway. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the comment is really aimed at those that have come, said 'keep' and are never coming back, so I doubt there gonna complain! I agree about the puppetry backfiring though, it happened at the AfD for Empires once the meatpuppetry and canvassing started. The Kinslayer 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, site does not show any notability per WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shrieking Harpy. Garrett^Talk 10:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia policies state that there is no limit to articles, this is not a paper encyclopedia. Where else is someone suposed to look up information on these guys? If they are small, say so in the article. Get to the truth of their claims, and share that truth with the world. *jb 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums. That aside, no evidence was presented that this meets WP:WEB, non-trivial third-party coverage. The 3 references other than forum posts never ammount to more than a sentence each about this website. W.marsh 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial Outpost

edit

Non-notable online community failing WP:V/WP:WEB. I request sources on the talk page for the article, but haven't gotten anything besides blog links or trivial mentions. Only 14 unique Google hits. Delete. Wickethewok 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the criterias of WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 95, 237--TBCΦtalk? 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The actuarial community as a whole is not well-known. Most actuaries, students, underwriters, and other insurance personnel will not have Alexa installed on their computers, due to corporate security measures, and violating them is grounds for termination of employment. As such, per Wikipedia:Search engine test#Bias in the Alexa test, the Alexa ranking is not really applicable here, because the vast majority of users are not Alexa users. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google bias, articles that have near nothing to do with pop culture are at a distinct diasadvantage when it comes to the google test. Outside of the small actuarial/insurance community, I am sure most people have not heard of this site. However, in its field, it is eminently notable. Almost every college or university with an actuarial program (at least in the US and Canada) links to this site. The major actuarial societies in the US and Canada link to this site. When exams are released, many more students flock to this site over the CAS and SOA homepages because of the greater robustness of the servers. There are special forums for actuaries and students from all over the world. The authors of the most widely used actuarial study manuals frequent the exam sections of the site, answer student questions, and often base their new errata on comments from students at the site. It has one of the largest listings of actuarial jobs, and job searching advice. Even candidates for office of the SOA and CAS will make statements, engage in debate and dialogue, and campaign on this board, sometimes more than they do on the societies own home pages. It has been discussed in the publications of the societies, such as The Future Actuary -- the publication of the SOA geared to actuarial students and Future Fellows -- the publication of the CAS geared to students. As a credentialed actuary, I believe very strongly that this is one of those rare situations in which the exceptions to WP:WEB outweigh the general guidelines and that this site is eminently notable in its small field, which is sufficienty notable for wikipedia as a whole. -- Avi 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But are there any reliable sources than focus on the website instead of briefly mentioning it? Also, being notable in a "small field" does not always make a subject notable enough for Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am of the firm belief that in this case it does make the subject notable enough. Obviously there is disagreement, which is why there is this AfD, but as someone who works IN the profession, although I cannot add any of my own commentary as that would be WP:OR, I do feel that my opinion on this is not without merit . I would ask that people look at the article, the subject, and the context before making a decision in this case, because of the small niche that actuaries hold. Thanks. -- Avi 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Instead of a seperate article, couldn't an external link or brief mention in the actuary article suffice? Though I personally don't think the website is notable, I do admit that it seems to be a great resource for those interested in the field.--TBCΦtalk? 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is exactly what people find so chilling and laugable about Wikipedia and why I avoid participating more than a few minutes here and there. Some dude whose contributions include write-ups about every video game imaginable, which I personally don't find notable or contribute to society at all (so let's remove those!), and who has no knowledge of actuarial science, comes along and says "delete". And those are the kinds of people in charge. Hmmm, so actuaries and other interested people have to constantly defend this article against attack from people outside the profession. That's just odd. They don't have time for that foolishness. This'd be like if I went over to some random engineering field and started nominating stuff for deletion. I wouldn't know what I was talking about so I'd stay out of it completely. Sources have already been quoted from two of the main actuarial societies in the world. The UK's society discussed the Outpost in an article as well and it's somewhere on their the-actuary.org.uk website. And assuming that Google is the be-all end-all source of discussions and articles about the Outpost is silly. There have been print publications mentions of the Outpost that never made it to the web, too. Surely this is at least as notable as "Super Play Action Football". How many third-party mentions is notable enough? Also, one would think that such forward-minded people such as those editing Wikipedia entries would accept that bloggers discussing the Outpost *is* notable. This is a tiny profession. Sorry it isn't as big as Super Mario Bros. TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        TheActuary, instead of resorting to ad hominem, try focusing on the issues at hand. Regarding your comments on my contributions, I focus on a variety of subjects, such as Christianity in Mongolia and Planetary Fourier Spectrometer, but that's beside the point. Being discussed by bloggers does not make a subject notable, as blogs are not considered reliable sources. I also suggest assuming good faith first before claiming that those who disagree with you are "forward-minded people". --TBCΦtalk? 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article has already been nominated for deletion before and passed the test. As a credentialed actuary as well, I can say that there is no other resource like the Outpost on the internet. You didn't receive "trivial sources" and I question your motives here. 14 unique Google hits is laughably untrue. The article is self-explanatory. I believe there are archived discussions on Avi's page that document prior dubious arguments for deletion. -- TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Being nominated before does not make an article immune from being nominated again. Also, the result of the previous AfD was no consensus, not keep. As for your comment on Wickethewok's motives, I suggest you please assume good faith. --TBCΦtalk? 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - TA, TBC is correct, it was not a straight keep. As for me personally, I believe that Wickethewok was acting in good faith when this was nominated, I just think that this is an example of a pivotal, if not seminal, forum in a small field that is notable enough for wikipedia. For example, it was formed to be an anonymous registry forum in backlash to the CAS and SOA crack-downs (see the article). In a field where there may be a few thousand people worldwide at the time (casualty actuaries of the CAS/CIA), almost everybody knew each other, and people were afraid to speak about what they really felt about certain political issues fr fear of reprisal on the job. This forum almost single-handedly combatted that, from what I understand. TA would know more about this, he's been an actuary longer than I have. -- Avi 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are quite the claims regarding the importance of this forum. Can you provide something backing them up? Wickethewok 05:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As of now, only my own experience, which is WP:OR and old posts from the boards, which I have linked. I can interview the two creators, Glenn and Traci, but I believe e-mails and personal interviews are not the best reliable sources. The actuarial field is not one in the news spotlight, as a professional society it has no union magazine, and the trade publications have mentioned it, but not done a piece on it as a whole. I guess I can try and get some of the editors at the CAS to do a featured piece in Future Fellows or something, but that wouldn't be out for months . What would you suggest, knowing that the entire field is not "sexy" and is not going to be in any major news outlet? -- Avi 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless we get some proper sources. Proof by assertion isn't going to cut it. Catchpole 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- change to Keep now the article has better sources. Catchpole 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's play Good Idea / Bad Idea! Ok, I'll go first! Good Idea: Writing an article with sources. Bad idea: Writing an article with sources but the only sources are the forum itself. Let's face it, folks, when your references section includes things like (“Lucy”'s response to “Brad”. Actuarial Outpost forums), you know the article's in deep trouble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add some references. TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. --- RockMFR 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Hi! Tom here, the webmaster / moderator of the Actuarial Outpost. I've noticed several votes for deletion and I've managed to find a common similarity. They are all more than likely, not members of the outpost, not actuaries, and have never taken an actuarial exam.
- Since the transfer of the administration, the site has grown to over 10,000 member and 1.8 million posts. Those numbers represent a large actuarial community that has been helping students pass exams for over 7 years now. The Outpost may seem insignificant compared to Wikipedia, but they share a common goal; spreading knowledge and helping students succeed.
- Since the creation of the Actuarial Outpost, we have helped numerous students pass exams. I saw the mention of "Only 14 unique Google hits" as some sort of criteria for recognition on wikipedia, but if you do a search on our site for "I passed" or "woo hoo, I finally passed" or perhaps "I passed! Thanks everybody for the big help. I couldn’t have done it with out you guys!" you might notice that you get a few more than just 14 hits.
- So what. . .Why should it be on Wikipedia, you ask? I travel to all of the SOA and CAS meetings and even go to the smaller club meetings around the US such as the IABA and just last week I went to the Chinese Actuarial Clubs annual Karaoke Party (I sang some Tony Bennett). There are two thing that I notice at all of these meetings: 1) People who come up to me and thank me for all of the hard work we do to help actuaries pass exams and keep them informed on the latest current events and 2) people that say "Actuarial Outpost . . . what's that?"
- What I'm getting at here is even though we have a large group of actuaries that use the Actuarial Outpost, there is an even larger number that have never even heard of it. Wikipedia is well known amongst students for finding information and wikipedia has the opportunity to give them the inside scoop on a tool for learning, that's made just for actuaries. If wikipedia is not in the business of spreading information and helping people learn, then by all means, push the big red button, but as far as I can see, this article should stay, according to the philosophy that I have perceived Wikipedia is run by.
- P.S. As a moderator, I realize how time consuming it is dealing with all of these little issues on a daily basis, but I assure you that this issue I take dear to heart. My main goal when I took over responsibility of the Outpost was to help students continue to learn and pass exams, and that is the only reason Glenn & Traci were willing to give me control of the site. I like to think they have been happy with what I have done.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Outpost Tom (talk • contribs) 00:11, November 7, 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment I'm afraid I'll have to debunk your common similarity as I am an actuary (albeit of the UK variety). Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to advertise your website. Catchpole 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I understand that this may come across as an advertisement to some, but I think that may too broad of an accusation, since it's not like we're selling tee-shirts or something to that effect. To the contrary, we spend a lot of time and money making sure this resource is available to the actuarial community as a service. This is a non-profit venture to facilitate learning, just like Wikipedia. The wikipedia page was not created by me, nor ever edited by me, but rather by a member who felt that it was information worth sharing. As for my assumption of the common similarity, my assumptions only tend to be 97.5% correct with an error of +/- 2.5%, which I feel is actuarially sound .
    - The Actuarial Outpost Foundation is a non-profit organization with the goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world. Meeting this goal through the maintenance, development and distribution of free content, The Actuarial Outpost relies on the donations from it's members and actuarial companies to run its vBulletin-based projects.--Outpost Tom 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - In most cases, being a good resource does not make a website any more notable. See WP:WEB.--TBCΦtalk? 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A sampling of reliable third party sources demonstrating notability were added at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_Outpost#References TheActuary 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sources added include references to the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) and the Society of Actuaries. If the CAS's candidate liason (candidates are people taking actuarial exams who have not received their designations) is specifically tasked to monitor the AO as the barometer of candidate feeling about the society and the exams, I think that is a very strong proof of notability. If you disagree, please explain. Thank you. -- Avi 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Numerous third party authorities in the industry have now been cited in the article, including some from one of the organizations that administers the actuarial designation in North America. Last time this article was submitted for deletion other references were provided as well, including references in the New York Times and other publications. There's plenty of external authoritative publications referencing the site in question. [User:Waterwheel]

I must disagree. Half of the references listed barely mention this forum/website at all. The other half of the references are to posts on the forum. Wickethewok 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made that point clear when you nominated this article for deletion . WP:WEB itself states that there are times for exceptions to firm application of the guideline, and the notability of this site in the tiny niche that actuaries hold in my opinion eminnently qualifies it for notability, Alexa and Google notwithstanding (and explained why they are inapplicable according to WP:WEB itself above). -- Avi 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep It is a core policy of Wikipedia that you do not delete things for simply not being notable. Wikipedia has pages for individual Star Trek episodes. It is ridiculous to keep an episode summary, and then to delete an entire community. *jb 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core policy? Where? Can you link to it? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under official policies, [44] - "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is official policy, as opposed to simply a guideline. If you are going to start enforce notability, then you should begin by proposing the deletion of all pages for Star Trek episodes that are not individually notable (which would be all, except for maybe the one with the first interracial kiss, but even then that would be better in the main Star Trek article). *jb 01:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that policy does not say that you cannot delete things for not being notable. It says we have more latitude than other encyclopedias, not that we have to include everything. It does not invalidate consensus any way here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, the existence of the subject of the article is eminently verifiable per WP:V; the only worthwhile deletion criterion in the nomination is that it fails WP:WEB. I argue that WP:WEB is the wrong guideline to decide the notability of this community. Yes, it is a community with a strong web presence, but as the website itself is not innovative as a website (it appears to be just a community blog and a vBulletin), the governing guideline should be WP:ORG (or WP:COMPANY, if you prefer). Now WP:ORG is not ratified, but I think the text of the proposed guideline has reasonably wide support. It is clear that the Actuary Outpost is "national or international in scope". The next clause, "information can be verified by a third party source" is more problematic, as most of the article text is from primary sources. Per WP:RS, a subject can be used as a primary source of information about itself, but such information should ideally be supplemented by secondary and tertiary sources. In my opinion, the text of the Actuary Outpost article should be better sourced and details that are not verifiable from third parties even in principle should be removed, but this criticism is better suited for a peer review than AfD. (And I heavily encourage the principal authors of this article to put it through a peer review, where I might provide a more thorough criticism.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fun Fact Reference Oh yea, forgot to mention, one of our members (with 0 posts) is a screen writer who is using our site to do research for a character in an upcoming movie that will have an actuary as one of the characters. Does that count as reference? Will there be partial credit? Outpost Tom 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete established. W.marsh 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology

edit

Redundant, articles already exist seperately on science and technology. In fact most of this page's text is lifted from those two articles. (this was a speedy nomination, which I changed to AfD; there is also a related discussion on Talk:Science and technology ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. we don't need an article for every combination of words and/or practice under the sun. -wtfunkymonkey 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to "Relationship Between Science and Technology". The scope of the article should be changed to explore the relationship between the two terms, which is a very relevant one, and not to just listing their definitions. After all, the development of technology is related to the development of science and vice-versa.--Lobizón 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the role of encyclopedia articles to merely explore the relationship between two terms, unless there is a specific and notable history of the particular phrase in question (such as "cloak and dagger"). Perhaps that is the case with "science and technology," but this isn't conveyed in the current article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's why I think the scope of the article should be changed to reflect this relationship, rather than delete the article altogether. Technological and scientific progress go hand in hand, and there are a lot of academic works, historical or sociological, explaning the historic relationship between the development of both.--Lobizón 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is why we properly have articles on the academic disciplines studying these two terms: science and technology studies & history of science and technology. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, purely redundant. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These concepts should (and are) discussed in two seperate articles. This article is not needed. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 07:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I think we need to be carefull here and it might be best to see how the article develops for a while. As is pointed out on the talk page the term "Science and Technology" is used frequently as in "S & T Studies", "History of S & T" etc. This make it a likely search term on WP. It is not just the sum of what is on two different articles. I would much prefer to have time to argue this out on the talk page rather than at AfD. --Bduke 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (also for now). The article is not to explain the term "science" and the term "technology." It is for the term "science and technology" which takes on a meaning other than the sum of its two parts. I am the first to admit that the article in its current state is weak. However, I am not the right person to write the final article and it was my intent to put a clean-up tag on the article but I did not move fast enough and the speedy delete tag was up before I found my tag. It may turn out that nobody is able to bring this up to the desired standard, but at least give the article a couple of months to show where it can go. Cheers -- MCG 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article does not establish any insight of merit that is not found in the primary and secondary articles on science and technology already. This is not to say that it couldn't do that, but that it does not right now. --Buridan 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is merit, why delete it as opposed to fix it? It has been pointed out that there are several articles incorporating this term (which is more than its two parts). Additionally there are categories that do this as well; in a quick search I can find Category:Science and technology by country (and this is full of many other sub categories of science and technology) and Category:Science and technology studies. If you delete the article Science and technology, it will eventually be re-created. Why not deal with the content of the article now instead of later? -- MCG 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Main article has been trimmed significantly to essentially stub-status. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question of alternative approaches and the benefit of incrementalism and "breakthrough" aka "spontaneous innovation", is quite an important subject in engineering and science. It is a bit like having an article on the trinity for religion in some ways they are considered the same thing, but in other ways they are very different. The term is used frequently enough to make it a potential article - so why not slap an { { undercontruction} } tag on it?--Mike 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But please add a scholarly source for the claim that there is more to the Gestalt "Science and Technology" than to the conjunction of "Science" and "Technology." Otherwise, even though I believe the claim in the introduction, this looks somewhat like original research. Edison 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit sad that this article is all we have to say on the subject of Science and Technology in the general sense. Surely there can be more flesh added to these bones along with some nice cites? Robovski 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep... it is sad.. but that is why there are around 40 other articles covering this material. this article at best should be a category at best, and you know what... it already is.... so this article is moot. --Buridan 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it is not already a category. Category:Science and technology -- MCG 03:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrilog

edit

This appears to be a neologism, as a Google search reveals only fifty results outside Wikipedia. Additionally, the way the article is written appears to indicate it is copied from another source. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it was created by the creator of the concept, as seen here. --humblefool ® 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Also, have a look at the creator's userpage - single-purpose account. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO and WP:OR. Article has been published by the original author Pedro Andrade/Pandrade here. Caknuck 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neologism and apparent original research. Xdenizen 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO, WP:OR. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a commonly used term and the article seems to be OR. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, personal essay. JIP | Talk 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HNC Network

edit

Group of hackers or something that doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:V. Looks like mostly vanity and original research. Pretty much all of the "references" make no reference to the subject of the article. Only the ABCnews article even mentions the subject, and even then, only a couple times in some passing sentences. Delete as failing any reliable independent coverage. Wickethewok 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Sources

The definition of reference:

(ref er ence –noun ) 1. an act or instance of referring.; 2. a mention; allusion.; 3. something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.; 4. a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.; 5. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.; 6. reference mark (def. 2).; 7. material contained in a footnote or bibliography, or referred to by a reference mark.; 8. use or recourse for purposes of information: a library for public reference.; 9. a person to whom one refers for testimony as to one's character, abilities, etc.; 10. a statement, usually written, as to a person's character, abilities, etc.; 11. relation, regard, or respect: all persons, without reference to age. –verb (used with object); 12. to furnish (a book, dissertation, etc.) with references: Each new volume is thoroughly referenced.; 13. to arrange (notes, data, etc.) for easy reference: Statistical data is referenced in the glossary.; 14. to refer to: to reference a file.

Being that EACH article in the references, specifically references the moniker(s) of the HNC Network and also some of those formerly involved with it, said reference is therefore verifiable and legitimate as it is relevant to the entity in which it refers, no matter how major or minor said reference is.

Now, not withstanding this article has a ways to come, but even a quick search across any major search engine offers several substantial clues to why, where and when this group existed. Let alone the group seemingly has a current effort underway at www.thereformed.org, of which the group could obviously be contacted for a first-hand account or pointers towards other verifiable content. Perhaps this is a case of someone not wishing to help in finishing the homework?

The disturbing thing is this, your lack of willingness to assist in clearing up this article's potential misgivings and your history of requests in attempting to axe many well-laid articles simply due to your impatience with those lacking MASS quantities of referencial materials. Your contribs speak for themselves, play God on another Wiki, leave this one to those that can be objective and helpful in creating a incredible Internet resource of new content while paying tribute to the heritage and of those that walked before it, such as this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for articles necessary for inclusion into Wikipedia are defined differently than those on a normal dictionary. See WP:RS for more info.--TBCΦtalk? 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, has anyone attempted to explain, assist or correct the author? There seems to be no due process on Wikipedia anymore.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia has never had due process as Wikipedia is not a democracy.--TBCΦtalk? 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article hasn't been subject to "multiple non-trivial published works ". Also, "legitimate" references are not always reliable sources, especially if said references are not independent of the site itself.--TBCΦtalk? 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - your Delete is considerably an injustice when a site in the same category spells contains NO references and provides only a handful of external links to substantiate their presence - see l0pht . Does this not make Wikipedia a biased publishing source if it doesn't effect the rules against all offenders? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due process is not a procedure relevant to just democracy, FYI. You'll also notice in the Wikipedia is not a bureacracy it states clearly:

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Yet this has been anything but. NOONE apparently has attempted contact with the original author or the other contributors, which there seems to be a substantial few to attempt to correct this article and refine it..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this nomination is being obscured by a lot of smoke and mirrors. Although the Anonymous Contributor's concerns about the nomination process might be valid, that's neither here not there at the moment. Consider the article itself: it makes quite a few claims, but precious little to back up most of it. The big names it attempts to associate the group with never seem to actually touch the group's own reputation - there's an implied noteworthiness, but no explicit proof of anything. Everything is described in great detail, but where's the beef? Although I hate to vote to delete an article that has obviously had a great deal of effort put into it, there's no assertion of notability that I can see. --humblefool ® 05:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per humblefool. Whilst it seems to be thoroughly crafted there is, never-the-less, a distinct lack of moo. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Humblefool. This article tries, through both its length and its "references", to imply notability, yet fails to show it. yandman 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The anon editor's horibly illogical, and unsatisfactory arguements notwithstanding, the subject does not seem to merit ANY mention in Third Party references. If specific citations can be found in several third-party references, I will change my vote. The ONLY third party citations are reprints of the SAME article from CNN and Computer World that mention a different group of white-hat hackers. The litmus test for worthiness on wikipedia is references in THIRD PARTY sources. We have none yet. Thus, I vote delete until this situation changes. --Jayron 32 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. I'm a former member of HNC and this is actually the only source of information about HNC we have now. Sure, some references are questionable, but instead if deleting this article we should rather edit it. People are references too. Do we want another incident like this one: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061106-8161.html ? Before we delete we should be able to edit this article. --xen ix 01:38 07.11.2006 (CET)

That wasn't an incident, it was the justified removal of an article on the grounds of notability. And so is this. yandman 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You get to keep the article if you can provide third-party references (as in, outside of the group itself) that talk about it, as expressly spelled out in the 2 cornerstone wikipedia policies: Policy on Verifiability, and Policy on Reliable Sources. If you cannot provide these references, than your group does not deserve an article in wikipedia. We wish you no harm or ill will, but Wikipedia is not the place for information like this. Many places exist on the web to promote your group. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron 32 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bypass the blatant ignorance by my counterpart of above and move along to the bits. Taking it upon myself to contact one of the former members, since it seems noone else did, there apparently is historical, third-party articles that were indeed written(including a published book mention of the group, several interviews with NOW media, an interview with ZDNet UK, an interview with ABCNews apart from ViXeN900 and some other odd and ends), but unfortunately the archived links that were relayed via correspondence no longer hold data although their architecture is within scope of others in the same independent sites (apparently sometime between 2000-2002 many online new agencies expunged these records?). Secondly, it appears that this member had no knowledge there was an article posted on Wikipedia about the group, but upon reading it, had suggested to posssibly remove for edit and then resubmit at a later date for an article tailored to their history - he did however confirm that the timeline was incredibly accurate. He also questioned whether a full upload of all the tools to an independent external source and of course the HNC Video made in Las Vegas would help in validating any future entry? I was unsure of what to say, but I didn't think it would hurt since it was a published, commercial product produced in partnership with an independent post-production house. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Tired

edit

Article is about a neologism, "teddy tired", which has not gained common currency. A google search for "teddy tired" came up with very few relevant hits, all of which seemed to be from blogs. No reliable secondary sources were cited in the article. I could not verify that the Hoodoo Gurus wrote a song lyric about "teddy tired" with a variety of google searches. The article itself says this neologism is specific to a particular industry and goes on to point out that it is more of a one-man campaign than a common expression in Australia or elsewhere. Teddy Tired fails WP:NEO. Darkspots 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoodoo Gurus bit is bogus per this, and I distrust anything that can be said to spread like wildfire. Delete. --humblefool ® 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the ghits are completely unrelated. This would fit better on urban dictionary. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. This is nothing more than a dicdef/neologism. -bobby 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Wareq 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Hoodoo Gurus song was "Waking Up Tired" which lyrics databases show didn't contain this term. Ebbsco's Australia New Zealand database comes up with nothing on this. Real verifibiality problems with this and if it was verified it would be a dictionary definition. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I distrust neologisms when they're being spread by people with nicknames like "Mikey", "Jono", or "Totters". Lankiveil 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom --Michael Johnson 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Roisterer 12:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect. Article already included on Hawaiian Airlines main page. Not enough content to warrent its own space. -bobby 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Airlines destinations

edit

150.135.180.195 added this info into the main Hawaiian Airlines article today. Honestly, I think Hawaiian is small enough that it's not a big hindrance to have this list maintained in the main Hawaiian article as opposed to having a separate article to list their destinations. Hawaiian717 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate article follows the form of United Airlines destinations, American Airlines destinations, etc. Keep, no reason to delete. --humblefool® 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why I brought up the size issue. Horizon Air and SkyWest Airlines are examples of having the list on the same page (though those may be long enough to be split; Aloha Airlines on the other hand seems clearly short enough to keep where it is). American and United serve many destinations worldwide and having the list on the main article page could easily overwhelm the article. I don't think this is an issue with Hawaiian. -- Hawaiian717 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel that articles should follow a standard format; the "...destinations" seems to be the standard, and should be kept throughout all airlines articles. In any case, even if you merged it into the main article, it would still be ineligible for deletion, because edit histories need to be retained. --humblefool® 04:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirect seems reasonable to me. -- Hawaiian717 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds fine to me. --humblefool ® 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawaiian Airlines. I think common sense should rule here. If a list of destinations is too bulky for the airline's main article (à la American Airlines destinations), then it merits its own article. For regional carriers like Hawaiian with a smaller list, inclusion in the main article is less obtrusive. Caknuck 05:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Caknuck. Someone has already copied into the main article and it doesn't make it too long. --Steve 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, does not have a long list of destinations, so keeping it in the main article should be fine. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Distance Learning Accreditation Council

edit

Unnotable accreditation mill. When this was created I looked into this and found only one article from a magazine (its the one source cited). It is not an approved accreditor or tied to any credible school, and I noted it accordingly. Thus, since it is not recognized by the Department of Education it must pass WP:CORP. I see no evidence of that. What city is it in? What country is it in? There is not enough material for an article, and as it stands it is an article about what it isn't. Therefore, not wikiworthy. Arbusto 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the article has been edited over time to completely dismiss it's subject as unofficial. The council fails WP:CORP --Steve 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be an organization trying to establish notability through the use of wikipedia. That puts the cart before the horse. Sorry, unless proof of notability outside of wikipedia can be established, it must go --Jayron 32 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I agree that it may not pass WP:CORP, I think it's important to keep it for people to find credible and factual information regarding what they claim to be. While one can infer a lack of credible information to mean the organization isn't credible, I don't think most people would see it that way. Should we delete information on Snake Oil just because they were charlatans? Isn't it important that other people not be fooled? While i've disagreed with the wording of the previous article in its professionalism, I have agreed that it should be noted for it's attempt to decieve people.12.207.87.61 11:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to ammend my position above. After reconsideration, if the organization doesn't meet WP:CORP then it should not have it's own entry. However, it should remain on the List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning.12.207.87.61 11:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allah-win's Law

edit

Barely-coherent quasi-POV OR attempt to create a corollary to Godwin's Law.

Delete. Seems to be original research, as evidenced by the few results on Google, most of which are from Wikipedia and blogs.--TBCΦtalk? 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — looks to be OR and kinda nonsense. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ick. --humblefool ® 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research with point of view problems. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, OR, and POV --Steve 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Egregiously POV, and largely rubbish. Xdenizen 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure nonsense, POV fork. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Shimeru 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. JIP | Talk 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism and apparent original research. Do it quick, before someone brings Nazis into this discussion... uh, nevermind..--Isotope23 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Allah-win and what exactly makes this "law" his or hers? Delete as only the Third Reich would want an article so devoid of context. Puerto De La Cruz 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely neologistic OR veiling a rant. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron dagan

edit

Only source cited is own website. Piece was originally spam/fluff, author asserted notability but "sources" provided barely mention the guy and are not notable or reliable regardless. No new sources have been provided so recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge not ruled out. W.marsh 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superior (proposed state)

edit

Certainly an amusing proposal, but this smacks of original research or an outright hoax since the only sources are A) a blog and B) a book that appears to not really exist. Also might have something to do with the Colbert Report... that should make it fun. Anyway, if someone can produce reliable sources confirming this topic great, but otherwise this article needs to go. --W.marsh 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, might be worth a WP:BJAODN, and pray it's not Colbert related. --humblefool ® 05:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- New evidence, new vote. Keep, but cleanup. Still BJAODN-worthy in my opinion, though! --humblefool ® 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also weaseled its way onto Upper_Peninsula... --humblefool ® 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And List of U.S. state secession proposals and Historic regions of the United States. All 3 references will need to be removed if a reliable source doesn't appear... I will most likely take care of it. --W.marsh 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced per A) and B) above --Steve 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) So some sources have been found for up to the 70s when this movement seems to have petered out. Oh, and 4 minutes of news coverage from 1971 is hardly notability enough for an article. I'll change to a Redirect to Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and flesh out the section that is already there. --Steve 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and send it to BJAODN - per nom I'm changing my vote to neutral.--andrew|ellipsed...^Talk 06:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Keep[reply]
Delete, per nom, nothing to say, this is lame. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to merge and redirect, as per sources given. Does not need its own article at this moment. A section at Upper Peninula of Michigan will be good. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. If Colbert did propose such a state (something I could see him do) then a mention of it ought to be placed on his article. But this looks like a... well, a joke. Merge Alright, the movement might be real, but not serious enough to justify its own article. This debate should be turned into a mention in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The map appears to be a complete invention. The references provided in the article at present are extremely weak. But there was a genuine, semi-serious effort a few decades ago to form a state of Superior led by the prominent local politician Dominic Jacobetti. Better references are certainly needed. The effort is briefly mentioned here in the biographical notes for the collection of his papers at NMU. AFAICT, most present-day calls for secession are intended as either humor or an expression of dissatisfaction with downstate government. I don't think anyone takes it seriously anymore, but there does seem to be some kernel of truth to the secession proposal. In 1978, Jacobetti introduced a bill in the state legislature for separation, but it never came to a vote. [45] And here is a pretty good account of the proposal to separate, although perhaps too much of a personal essay to be a reliable source -- though it does provide a general outline of events that could probably be verified from other sources. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Strong Keep Living in Northern Michigan, I heard this idea widely and can attest to it not being complete BJAODN. Vanderbilt University has an archive for a NBC newscast in 1975 that corroborates that this is real. link to vanderbilt After reviewing this link, I suggest that others retract their votes. FWIW, my google method was searching on "Superior" and "51st state" [46] MPS 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one 31 year old newscast transcription is not sufficient evidence to prove this a serious movement. If there were truly active plans in Congress and the Michigan legislature to slpit the state of Michigan then an article will be justified. Right now, these just seems to be a lingering idea enterained by some residents and local politicans from time to time. This might be worth a mention on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article but not a seperate article. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original AFD was started by somone's thought that this was BJAODN. It's clearly not a hoax. The numerous sources that have been since unearthed show that this was significant if futile movement in the 1970s and earlier. IMNSHO, Wikipedia ought to document the extent to which there is or isn't (was or wasn't) a movement to form the State of Superior. I still think it can and should stand alone given the level of documentation that we have unearthed. Are we going to merge State of Lincoln, Upstate New York's Statehood Movement, Cascadia, and Jesusland map simply because they also aren't ever going to happen? It doesn't have to be serious or even likely in order to be notable. MPS 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does need to have been a serious movement, or at least it must have raised a lot of controversy. Did this movement really cause a lot of controversy. Was it on the front page of the NY Times? Were there heated debates among the intelgesita and legislature? Yes, I also was under the impression that was a BJAODN; it isn't. But, for the time being I stand by my vote that this article ought to be merged into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the National Review? Besides, all these votes for merging to the UP neglect the fact that this is also a Wisconsin Movement. See long blockquote added at bottom. MPS 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever lived in a part of the United States where secession and autonomy were not major issues in local politics. In northern Wisconsin, where I spent my childhood, there has been agitation for the creation of a separate state of Superior, encompassing the northern parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. The justification was both cultural and economic: "Yoopers" have more in common with people on the Wisconsin shore of Lake Superior than either group has with the rest of its state, both regions suffer from unemployment and underdevelopment, and both speak a dialect unintelligible to outsiders. .

Thanks for the information... more sources are always better and the article still needs some work, but this probably shouldn't be deleted now, in my opinion. --W.marsh 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Mega Strong Keep This article is intensely fascinating, not a hoax, and is exactly the kind of article that makes me WANT to use Wikipedia! --172.148.158.110 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you so sure that this is proposal is taken serios by the Federal and Michigan state legislature. While I beleive that people in the upper peninsual have some discontent over their tax dollars going to the lower peninsual and some residents might entertain the thought of splitting the state from time to time, I do not see any evidence of Congress or the Michigan legislature seriously considering such a proposal. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be an active, current movement that is being taken seriously by the legislature? The fact that it is taken seriously by its advocates over the past 110+ years demonstrates that it has a strong measure of verifiable notability as an independent subject. Alansohn 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really taken seriously by federal and state legislature? Was there an actual vote? Heated discussion, perhaps even fillebusters? The mere fact that an issue shifts from the back to the front of some people's minds every blue moon isn't enough to justify its own article. This article ought to merged in the the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see blockquote below. Looks like Wisconsin was significantly involved as well. MPS 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Strong Keep I had heard of this in the past, and did some nosing around Google News and Google Books for references to such a proposed state, both of which turn up many references, few of which have enough detail to be added to the article. The article has been expanded with a number of fully sourced references documenting the history of this proposal back at least to the 1890's, with nary a Colbert mention found. See this link for Google Books references, which show a brief summary and a small scan of the relevant text in each of the books. A Google News Archive search brings up about ten references to the proposal in the 1975-1977 timeframe from major newspapers in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and northern Wisconsin. Other searches were done using "State of Superior" AND Michigan as search terms, others involving "Upper Peninsula" and "Secession" were also fruitful. This is a real phenomenon that justifies retention in Wikipedia. Alansohn 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be "a real phenomenon" that "justifies retention" on WP; it does not justify its own article but rather a mention in the exsisting Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see blockquote below MPS 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There is at least some good evidence. It's not exactly a serious "movement" (if it was even serious at the time Jacobetti proposed it!) but it is interesting. Not enough for a full article, though, it's more of a footnote to Upper Peninsula history. -- dcclark (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactely, "It's not exactly a serious 'movement'". If there is lingering discontent over the distribution of government resources among the residents of the upper peninsula than such can be mention in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per dcclark -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per dcclark. The concept of Yoopers thinking they could create a sustainable state on their own is a very real phenomenon, but the name of this article is a complete neologism. That said there is no reason for a standalone at this namespace and this would be better covered as a section in Upper Peninsula of Michigan.--Isotope23 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Section (a place to discuss our votes)

Rather than start discussion of votes, let's start a discussion section here...

The question BrendelSignature seems to be taking to heart is whether this is a "real" (moving) movement or is a "fake" one. My answer is that it is neither. It is a real cultural meme/rumor/phenomenon that has been floating around Northern Michigan and the UP for years. This is kinda like Christopher Walken for President... but it really happened. We shouldn't argue that just because it happened 20 years ago it is not relevant. It is relevant and notable... and now it is documented. IMHO we could change the name of it so people know that it is not a really active movement. MPS 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a review of the timeline of the books and newspaper articles published on the subject, this seems to be a meme that's floating out there, popping up with some seriousness every twenty years or so, generating interest in the U.P., treated as quaint but undoable pie-in-the-sky by downstaters, and has never generated enough steam to be considered for real. When it is back in the public's conscience it does get play in the media, as exhibited by the Google News sources, and then it fades away in a state of dormancy, only top up two or three decades later. I think its status as an almost viable movement for periods of time over more than a century demonstrates that it should be a standalone article. Alansohn 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is barely notable enough for a separate article. Compare it with Jefferson (proposed U.S. state), which clearly is deserving of its own article. If we allow the second I think there's a good case for the first. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I don't think the movement is a hoax but I can't see how it merits an article in it's own right. Xdenizen 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added references to reliable sources. JChap2007 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Upper Peninsula of Michigan, clearly the right place for this. Andrew Levine 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recent addition of reputable sources. Certainly not original research. Maxamegalon2000 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, failing that merge as above. Not the first intra-state secessionist movement I've heard of either. Robovski 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serious proposal before the web came up. JASpencer 14:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be anything in Michigan Legislature, as the Michigan government would obviously be vehemently opposed to the idea of losing all of the taxpayers in the UP, it's a very interesting article and should most definitely stay. 141.209.236.224 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[47]

STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE. THE BOUNDARIES OF WISCONSIN

USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing

        free information on the Internet, data may be used by
        non-commercial entities, as long as this message
        remains on all copied material. These electronic
        pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit
        or for presentation by other persons or organizations.

        Persons or organizations desiring to use this material
        for purposes other than stated above must obtain the
        written consent of the file contributor.

        This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb
        Archives by: Tina S. Vickery <TVick65536@aol.com>

From a 1900 Book: STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE by Reuben Gold Thwaites Copyright, 1900

The people of the northwest wished to be released from Wisconsin, in order that they might either cast their fortunes with their near neighbors in the new Territory of Minnesota, or join a movement just then projected for the creation of an entirely new State, to be called "Superior." This .proposed state was to embrace all the country north of Mont Trempealeau and east of the Mississippi, including the entire northern peninsula, if the latter could be obtained; thus commanding the southern land western shores of Lake Superior, with the mouth of Green Bay and the foot of Lake Michigan to the southeast.

.

The St. Croix representative in the legislature was especially wedded to the Superior project. He pleaded earnestly and eloquently for his people, whose progress, he said, would be "greatly hampered by being connected politically with a country from which they are separated by nature, cut off from communication by immense spaces of wilderness between." A memorial from the settlers themselves stated the case with even more vigor, asserting that they were "widely separated from the settled parts of Wisconsin, not only by hundreds of miles of mostly waste and barren lands, which must remain uncultivated for ages, but equally so by a diversity of interests and character in the population." All of this reads curiously enough in these days, when the intervening wilderness resounds with the hum of industry and " blossoms as the rose." But that was long before the days of railroads; the dense forests of central and western Wisconsin then constituted a formidable wilderness, peopled only by savages and wild beasts.

.

Unable to influence the Wisconsin legislature, which stubbornly contended for the possession of the original tact, the St. Croix people next urged their claims upon Congress. The proposed State of Superior found little favor at Washington, but there was a general feeling that Wisconsin would be much too large unless trimmed. The result was that when she was finally admitted as a State, the St. Croix River was, in large part, made her northwest boundary; Minnesota in this Manner acquired a vast stretch of country, including the thriving city of St. Paul.

.

Wisconsin was thus shorn of valuable territory on the south, to please Illinois; on the northeast, to favor Michigan; and on the northwest, that some of her settlers might join their fortunes with Minnesota. The State, however, is still quite as large as most of her sisters in the Old Northwest, and possesses an unusual variety of soils, and a great wealth of forests, mines, and fisheries. There is a strong probability that, bad Congress, in 1848, given to Wisconsin her "ancient limits," as defined by the Ordinance of 1787, the movement to create the proposed state of "Superior" would have gathered strength in the passing years, and possibly would have achieved success, thus depriving us of our great northern forests and mines, and our outlet upon the northern lake.

MPS 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Check out this 1975 map (bigger map here) proposed by C. Etzel Pearcy, geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles... and story corroborating Pearcy's proposalMPS 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one [48] from the May 5, 1895, Chicago Tribune. older ≠ wiser 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The proposal is historically real and notability has been established. --Oakshade 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old shoes

edit

Non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Although 2 newspaper articles are cited their notability is questionable Dylan Lake (t·c·ε) 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Local indie scene artist, it seems. Nothing particularly notable about this. --humblefool ® 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and questionable sources. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 07:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought this was going to be an article about all the odd shoes one sees hanging on odd wires. I wanted to know whether this phenomena was just some witty humour or some ancient religious practice! --Mike 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not notable. Also, I would like to see an article explaining why all those shose get up on the power lines. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A non-notable band, but a band nonetheless! Mr. Brigg's Ink 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?[reply]

Do you know how many bands there are? More than we have articles. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Avi 03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Sik Kim

edit

Notability appears to be questionable. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything indicating notability -- wtfunkymonkey 16:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tand Soo Do. Tulkolahten 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to meet WP:BIO, and there really isn't anything to merge. Yanksox 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable. Wavy G 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Suicidal Lemmings

edit

Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Thepinksuicidallemming (talk · contribs). Thegreensuicidallemming (talk · contribs) has also edited the page. 27 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 08:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The editors seem to be the same person. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 10:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be non-notable, as almost non of the Google hits are referring to this exact band. The only link is a self-reference on blogspot --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 11:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable group; vain entry based on creators/editors. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have seen them perform, but no where near notable enough for their own entry. 04:57, 8 November 2006 (GMT)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zook (band)

edit

No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing particularly reliable on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 08:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three notable members; Jukka Jylli and Sami Kuoppamäki (both Kingston Wall), Rocka Merilahti (Michael Monroe, Remu Aaltonen). What could possibly be more reliable source than Helsingin Sanomat? [49]. Also covered on MTV3 [50]. Radio play on Radio Helsinki. [51] Their album charted in Finnish Top-40 at 27. (03/2006) and 30. (04/2006) [52] [53]. Prolog 10:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Passes WP:Music for the following:

"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable."

This criteria is satisfied per the reasons given by Prolog. -bobby 14:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel the "contains at least one member" clause is a somewhat unfortunate one. If Jukka Jylli one day plays his guitar to his cat a few minutes and calls it The Feline Experience it immediately passes the notability guidelines. And the cat can then transmit the notability to others. I don't think there is a "fame is virally transmitted to anything that a barely notable person touches" clause anywhere else on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Your cat case would of course require extra attention (although, I find the idea of a cat musician notable in its own right). In the more general case (such as for Zook) we are talking about a widely recognized band (ie. not a few guys sitting by themselves messing around with a guitar) composed of three individuals who used to play in notable bands. Thus, I feel the criterion I cite is well applied in this instance. -bobby 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meow! You are now notable :-) Re "not a few guys messing with a guitar": if the new band itself is notable due to what it does then it should be notable. Not by association with someone who was once in a band that had a member whose earlier band made two records on a "major" (heh) record label (the way "infectious notability" now works) (and I don't mean Zook/Kingston Wall is like that; I mean in general). If Zook itself makes records, makes headlines, tours widely, then it would be notable. But if it plays a few gigs in a pub and then disbands, I don't think it would be notable regardless of who is in it. But "infectious notability" does make such a band notable, as well as any of its otherwise non-notable members. There are bands and musicians like that in Wikipedia. Which I think is not good for quality. </rambling_in_the_wrong_place>. Weregerbil 18:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They meet WP:MUSIC by having an album chart in Finland. The notable members adds to their claim. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets at least two criteria's of WP:MUSIC as mentioned by the above users, and therefore passes for me. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Pgk (talk · contribs) speedily deleted "Ulnis" (a1 - see WP:CSD)

Ulnis

edit

Unless I'm misssing something the text reads like nonesense Malcolma 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete due to lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 09:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollen Stewart

edit

Not Notable & Fails WP:BIO DXRAW 09:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject of a documentary. MER-C 09:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable. Most of the western world is familiar with his image^{[citation needed]} (if not necessarily his name) from countless TV appearances. And when he turned to crime, he made national news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MER-C and Andrew. I actually do know his name, and I was honestly quite surprised to see him at AfD. -- Kicking222 13:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As stated I don't know the name but I sure as heck new wh the article was about anyway. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Subject is a notable cultural icon, and this proposal is merely part of a larger campaign to Wikistalk and harass yours truly by attacking edits and articles in my contrib history. - Chadbryant 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rollen Stewart = 199,000 hits on google. DXRAW 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for demonstrating that your proposal is flawed and should not be seriously considered. - Chadbryant 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:GOOGLE. Also Chadbryant i feel that your comments are borderline WP:NPA.

Keep How is this guy not notable? He was a pop-culture phenomenon with a huge list of references in reliable press (for those that don't know, he was the rainbow wig guy with the John 3:15 signs). Way, Way, Way over the notability baseline. --Jayron 32 06:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added as references 5 articles about him in People Weekly and the New York Times. Along with the documentary movie, the Straight Dope articles, and literally hundreds of TV appearances worldwide, this makes him The Very Model Of A Notable Eccentric. I always thought it was a bunch of different kooks with the rainbow wig and the John 3:16 banner on TV coverage of ball games. Has anyone taken up the chore since this guy's incarceration? Edison 20:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 06:11, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core des at 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings

edit

Delete a compilation of Original research and sources that fail WP:RS by a wide margin, for example citing Jeff Rense and Alex Jones (radio). Legitimate sources are cited, however, they do not give support to what is being said. The page goes beyond being unencyclopedic; its just more conspiracycruft. Brimba 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep better collect this crap in the article about the conspiracy theories than to spoil the main article. The rumors and theories are notable by themselves Alex Bakharev 09:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely NOT original research. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 11:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We have similar pages on other such conspiracies, and at the very least it keeps the main article on the bombings clear of this stuff, as Bakharev suggests. It doesn't appear to be OR - would prefer more solid references and external links, but with such subject matter that may be difficult to obtain. Grutness...wha? 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep :: This article brings togatehr in one place what would otherwise be spread across several articles, each documenting one rumour accoridng to its source. -- Simon Cursitor
Delete - There are some RS sources, but lots of prisonplanet and rense sources. NN. - Crockspot 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as above, better to keep this garbage in one article rather than incorporate it into the main. Suggest sources that do not meet WP:V and WP:RS, which appear to be most of them at this point, be deleted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, heavily revise, and suggest a less painful article title.--Rosicrucian 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Crockspot. Article is heavily dependent on unreliable sources. Bwithh 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencylcopedic per nom Tbeatty 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is not claiming these rumors are true; it’s just documenting the rumor. Also this article was on AFD before and was voted keep; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Theories about the July 2005 London bombings.
Keep. We have similar articles for other terrorism-related conspiracies... we should always try to present all sides of a debate, no matter how crappy they are. --- RockMFR 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is well referenced. The information should be kept. However, the disposal of this information in this specific article is up for question. The article name is SO unweildy that it seems to demand a move or a merge. --Jayron 32 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be in line with WP:FRINGE. JASpencer 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 2 articles dealing with the actual setting off of bombs by four men. A list of rumors with no citations to show they exist beyond the mind of the editor who inserted them in the article, is not encyclopedic. If there were a specific rumor which was reported, say, in the New York Times and the Times of London and covered on the BBC that provided a coherent alternative explanation for the bombs going off, that rumor, even if not proven true, might be worthy of an article. This collection of vague claims isn't. Edison 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails to cite to reliable sources meeting Wikipedia’s requirements under WP:RS, and is mostly original research violating WP:NOR. Further, Wikipedia prohibits “Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position”. This article is a cruft-swamp-magnet. Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable conspiracy theories; don't belong in main article.-csloat 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on other similar articles and the past deletion discussion, Wikipedia does have a place for such articles. The reason I say weak is because of the sources used in the article. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs re-working and reliable sourcing, but as said above there is precedent for articles such as this. Robovski 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen a few similar articles - none of them seem very good. I'm not convinced that a collection of "rumours and conspiracy theories" is inherently notable and I agree with Morton's assessment of the article. GabrielF 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. I have added the merge suggestion tags. W.marsh 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe+585, Senior

edit

Seems to ba a hoax to me. I found a source stating that the Guiness Book 1978 indeed had an entry for this person, but nothing else. There was a previous discussion for this article under an other name, the result was Delete. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of unusual personal names Z388 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge unless verified. Kusma (討論) 21:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete nomination, listed now. Kusma (討論) 10:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 10:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of unusual personal names if verified. IA (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unverifiable. 20 seconds with Google Books turns up the exact page number in the 1981 edition of GBWR that this can be found on. Uncle G 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that he had an entry in the Guinness books for a couple of years. I do not believe that this entry is truw, as so many things about it are suspsicious: a German person with many non-German first names, a Lastnamemostofwhichmakessomekindofsenseingermanbuttwichisingramerspelingstuffnotgermanthengoescompletelyofftopicaddingsomeunrelatedwordsnamesfreedomattackthroughenemieswhichtwelfthousandyearsbeforefirstmanthatspaceshipused ... it goes on for a bit more. The "first man with spaceship" bit is really, really odd, and that this was dropped from the Guinness book serves to me as a verification that it is not true. Kusma (討論) 12:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The correct merge target if we do merge is in my opinion Fictitious entry, although we'd need to verify whether it is true or not for that as well. All we know for sure is that he was listed in the GBWR and is no longer listed there. Kusma (討論) 12:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are presenting a choice of trusting either the Guinness Book of World Records, with a known reputation and authorship, which could have dropped this entry for several reasons, or trusting the personal opinion, that this name is suspect, of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, based upon xyr own analysis and unsupported by any sources at all. And even the logic of that personal opinion is shaky. There's no requirement that a name that someone contrives in order to achieve a world record make grammatical sense in German, or that German people have solely German given names. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research says that we should side with the GBWR until other sources are written, fact checked, and published. Uncle G 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest we trust teh Guinness Book of World Records, whose newer editions do not list this person anymore. Kusma (討論) 16:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The guiness book of records drops records and introduces new ones each year (or else why would people have an incentive to buy new copies?). With a few exceptions, records such as this will repeat for a few years and then leave for a new one. Given that they've never retracted the statement, I don't see why that shouldn't be considered a reliable source.
      - Only if the Guinness Book removed Mr. Wolfe+585 for someone with a shorter or equal-length name would that removal concern me as to his verifiability. If they dropped him in favor of someone with a longer name, that would just mean his record was broken. And if they dropped the category entirely, that could just mean that they thought the category was no longer useful because someone could adopt a contrived name merely for the purpose of trying to get listed in the book, as opposed for wanting to use the name in his actual life -- which may, in fact, have been the case for Mr. Wolfe+585. --Metropolitan90 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of unusual personal names. I do remember him having an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records. Per Uncle G, my skepticism that this was actually his name does not make him unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We should perhaps edit the article down to verifiable facts: what appeared in which editions of the GBWR. Strangely enough, these few editions of the GBWR seem to be the only existing source, like for a classic Nihilartikel. But probably we'll have to live with an article that is not true just because it appears to be verifiable. Kusma (討論) 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Descending into either the completely unverified or the potentially verifiable, depending on how good your library is and how good this random internet posting is: The top entry at this discussion (the website link does not work and leads to strange places) claims that indeed some guy in Philadelphia made up a name similar to this. It appears to have not been his birth name. Kusma (討論) 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this appears to be notable, even if we have to change the wording to suggest that there is some doubt over the validity of the term. Robdurbar 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of unusual personal names. Even if it is verifiable, that doesn't mean that it deserves its own article. Xeinart 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as descibed above. Not notable enough for its own article. This guy has done NOTHING else notable than have a unique name. The name itself is notable, but only in the context of the above list. --Jayron 32 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I want to see a merge as well. It's hard for me to write this, since this was my very first contribution to Wikipedia. But if there is a site more relevant than that for purposes of Wolfe+585, Senior, then go ahead. I will make two observations, though:
- The first 35 letters of the name (Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff) do appear to be authentic.
- Someone out there was reading my sandbox entries! Lucasbfr, I hope you long for Buddy Wayne, BooTeasha, the Boogerbergers and the rest as much as I do.–Desmond Hobson 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Just because Guinness was lame enough to include this in their book doesn't mean this should be in an encyclopedia. Anyone can change their name to have a thousand letters (or a million letters). --- RockMFR 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autodeology

edit

Delete: Sounds made up. Zero Google hits. De-prodded by an IP with no explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scores the coveted zero Ghit benchmark for utter unverifiability. Guy 14:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 19:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not even cruft! --humblefool ® 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 06:11, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was keep. – Avi 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Baseball Online

edit

Taggedand deleted as CSD G4 (repost) following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Baseball Online but the content is substantially different from the original, which sucked royally. It remains to be seen whether this is genuinely significant per WP:WEB, an issue not really addressed before as the article as originally deleted was blatant vanispamcruftisement. Over to you... Guy 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - makes an assertion as to why it is notable. Not sure if it is or not but at least the article attempts it. Chris Kreider 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Assertions of notability only protect the article from speedy deletion. It needs proof if it's to be kept. ColourBurst 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my comments in the deletion review. - Hahnch e n 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first time this article was up for AFD, the content was ripped wholesale from ad copy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that does not speak to the significance of the subject or its coverage in reliable secondary sources, does it? So what of this article? Guy 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for inclusion of video game articles is generally pretty low, this game's unique multiplayer setup alone makes it more prominent than most entries in Category:Nintendo Entertainment System games. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (See below for new decision)- Only claim to notability that I can see is that it's the only game of it's kind. But the 'unique' arguement is a very weak one. I'm the only one of me, where's my article? As this article stands, it only has the official website as reference. It's gotta go. The Kinslayer 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you see the deletion review mentioned above. This game does have some links on Google News. - Hahnchen 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was making my judgement based an the article we are discussing, not what other people have said previously. No mention of Google news in the article. The Kinslayer 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is certainly a unique game concept, but that does not nesscarily make it notable. Unless mainstream video gaming or sports sources have commented on the game, it does not pass keeping it for me. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Someone has dumped several reliable sources into the external links section, although these have not been properly integrated with the article. - Hahnch e n 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Those news stories will do nicely for notability! Changing to weak keep. The fact that it's a free online ~~broswer-based~~ MMO holds me back from being more emphatic about keeping it. The Kinslayer 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not browser-based. Here are links to game profile pages for Ultimate Baseball Online at Gamespot and IGN (both credible gaming websites): http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sports/ultimatebaseballonline2006/index.html?q=Ultimate%20Baseball%20Online

http://pc.ign.com/objects/822/822506.html

- - Good point, I've corrected my statement to reflect that! The Kinslayer 11:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as somebody has actually merged and two of those arguing for deletion don't appear to be against this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements to mediate

edit

This and several other articles (listed below) are kind of a how-to guide for Mediation in Australia, in violation of WP:NOT, even though they have sources. Any useful information should be added to the general article. I speedied all of these once, and they have been recreated; let's get a consensus. NawlinWiki 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also included:

Delete or at least merge to Mediation, I saw these last night AEDST and dropped a polite note on the author's talk page suggesting they consider expanding existing articles as opposed to creating an article on every aspect of mediation. Elomis 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument about expanding articles does not fit with a "bolded deletion statement", it fits with a merge and redirect argument. Is the topic of mediation in australia covered at current? and why should it not be in a single new article on the topic. Afterall, they have put in enough information for a decent length article. Ansell 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as per nom. There have been several deletion discussions in the last few days on other articles with Mediation in the title, all having extracts from the same DIY guide. The time to mediate has passed - delete the lot. Emeraude 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all because they all have extracts from one totally verifiable reference is not an official reason for deletion. There are more than just the one "DIY" reference. Ansell 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 23:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge all to Mediation to get an Australian perspective. They do have references, after all. Where information is unverified, delete it. JROBBO 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mediation is already 56K long, well above a typical article length. I also think you mean where information is "unverifiable" as opposed to "unverified". Ansell 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Make up a new article on Mediation practices in Australia or similar title. There are more than enough references currently. I would do the merging right now but there are warnings about horrible GFDL difficulties if I do. Ansell 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into new article for all as per Ansell. (Mediation in Australia). Mediation article is far too long for this much more cotntent. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and cleanup into new article per Ansell, seems to be from a australian perspective --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I have a few people agreeing with a merge, even after the relisting... Would I have support to do the merging before this thing officially ends a second period here? Ansell 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - yes from me. JROBBO 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I will do copy and paste merges to Mediation in Australia, and redirect the remaining articles to it. I don't see how else I can keep with the GFDL when multiple contributions histories are involved. Ansell 08:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Banana Shots

edit

super NN team from "Division 1 of the Thursday Night 6 a side league" - crz crztalk 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, totally NN ChrisTheDude 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eagearly waiting for articles about teams at the University of Pisa intramural football league. --Angelo 15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Daemonic Kangaroo 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stretching my mind to think of any football team less notable than this one. - fchd 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ok, it’s the user’s first edit to wikipedia and most first users don’t read the guidelines and policies, I know I didn’t at first. He’s assumed that wikipedia allows any articles and I think we should assumed good faith. We all make mistakes; I know that I did something similar when I first joined wikipedia so I urge the user not to be disheartened by his article being deleted. I also urge users not to make sarcastic comments as I’ve seen before on such issues and to be understanding. Anyhow, it’s a none notable 6-a-side team, thus it has to be deleted. It may be a good idea to speedy delete as it obviously fills the criteria and it will make it less pain free for all involve. Englishrose 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qwghlm 09:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. м info 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rakuten06 18:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~~Will recreate as a redirect to emoticon.~~ Never mind. --Core des at 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail Talk emoticons

edit

It's a list. Of Google Talk emoticons. I don't know if it should be merged or just deleted. _JD^talk 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what's important (which is basically that Gmail Talk uses animated emoticons). This list should be sourced and what is relevant should be merged into Gmail#Talk_integration. Doing a simple google search for "gmail emoticons" brought up several lists very similar to this one. Apparently, Google itself released a list of the emoticons. Gmail's moving emoticons don't merit an article of their own - they're just one relatively small feature in the notable webmail server. Srose (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-trivial original research. Guy 14:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is definitely indiscriminate, unencyclopedic information. There are a lot of interesting things regarding Google Talk that are, in fact, discussed on Google Talk; this is just trivial information that does not apply to the article in terms of importance, history, technical information, or other information important to Google Talk. – Mipadi 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smileycruft.--Hús ö nd 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Strong Keep Important internet thingy. --172.148.158.110 18:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that Google Talk supports emoticons might be worth mentioning (it's probably mentioned already, though). The specific list, though, doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of Google Talk - particularly as most of these are pretty standard, and I expect the list is available from within the client. As a side note, there isn't even any such thing as an "animated png" (at least, not supported in any common browser). Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. How did this make it all the way to Afd? v_v --- RockMFR 04:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. We are not a collection of such things. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, just a big advert. Guy 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deira Guest House

edit

Just a big advert Flup 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Henry Lee

edit

Article makes no claim of notability, apart from being spouse of someone notable, and offspring of someone midly notable without Wikipedia entry. Searhc engine comes up with next to nothing too. These are the only tools I personally have for any AFD debates. --Dangherous 13:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 13:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that an unwise AfD tool criteria when researching historic figures that were alive long before google or yahoo existed. --Oakshade 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The google test (or yahoo test as it may be) is pretty unreliable when it comes to 19th century rector's sons. There may be some information out there relating to the divorce, which sounds rather notable for the period. Dina 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Neilson. T Rex | talk 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelaide Neilson. As this articles stands, this person does not pass WP:BIO. Unless the article is expanded to explain notability beyond relationships, this should be redirected. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless notability is explained. Being spouse of somebody famous doesn't make one a deserving candidate for an article or redirect. utcursch | talk 13:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this article provides no reason for it to be kept.delete.nascarfan1 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zingamama

edit

NN neologism Palfrey 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Page created by new user who has generally only contributed nonsense and vandalism. Zaian 13:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure neologism.--Hús ö nd 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This is a valid entry - however should you still vehemently dispute its being due to your lack of musical knowledge (read: real musical knowledge) then perhaps it should be merged into a larger 'modern choral technique' page or similar. - Waffenkartoffel (talk · contribs)

Zingamama gets only 10 google hits. When your contributions consist of extreme racism, trivial references to unknown people, and bad spelling, other people might not take your opinion on their musical knowledge seriously. Zaian 15:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You people arent worth the effort. Go ahead and delete it. Waffenkartoffel (talk · contribs)*

Do Not Delete This is a warmup that does wonders for your singing and we often use it. However, I do agree that the writer of this article has limited musical knowledge. You can't argue with that, it is a true zingamama (refering to zingamama being used as an exclamation following a great insult, shutdown, comeback or similar). This article could be improved to become a great entry in the glorious pages of Wikipedia if the article were to be extended to cover all meanings of zingamama. Distant Shores 03:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete this entry This article is 100% legitimate and I have used it with many choirs over the years. Many a time have I heard the phrase used as described above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.75.175 (talk • contribs) November 9, 2006

Delete neologism, not notable, definetly not verifiable(and I have my doubts it is even real), doubious origins. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chili Guy

edit

non-notable (his real name isn't even known, fails Google test, doesn't meet minimum standards as laid out in WP:BIO, etc.) Caliga10 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy radio-show gag character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do a speedy; I tried to prod the article and there were objections (see the article talk page).--Caliga10 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per star and nom. Chris Kreider 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This man, whoever he might have been, was interviewed, one time, on the radio. Spectacularly fails WP:BIO. Shimeru 09:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No known name, not a notable person, no Google hits... need I say more? Themikeg 04:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcus1234 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you guys are this obssessed with closing it down, then fine go ahead. Maximum 101 18:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect. Not notable enough for his own article. -bobby 15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Panelas

edit

Non-notable person. In my opinion, it possibly goes under CSD A7. Google returned other Bill Panelas. Imo eng 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Throttle (magazine), nothing to merge. I suggest the same be done to Peter Blake (editor) as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous work group

edit

Is has been suggested that this is just a phrase. Mike 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I wanted to refer to an article on automous work groups. I understood it to be a business/industry concept in regular use in the 1980s-1990s. Apart from hearing the name quite a few times I've no knowledge of the term. I created a stub but someone else asked to delete, so I thought I'd put it up for debate

PS. I've used a different version of the AfD template:AfDU --Mike 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Uncle G has added a lot more to the entry, so I'm now changing my vote, I think it is reasonable to expect an entry under this heading so I'm changing from a weak keep to definite keep!

--Mike 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Some of the folks in my office were involved with companies using autonomous work groups during the 90s. However, from their descriptions, I am not sure that we need anything more than a dictionary definition to wholly cover the topic. Since I was still in middle school when the business practice went by the wayside, I abstain from voting and defer to my elders. :) -bobby 15:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is really just a dictionary entry. Emeraude 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Strong Keep - This is a real concept. The article needs some cleanup, i will see what I can do. I have studied this concept in classes. It is fascinating, and if i knew nothing about it and wanted some information on it, i would def come to Wikipedia. Losing this article would be a loss to wikipedia. Chris Kreider 14:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Dangherous 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tullaghmurray Lass

edit

Page is about a boat which sank off the shores of Northern Ireland in 2002 and 3 members of its crew, all of the same family, died as a result. This seems to me as borderline notable. But maybe for Northern Irelanders there is something historic and symbolic or otherwise notable about it. I wouldn't know, am not from N.I. --Dangherous 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for the moment; I think a merge would be better, but I can't think of anywhere to where it could be merged! HamishMacBeth 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - leaning towards weak delete. Certainly the event got plenty of attention when it happened, and as such there are a plethora of news clippings written about it. On the flip side, sad as the sinking was, 3 victims is not that many and the vessel was not large enough to have significant enviornmental impact. I'm going to see what happens with this article over the next few days before making up my mind. In the meantime, I've added the boat to the list of Irish shipwrecks with the hope that more people will see the article and it's proposed deletion. →bobby← 17:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim made of encyclopedic notability. Media coverage does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report database or a memorial archive.Bwithh 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added a few references and more detail and feel that notability is clearly established here. It was an event where three people died, from the same family, and with the same name. It was covered in multiple local and national publications as well as the NI Assembly. I've also added detail on the wider issue of the safety of the Kilkeel/Ardglass fleet. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD retracted, if something is mentioned in the NI Assembly, and has all this reports on it, it's notable. --Dangherous 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTVA Colossus

edit

Technically not a G4, though this was just deleted a couple days ago through AFD, here. Same reason for this nom (as an individual video game unit). Wickethewok 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see the original article so I don't know what has changed, but the topic still is not notable per the reasons given in the previous AfD. -bobby 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the AfD wicket links to. Not sure why this articles still here, was re-created after deletion or did it slip through un-noticed? The Kinslayer 10:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should really have been speedy deleted (merely a technicality that it had to go here). --- RockMFR 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers that flow north

edit

Listcruft. There are no corresponding lists for south, west and east, and the criterion is fairly silly. This list is a) unmaintainable b) has a potential of growing indefinitely c) sourced from a defunct geocities site. Duja^► 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Duja^► 15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 16:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup or Categorize - There are very few rivers in the world that flow Northward. A list or category for them is useful as a river flowing North is a notable detail. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With due respect, "rarity of northward rivers" sounds like an urban myth to me. Might be true for U.S. due to configuration of the relief, but certainly not true worldwide. Duja^► 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It probably springs from things like this. See also this article, this article, and this article. One can find a lot of repetitions on the World Wide Web of the idea that "most rivers flow south". Uncle G 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with the major points of the nomination. The same arguments can be made for every entry under the Lists of Rivers category. Just as there is no list of S, E, or W rivers there are no lists of rivers in Italy or a list of places without rivers. Honestly, in my opinion, it is more interesting to see a list of north-bound rivers than it is to see a list of rivers in Guam. I do, however, agree that there needs to be some sources cited here. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable, arbitrary list. Most rivers flow north in some occasions during their path. Rhine for instance is included in this list, although it flows in all directions and has its mouth westwards. This list seems like a bad idea.--Hús ö nd 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rivers and geography are important topics and something like this could appear in an almanac or encyclopedia. --172.148.158.110 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This was 172.148.158.110's first edit on Wikipedia.--Hús ö nd 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note Anon user also has a predilection of placing nonsense votes. Danny Lilithborne 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a topic discussed in college sciences classes. The listing may be beneficial to that end. CraigMonroe 19:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can walk out my back door and see two small creeks that flow in all four directions as they twist. Totally useless in current form. --humblefool ® 20:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Devil's river and trim considerably to allow only rivers for which the general course is away from the equator, and to only include rivers of substantial size (note that the Devil's river article mentions that it is generally only larger rivers that conform to this phenomenon). Note that south-flowing rivers are the odd ones in the Southern Hemisphere, for the reasons outlines in the Devil's river article. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply north flowing northern hemisphere rivers are not that rare. Many major rivers in Europe and Asia flow mostly north (Rhine, Elbe, Oder, Volga, Ob, etc. etc.). Rivers flow downhill, not in any one cardinal direction.
  - But the misconception that they are rare is common. I strongly suspect that the motivation behind this article is the very same question that you can find asked in the sources that I cited above: "Please name 3 rivers that flow north.". So one issue to address is: How can Wikipedia best help encyclopaedia readers to combat this particular misconception about the direction of flow of rivers? Obviously one idea that editors had was to construct a raw list of rivers that flow north so that they could say to those people (North Americans and otherwise) who assert that it's rare for a river to flow north: "Look at this lengthy list of rivers that flow north. That clearly demonstrates that your assertion is wrong." Incorporating the point that rivers flow downhill (which one can source from what I cited above) into an overall discussion that doesn't just present a raw list of rivers but that includes analysis and explanation as well, as per Grutness, is good idea. Uncle G 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. North flowing rivers are not that rare. The length of the article testifies to that. The list however could be even longer and is in fact unlikely ever to be complete. For example, it has hardly started with Australia and yet more water flows into Australia's northern waters than anywhere else to the south. How do you define a "river" as opposed to a stream, a creek, etc. --Bduke 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable meshach 04:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable list of rivers. The primary cardinal direction of a river's flow is neither notable by itself, nor as part of a listing. I am certain that if we extended this down to a full study of all rivers in the world, we would find that 25% (or an insiginificant statistical difference from 25%) of all rivers flow any one of the 4 cardinal directions. A restatement of a predictable stastistic is hardly something worth building lists on. --Jayron 32 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not particularily useful, rivers flow in all sorts of directions. I agree with Jayron. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle; any river that meanders could be included if one of its twists and turns heads North(ish). Carlossuarez46 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate, uninformative, and way too large, and I've put a disputed tag on the Devil's river article, since that presents this myth as fact. Fram 10:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rivers that flow to the north are clearly the work of evil and should not be discussed. Everyone can see that the South is on the bottom of a map and is thus downhill --Robdurbar 09:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject, why not rivers that have a Q in their title, or rivers that twist around alot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe a list of rivers that flow away from the equator would be notable, but I'd want sourcing in Devil's river first. -- nae'blis 01:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Conflict

edit

Non notable MMORPG. Apart from the awards, which are issued monthly by the members (currently 1737) of the website and are thus hardly notable or major, there are no external sources given, even though the article exists for over a year now (so plenty of time). A free game like there are many free games (in terms of verifiability and mainstream attention), fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:CORP (for products). Fram 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Alan Au 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shimeru 09:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (Sarcasm) Oh a free massively multiplayer sci-fi conquer the universe game. That's so original it can stand on its own without needing to establish notability. (End sarcasm) Seriously though, with the amount of free massively multiplayer sci-fi conquer the universe games out there, this would need to be something truly exceptional to stay here. And there is nothing available to make think it's ever gonna become that notable. The Kinslayer 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ManiF 08:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backdraft (drink)

edit

PROD removed without comment by anon. Wikipedia is not a book of recipes, least of all dangerous-sounding ones without sources. Delete. —An gr 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Verifiable - Wikipedia is home to many drink related articles (see here). Most of these contain some amount of instruction as to how the drink is meant to be mixed. In my mind, the biggest issue with this current article is verification. If we can get some references that cite instances of this drink being prepared (my bartender's guide doesn't have a beverage by this name, although it does contain several other flaming drinks) I see no reason to delete the article. I would also remind the community that Wikipedia is not censored. Thus, the fact that a subject is dangerous does not negate it's candidacy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Gun would qualify for deletion, as would AIDS. -bobby 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to exist, per [54]. Needs some TLC, though. Keep. --humblefool ® 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the bartending book, if they want it. Otherwise delete. I don't see anything about the social context of the drink that makes it appropriate for this project, only a recipe and Humblefool's reference to an alternate recipe. There has to be more than just a recipe or two. Is this a famous person's favorite drink? Has this been featured in a significant work of fiction? Has this drink been explicitly banned or been found uniquely responsible for a series of fatalities? Have there been legal fights about trade secrets or copyright regarding the preparation of this drink? These are the kinds of things that make what are otherwise just recipes appropriate topics here. Un focused 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather new entry, and as such is in it's infancy. As for being verifiable, a quick google search will show that myspace contains multiple movies of this. As the author of most of this entry, I just have not had time to upload pictures and/or movies of this drink being made and consumed. While the drink has not been banned (that I know of) it is quite popular here in Geneva Switzerland, and has been added to at least two menus that I know of. Given time, this will be documented and added to the wiki page. Keep. Saukeye 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems to be a legit enough article, it just needs a bit of work. Bakilas 14:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place

edit

Delete. What constitutes a fictional place is too ambiguous. This list is as unmaintanable as a List of fictional places. --Vossanova ^o< 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what comes next, a list of enlgish songs by russian native performers about individuals who wear sunglasses? These lists keep growing! Chris Kreider 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Strong Keep You can never have too many lists . . .--172.148.158.110 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have to register and log-on in order to participate in XfD discussions. Anonymous opinions are not counted. (aeropagitica) 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is no such requirement. This is an open discussion. It is up to the closing admin to decide how much weight to give each vote, not any one editor. I would speculate that the closing admin will give the above anon vote next to zero consideration, but please do not make assertions of policy where none exists. --Jayron 32 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Strong Delete Yes you can (and please ignore that illogical anonymous non-vote). Danny Lilithborne 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whack the list with the delete stick, hard. Even were this maintanable, who CARES about every song with a fictional place in the title? -Amarkov ^babble 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep and move Name of article is unweildy. But the list has some potential if reorganized and renamed. Perhaps "List of songs by place names" or some such (thus, we can collect songs that have been written about the same place). Still, the article is too unweildy as it is. I think the general gist of this list is OK, even if the specifics here are a little off. Thus the "weak" in my keep. --Jayron 32 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete too POV: where are all the songs about heaven and hell? those are fictious places, too. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list meet WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does an opinion of someone who threatens us with stick count? Then I could bring in some stuff too, you know. -DePiep 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What threat? I fail to see any personal attacks here. --Vossanova ^o< 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worst of the listcruft, why would anyone need this? No encyclopedic value, just indiscrimate collection of information. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen worse list pages. User:Pedia-I/Signature

Point? -Amarkov ^babble 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:BIO, and the nominator doesn't even support deletion. If you want to discuss notability in general, please use the talk page. --Wafulz 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gibson

edit

Is this curler notable enough? I think so, but I wanted to see what the people think. Weak keep at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, somewhat obvious keep Maybe I'm biased because I love curling, but anyone who's won a medal at the yearly world championships of a pretty big sport is certainly notable per WP:BIO, as Gibson is very clearly a sportsperson who has played at the highest competitive level of his sport. -- Kicking222 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm no expert on curling but by his credentials he seems to be reasonably notable in the curling world. HamishMacBeth 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Clearly satisfies athletic criteria for WP:Bio. → bobby ← 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think there is ample evidence he meets WP:BIO as an athlete.--Isotope23 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - won medal at a world championship for his sport -- Whpq 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep He has won awards in field, so in the world of curling, he is indeed notable.NASCARfan1 18:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC

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

The result was delete. Will recreate as a redirect to hard water. --Core des at 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HardWater

edit

Contested prod. Unreferenced, notability not established. Khatru2 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is a cut and paste job straight off this site, so likely a copyvio as well. -- Whpq 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Whpq. Chris Kreider 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Hard Water as if nothing else, the use of a changelog tends to make me think this thing isn't well developed. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; apart from weight of numbers, the points made about the lack of definition and sourcing are persuasive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of French surnames

edit

Indiscriminate collection of information Ccady 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Useful reference, not all lists are inherently an indiscriminate collection of information. See List of Jewish surnames.--Hús ö nd 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral per Jayron32.--Hús ö nd 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, this is a helpful refeence guide and most lists are worth keeping. --152.163.100.73 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Calling something an indiscriminate collection of information does not make it so. -Amarkov ^babble 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a pointless list. WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information meshach 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how is it pointless? -Amarkov ^babble 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is List of Spanish Surnames, List of English Surnames, or List of English Surnames? This list could be endless meshach 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative question: Where is List of Jewish surnames? Oh wait, there it is. -Amarkov ^babble 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was ready to vote "keep" on this one, but the more I looked at it, the more I realized there were problems(NOTE: THE OTHER SURNAME ARTICLES HAVE THESE SAME PROBLEMS):

Original Research: Where are the references to back up that these are French surnames? What makes a French surname? Surnames of people in France? How long does a surname have to be in France to be considered French? What about French surnames that appear in other nations? What about Franchified names that originated in other tongues? What about French surnames that have been translated to other tongues? Former territories of France that are now parts of other nations? Names that sound french but have no connection to France? You see the problem here? We have no way of defining the list to any satisfaction.
The articles it links to make no mention of the list itself. For example, the first name Alphonse redirects to a list of kings named Alphonso (first name, not surname!). If the subject of the list isn't notable within the articles it lists, why is it here?
Unweildy and huge. There are probably THOUSANDS of french surnames, maybe TENS OF THOUSANDS or HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. It is impossible that this list can justify including some over others, and it cannot have all of them.
triviality: Notable lists should be of notable things. This is no more notable than a telephone directory. Telephone directories are VERY useful. I use one almost every day. No need to put one into a wikipedia article, however.

Any other additions to this? I think that presents a pretty comprehensive deletion case. --Jayron 32 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced list, no clear criteria, full of useless links like the one to Ferry. Kusma (討論) 11:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a list like this is indeed a good idea and handy, but I agree that it should be sourced and I would think that a quick web search on French surnames would turn up responses that could be cited. Good bye and Happy Thanksgiving! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT for indiscriminate lists or original research. Who says the names are French and where did they say it ? List of surnames which may have been borne by people who might be French describes content and problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks meaningful criteria, resulting in original research, and has the potential to be wildly under-inclusive, making it less useful. --TheOtherBob 22:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Open-ended list, and indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron32. Korg (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source - lack of sourcing (as opposed to being unsourceable) is not inherently a reason to delete. If it is not sourced, bring it back here and it should be a slamdunk. Could be a useful article if cleaned up. -- nae'blis 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list simply is not encyclopedic. Moreover, creating a complete version of the list could be impossible. George J. Bendo 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Blumfield

edit

Non-notable self-published author. The creator of this article, Eeriemind, has only created articles related to Brett Blumfield and the username is a reference to Blumfield's website, The Eerie Mind Of Brett Blumfield. Most likely vanity. IrishGuy ^talk 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO yet, and no reliable sources. Probable WP:COI. Shimeru 10:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Outer Realm

edit

Non notable book. The publisher is an on-demand publisher [55] which makes this a self-published book by a non-notable author. The author's article, Brett Blumfield, is also under review. IrishGuy ^talk 18:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published, not generally reviewed or given any similar consideration by critics, Amazon sales rank of just above #3,000,000. Shimeru 10:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per consensus of established users. --Core des at 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Wexler (actor)

edit

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Appeared in one movie and died, apparently with no real role in the movie otherwise. I don't think this qualifies as notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) "keep" I think this article should be cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete it- keep Stumblemonkey[reply]

Strong KeepIF YOU DELETE THIS, I will personally feel the need to file a complaint with the owners of Wikipedia because GENE WEXLER is an amazing person and he is the only person that I can think of that deserves to have his own "section" to say the least on Wikipedia. So if you delete this or want it deleted, THINK AGAIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.157.62 (talk • contribs) .

KeepI completely disagree with the previous statement. Gene Wexler should be kept on wikipedia for his obvious importance and contribution to society. Nicholas' Gift was a key part of the movement to help support organ donation. Gene Wexler played the young boy, Nicholas, who is possibly the most crucial character in the show. While only having a small part in terms of time, his importance to the movie could not have been more crucial. The only action that should be taken against this wikipedia page is expansion. 205.188.116.201 20:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-This article can admittedly use cleanup (and I am willing to do it). But the fact is Wexler is an actor with an important role in the movie. And as per the above editor, the movie and more specificly Wexler has made an impact on society. 68.193.95.73 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The argument for deletion is false. This article is very notable as Wexler has made a large impact on society. His role in the movie, although short, flashes back various times. His role is vital in the movie and the plot would be lost without him. Also, he is an established musician, taking part in a variation of Stomp and has been in many musicals and dramas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.95.73 (talk • contribs) .

Delete One small bit part in one film isn't notable. IrishGuy ^talk 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly and completely non-notable, as the above drivel proves. "As compensation for working in the movie, he recieved money" - so, he was paid for it then? Interesting way of putting it. -- Necrothesp 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from greatly enjoying Necrothesp's reasoning, it must be said that this is some high school kid who played a part in one non-notable TV movie, thus affirming his complete lack of notability and failure of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! whats with the need to delete this page when there isn't a lack of space on wikipedia. He worked for that role and has a right to be noted. Remeber, in theater, there are no small parts!!!! 67.85.95.121 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKEEP - GENE WEXLER IS A MUST KEEP68.193.81.39 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person and the article is full of speculation WP:NOT a memorial meshach 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!

This is an important thing!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.93.71 (talk • contribs) .

~~KEEP~~ His role was NOT insignificant. Also, this successful movie raised proftis for organ donors! Wexler has saved lives! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.95.73 (talk • contribs) .

Please do not vote more than once. IrishGuy ^talk 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Gene is not only been talented enough to be cast as a lead role in a film, his work besides Jamie Lee Curtis has put him in the same "club", if you will as Dan Akroyd, Tim Allen, Bette Midler, Lindsay Lohan, Chad Micheal Murray, and many others. Wexler's performance inspired children and adults alike to be organ donors, and one may argue that a TV movie may be more widely viewed than a movie in theatres, being that it is offered for free on TV. The point of the previous statement is, if Ben Afflect and erroneous actors and actresses get their names mentioned on Wikipedia, why does someone who has affected a subject so important, such as Gene, deserve to have their entry deleted. Gene Wexler's article should be KEPT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.64.111 (talk • contribs) .

Hello. I assume you're all friends with this kid? Unfortunately, being in one movie doesn't make you famous enough for Wikipedia. Good luck with the singing career, though. Delete. --humblefool ® 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is still alive but hasn't done anything since appearing in the movie as the article makes clear. Could possibly be mentioned in the article on the movie. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this entry. This article is of no scholarly value and is poorly written. His achievements are comparable to those of all high school students and have made no advancements in any field. This article is the equivalent yearbook entry or a myspace page and that is where it belongs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CM02459 (talk • contribs) . — CM02459 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy per WP:BIO, potential WP:COI. Shimeru 10:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a fine fellow, but one tv movie part does not make him notable enough for an article. See WP:N. The closing administrator should note which posts were made by new or single purpose accounts. Edison 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE Though the movie was only a TV movie, it still raised much awareness about organ donation. I know a few people who were impacted by this movie and became organ donors themselves. It was interesting to read about the actor who played Nicholas and what he is doing now. Maybe we will see more of him in the future. He did a pretty good job, so i suggest you keep this article!

Delete I'm more noteable than this guy. So's my wife, and she was just an extra for the Beeb. Robovski 01:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been in only one movie and that movie is not notable enough to have its own article. Cynrin 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Just because it was only one small part, doesn't mean it wasnt significant. a part is a part, no matter the size. The film, along with Wexler, helped bring transplant awareness up. A reason in itself to keep the young actor, here on Wikipedia. — 67.85.85.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Don't know if he's alive or not. Doesn't matter. NN. A minor part in a minor film. How many actors like this are out there? Should each one get a page? How about the minor writers, and minor artists, and minor musicians, and minor athletes, and so on? This should be deleted until the subject has achieved something more.Freshacconci 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You say "until" he has achieved more. This page is continuing to expand as he keeps achieving more. He recently recieved a 96 on his AP Stats test. Before you know it he will be starring in more movies.

"Before you know it he will be starring in more movies." But until he does... (and you should sign your replies for credibility).Freshacconci 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gene Wexler is a fine actor and this movie an inspiration. Please kep this article because it opens awareness about upcoming actors.67.85.82.2 05:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipeadia isn't about awareness of organ donation, cancer, or upcomming actors. Or advertising or making people feel good. It's an encyclopedia. It's about knowledge and information. Gene's main claim to fame is a minor role in a TV movie from 8 years ago. Should Gene get his big break or become a notorious murderer or something actually of notoriety I'm sure we'd be happy to have an article on him. Right now I think I get more hits on Google, and I think I've had more screen time from back when I lived in Chicago - and I'm not an actor. I'm just some guy.Robovski 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 13:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef al-Khattab

edit

Procedural nomination. Article has been prodded, deprodded, reprodded, and deprodded (prods cannot be restored). There is concern that the subject may not meet WP:BIO youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Merge any useful material to The Root of All Evil ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I think Jossi's got it right. Still, not sure what material would be merged, as this guy seems to have done nothing notable other than getting interviewed. IronDuke 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some very...interesting ideas he has. Agree with Jossi, this would work as a mention in the documentary page. --humblefool ® 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article calls him "prominent". The only thing prominent I could discover about him is his Wikipedia bio. Doesn't come close to satisfying any of the inclusion category guidelines in WP:BIO. Dasondas 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind providing a reason? T Rex | talk 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jossi and IronDuke. There is a mention of him in The Root of All Evil which could be somewhat expanded with some of the info in this article. By the way the talk page and edit history seem to indicate that this article was created by its subject, see WP:AUTO. 6SJ7 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he were prominent, his extreme views would warrant notability too. However, he's a nut having been interviewed by Richard Dawkins; so? --tickle me 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just self-promotion, not really providing anything worthy of being considered useful information. He's no prophet, hasn't really done anything influencial in either religion, one of many Jews who has probably converted to Islam over time. Evolver of Borg 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He doesn't seem notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.135.224 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Does not seem to meet requirements of notability. Isarig 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Amoruso 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete, and it is useful and may enlighten people. or merge per jossi --Nielswik_(talk) 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
question Why did Dawkins select him to be interviewed? Was there some preexisting prominence which led Dawkins to him, or did he just sort of grab the first Jew-to-Muslim he could find? I haven't read the book and I don't have access to Youtube to see the interview, so if there's any indication of what made Dawkins select him, I'd appreciate a quick summary. Gzuckier 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD. Your question would have a better chance to be answered if you ask it at [[The Root of All Evil ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per jossi. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, hardly the "prominent" convert known for his outspoken views. Wikipidian 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe he is notable. He is touted by certain Muslim fundamentalist groups as a Jew who has "seen the light" (without mentioning that he was raised secular). I have seen him mentioned, along with another picture of him, several times in this context. The Wikipedia article can provide important information (such as his not being raised a Hasidic Jew) to interested people. This is really the point of an Encyclopedia, actually. --Eliyak T·C 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per Jossi. Lets all keep WP:BIO in mind. Tewfik^Talk 07:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' non notable vanity page ~~see ??borderline personality disorder.~~ Elizmr 13:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please limit the debate to whether or not the subject merits inclusion or not and not about any opinions that you may have about the individual as a person. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize. Sorry. I've crossed it out, please accept my apology. Elizmr 14:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have seen this guy on several places on the net, anyone seeing him might want to know about him, and that is a good notability crieteria in my book. He is a living and walking controversy, he did not get choosen by random for the documentary, he has a track record.--Striver 11:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you maybe give us a hint where? I assume more people than just me have all been looking and if anybody can find anything that doesn't stem from Dawkins nobody's reported it. Gzuckier 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the best online source that I could find: http://www.jews-for-allah.org. I think the article, if not kept, should be merged to Muslim Jew. --Eliyak T·C 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Jewish-Converts-to-Islam/Yousef-al-Khatab.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/salafi/jewishconvertyousefalkhattab.htm
http://www.muslimtents.com/yousefalkhattab/
http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups365.html
http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=KzI47I
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2196364/bio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6hZ9RgwIGc&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVKfnOJlBdk&mode=related&search=
http://www.freethinkerscs.com/articles/fragileegos.htm
http://discardedlies.com/entry/?20662_
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/Bewildered2.htm

"Yousef al Khattab" -Dawkins gives 520 hits, 100 less than just "Yousef al Khattab", proving that he is not just notable due to the dawkins film. --Striver 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 129 of the unique - crz crztalk 12:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Joey Cohen is a serious publicity hound. He is responsible for most of those things, and for this Wikipedia article. - crz crztalk 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? Is that a bad thing? --Striver 12:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown, Jr.

edit

This page is unnecessary because this character has only appeared in a few Family Guy episodes. The character does not deserve his own page. Jayorz12 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a part of the show, I think it is notable enough for an article on him. Chris Kreider 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reviewing the way other characters are handled, I agree with Chrislk02's assessment. It makes no sense for Cleveland Jr. to be limited to the List of characters from Family Guy page when we have pages for each of the Goldmans and Joe Swanson's son. →bobby← 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Cleveland Jr. is much more minor than the Swanson son, who has been featured in specific episodes as being pivotal, so I have to vote weak on this. The article does jump around a bit (perhaps on purpose?), so the structure might need reworking. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Episode Four

edit

Administrative note: I have split the histories of the two AfDs so that the first is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2: Episode Four. Thus those comments referring to "below" should be taken instead as referring to that. Splash - tk 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already been deleted before, nothing has changed, Delete PureLegend 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, Episode Four *does* exist and *is* under production, by a second-party studio. You can read more about its confirmation, and find the source, at Half-Life 2#Mods_and_expansions. That said I don't really mind whether it stays or goes at this point: Abstain. --Tom Edwards 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've reconsidered. Ep4's existence is notable, and therefore an article, even if it's just a stub, should be around to convey the fact. Keep. --Tom Edwards 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Second-party studio" - Does that mean that I am producing it? Do you mean first or third party? Wickethewok 21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Third-party I suppose. Third-party is how Valve sometimes term mods, which is probably what caused that booboo. ;-) --Tom Edwards 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Annouced Game, and part of a popular series. Chopper Dave 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Thunderbrand 20:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bear in mind, the article hasn't changed since last deletion, and the source is still the same. PureLegend 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per previous AfD below. Same reasons apply here. Couple of lines from the gossip section of a gaming mag is not official proof. I can also find multiple sources stating there are THREE and not four episodes to Half-Life 2. Unless multiple sources can be found stating there is to be a fourth episode, there should most definitly not be an article here.The Kinslayer 16:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed telephone interview with Valve's PR head is a long way from the "gossip section". You've not even checked the source, have you? --Tom Edwards 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did. The only verfiable source is one quoted sentence on a forum followed by a plethora of fan speculation. Very convincing. Half Life 2 Episode 4 yields absolutely nothing on google bar the associated posts on forums. I am now convinced that that this article DEFINITLY shouldn't be here yet. The Kinslayer 12:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per previous AfD below. There is no reason for this to be kept, as stated above and below. --Film11 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even sure why there is a debate over the 4th episode in a trilogy. Might as well have an article about "President Emo Phillips", as it would be just as likely. Pharmboy 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Delete Mabey a referance to such a game could be put in a similar article? DotDarkCloud 22:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Kinslayer. When/if this game is properly confirmed the article can be remade. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. aLii 11:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per aLii/Kinslayer/etc. Not WP:V enough yet. jesup 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its been known for a while that Episode 3 is the finale of the HL2 Trilogy so there's no need for a Episode 4 article when there is a 0.00001% chance of a game ever being made. Plus Vavle has made all the HL2 games by themselves (First Party), unlike the original Half Life (where Gearbox and Ritual helped out)Furthermore the only source that corraberates that is a quote from PCGamer in March. TheSpeedster
Alright I've done some more looking, and any google search with the term Half Life Episode 4 comes up with just a comic strip. Nothing else, no PC Gamer article, no updated news (its extremely rare that any game would last that long without any new news) + Nothing on Gamespot nor IGN TheSpeedster

Delete per Kinslayer, and possibly a violation of WP:HOAX.--WaltCip 00:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and turn it into a footnote at the end of the HL2 article until further details are announced.--Chef Brian 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Strong Keep if Episode 4 does occur. Give this one some time. --172.148.158.110 18:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. Read the above "delete" votes.--WaltCip 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 4 IS being made by a third party, Valve said so.

Delete until more information can be provided from externally verifiable third party sources. The information I can access (and I don't know how much more there was to the article beyond the snippet placed on the forum post) gives a single line of text. I can't tell who the developers will be, when it will begin development, etcetra, leaving us with an article that says "HL Ep 4 does not exist yet", which is not enough to go with at the moment. I fully support an article on this when more, solid information is provided to the public through reliable sources, but it is a bit premature. -- saberwyn 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the present tense. --Tom Edwards 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have to agree with this course of action...it's not even helping anyone at the moment. Just an article with about two sentences of info.--Katana314 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the sources for this article before commenting:

"Episode 4: 'stand alone plot'". Halflife2.net Forums. 3 April 2006. Retrieved 25 July 2006.
"The World According to Gabe". PC Gamer magazine (US). April 2006. p. 22.
"Re: Steam Source LOL". 7 November 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-07.

I moved these sources from out of the template header to here, since you shouldn't add things up there (they get deleted when the AfD is closed, thereby removing part of the discussion input). I notice that your thrid source, the only recent one, is a forum post, as is the first one, leaving only the PCGamer announcement of more than half a year ago. (Well, I have a forum post which says it is true, because it is confirmed on Wikipedia (!), after which the other posters starts Wikibashing: that is the result of having articles about these things, less trust in Wikipedia instead of more...)[56]. Fram 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball and lack of multiple verifiable sources. Fram 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT crystal ball. Anyway, why isn't this on some sort of merged "Half-Life 2 episodic content" page or something? Garrett^Talk 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge I have added the tags suggesting a merge. W.marsh 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of BAPS temple locations

edit

This article is an indiscriminate collection of links, and a mere collection of internal,links. Propose deletion per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Sfacets 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information to BAPS. --humblefool ® 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. utcursch | talk 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad faith nom.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Bad faith nom? What is your basis for this? Sfacets 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Love triangle. Yomangani ^talk 13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love rectangle

edit

I'm holding a survey as to whether or not to merge the page Love rectangle into this love triangle or possibly a delete. Love triangles are obviously more popular or well known over love rectangles. The love rectangle page is also rather short and basically has the same info as the love triangle page, my vote:

Merge with love triangle. UnDeRsCoRe 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think you can get the picture from love triangle. What comes next, a love dodecahedron? Chris Kreider 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom if it can be sourced - But as for love dodecahedrons, are you familiar with Marmalade Boy? ^_- Shimeru 10:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Strong Keep and yes to the other love shapes! --172.148.158.110 18:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Love triangles are a common concept; however, love rectangles (pentagons, dodecahedrons...) aren't. The term seems like a neologism. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this well never be more than elaboration on the Love triangle concept. --humblefool ® 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Neologism. --GringoInChile 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with love triangle if any reliable sources are found. --- RockMFR 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with love triangle as a small section. It wouldn't take up much space, and "love ____" is still used sometimes; a simple explanation would suffice. Breed Zona 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Robovski 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To love quadrangle.--Perceive 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to love triangle and mention the possibility of greater numerical configurations there. This is an easily understood concept extended from the basic concept. Do not keep as separate article. -- nae'blis 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 06:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Serebrian

edit

Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood an astroturfing campaign that involves paid translations of author's autobiography.

Compare this article with the appearance and contents of this very piece on various European Wikipedias: de, pl, es, fr, hu, it, ro, ru. All these articles were created from a Molvadian IP address (195.138.119.133) that otherwise had little or no interest in contributing to Wikipedia.

The notability of this person is not clearly established; he was a local politician / ministry spokesperson, and a local scientist who, judging from the article, had published about five articles in various magazines and/or larger compilations, but has no own published books; this is perhaps more clear when you look at the references on pl.wiki. Although this is not mentioned in the article, he is the leader of Social Liberal Party (Moldova), but this party does not seem to have any notable accomplishments ("[...] in 2001 Oleg Serebrian released a manifest with the intention to found a social liberal party. This initiative was joined by the Christian-Democratic Women's League and the National Youth League of Moldova. In 2002 the Party of Democratic Forces merged into the party."; the members of the party had three seats in the parliament prior to forming this bloc).

This is our AfD vote on Polish Wikipedia. I'm just dropping by to share our findings. Regards. lcamtuf 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The most notable aspect of the article (in my mind) is Serebrian's position as chairman. As such, I propose giving him a permanent home within the article about his party. -bobby 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and recommend speedy keep. Under WP:BIO, "members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are strongly presumed notable enough: he is a member of a national legislature. Questions about the article's neutrality or potential conflicts of interest by its creator are probably addressed best in the article's own talk page. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: OK, if that turns out to be the consensus here, I won't make a fuss. The article did not explicitly say he is a member of the parliament, and the question of verifiability / POV in a potential autobio remains - but if he's notable enough for en.wiki, there are other ways to take care of this. --lcamtuf 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I edited the article to make it somewhat clearer that he was in fact a Moldovan MP, and found an English language site confirming that. Some Romanian language sites also seemed to confirm it, but I don't really read Romanian. Other English language sites called him a "deputy", which is an ambiguous title in American English. It does seem that he is both an MP and the leader of his party's faction in parliament, which makes him a significant enough figure to pass IMO. -Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of a national legislature, thus notable under WP:BIO. -- Necrothesp 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links: Serebrian is a MP and leader of SLP faction. He is also author of several books (not only articles). This is an information from Tiraspol Times http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/149

"Born in 1969, Oleg Serebrian is one of Moldova's youngest and most promising political leaders. He has a solid background in international affairs, with a degree in international relations from the European Institute of High International Studies in Nice, France, and post-graduate work done at Harvard, Edinburgh and Paris. In the late 1990's, he worked for his country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is also the author of several books on international affairs and foreign policy, the latest being "Dicţionar de geopolitică" (Geopolical Dictionary), a 340 page tome on international politics which has just been published simultaneously in Romania and Moldova." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.56.58 (talk • contribs)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep badly written articles are no reason for deletion. The SUBJECT of the article is a member of a national parliament. Ergo, he is notable. Ergo, keep the article. A rewrite is needed, not a deletion. --Jayron 32 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron. Meets WP:BIO despite origins of article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (interested editors may merge with Jack Abramoff). cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff

edit

This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.

Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to me it is a bit of soapboxing... as are all the nominated articles. No offence to the originator, but the sourcing falls short of verifying the article text in many places. Still, this might be useful information if it were actually sourced correctly. I'm tagging the articles now while I think about this a bit more.--Isotope23 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By itself I would say it would fall under WP:NOT, but it is part of a larger series of pages related to the scandal. The information is importaint (I guess, I haven't really followed the scandal), has a narrow focus, and arranged in a useful manner. It certainly needs to be cleaned up, sourced, and expanded, but not deleted. Koweja 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koweja. Xtifr _tälk 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the WHOLE bunch to Jack Abramoff, or perhaps to some parent article specific to the scandal. As a stand-alone article, it doesn't hold up. The information is good and useful, but it doesn't merit its own article. --Jayron32 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Ezeu 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the WHOLE bunch to Jack Abramoff, or perhaps to some parent article specific to the scandal. CraigMonroe 18:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Jayron32 and CraigMonroe. Bwithh 19:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic that may have implications both criminally and electorally. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What does that have to do with Wikipedia? -- Renesis (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jack Abramoff. The trips are not notable enough in themselves as part of the overall political scandal. Ohconfucius 04:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, as per Koweja. Riverbend 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wikiworthy. If every single public high school is notable for wikipedia surely corruption involving the US government is too. Arbusto 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that are also the name of a film

edit

Delete - This list has misguided intentions, exposed in the very first sentence: "Here is a list of songs that happen to be the name of a movie". This sets a bad precedent for unencyclopedic lists: Things that have the same name as other, unrelated things of no particular category. --Vossanova ^o< 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it's an interesting trend/built-in marketing gimmick, this opens the door to messes involving one-word song/movie titles or exceedingly common names like "Hold On". I'd like to vote Keep pending some regulations for the list being put down, but it depends on how interested others are in keeping. Danny Lilithborne 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could possibly see a List of films containing songs of the same title, or List of songs from films of the same title, but the flaw of this list is that entries don't necessarily have to tie the two together. If someone were to rename the article and restrict the list more, that could be discussed. --Vossanova ^o< 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retracting my comment and voting Delete. For some reason, I thought this article was the other way around (Films named after songs). Danny Lilithborne 19:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too broad. Also appears to violate WP:NOR based upon some editors' application of the guideline with regards to previously AFD'd list articles. Personally I can't how a usable criteria could be established for this. Just because some rock band names a song "Deliverance" 30 years after a film of the same name ... that isn't notable; if said song is in some way a tribute to the film, then that should be noted in the film's article. 23skidoo 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lists keep on coming. It is getting absurbd. Chris Kreider 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I knew there was a problem when you have a song like "War of the Worlds" that shares a title with two films, before and after, but are all preceed by a famous novel by that name. And do you know how many songs are titled "Halloween"? No, as someone said, it's too broad. --Bacteria 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete this article classification is far too broad and arbitrary.-- danntm ^T _C 00:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "List of Songs named after a Film" might be notable as it establishes causation and by extension notability. This list,however, in its very nature is based on coincidence and not causation. Random coincidence are by definition not notable. Thus, delete it as having no potential to ever become notable. --Jayron 32 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually came looking for a page of this specific description, for help with a small project I'm working on, so in theory, it has a valid use. Agreed that endless, coincidental matches are not useful, but certainly it's worth noting the cultural trend of titles such as "Singin' In the Rain," "Pretty In Pink," "Knock On Any Door," transferring from film to music, or vice versa. If there were a way to better define what the list was for, it could be a useful reference. --Hypersquared 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. --humblefool ® 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church league soccer

edit

Group is not notable, article not encyclopedic, name of article too broad Vpoko 19:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. --Masamage 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Speedy if possible. Completely NN. Google search for "Brisbane Catholic Church League Soccer" returns 1 page. Probable hoax. They watch from pews? The refs have cards to prove they can be trusted with young boys? --Onorem 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it, quick. The "Holy Hitlers"? --humblefool ® 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crusaders and Zealots are nice too. I originally somewhat timidly reported this at ani. Looking twice, I'd say pile on speedy delete per G10 and A7. --user:Qviri 20:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 and G10 looks nice :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unverifiable. --Core des at 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale Untold

edit

Unverifiable article on a fantasy (film?) with no claim of notability. No Google hits bar the official website. --Scott Wilson 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - non notable, no assertion of notability, little context to the article, very short article, etc etc. Chris Kreider 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The minute that a Final Fantasy-based fan-film that hasn't been filmed yet becomes notable, I'll resign my adminship. --humblefool ® 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Leon Bucknall - whatever decision is made here should probably apply there as well. --Scott Wilson 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what everyone is writing about there being little context and little pages being linked the the page but i have to have time to link pages to it and such like and also add context. Also i've read millions of articles on Wikipedia and some of them appear to eb more useless than this one ^^. Also A Tale Untold has been worked on now for over a year since around last winter and although only about half of Series 1 has actually been filmed we have had alot of script writing, designing, advertising and CGI work to do so in some sense i suppose that's why it's not fully notable. Please just give me some time and if you want explain want you want improved, if you need a longer description and an improved article i will happily ablige (dunno how to spell it sorry). Also i realise that there are no "Fan based websites" about A Tale Untold but 50% of the atricles on wikipedia i bet there aren't aswell. For example i looked at a few MMORPG's and searched for them and the only hits they had was on there offcial website, not fan based websites so they are still notable even without any other hits so why can't A Tale Untold have the same treatment? - Jonoridge 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Sander123 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jonoridge, I'm sorry. I haven't looked at the MMPORG articles, but I looked at this one. The article is about an unknown, unfinished project. I googled "A Tale Untold" and "Bucknall", 3 hits, two are wikipedia, the other the personal page of one of the project's creators. I'm really sorry, I can tell this is important to you. But, this just doesn't count. Maybe after you finish it?Phyesalis 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wikipedia has articles on notable items, but should not be used to create notability. Once your series has been through critical review, and has had some kind of coverage, try again. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 06:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Rightway

edit

Fictional characters that attain notoriety only in one school district are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 19:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Phyesalis 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Postscript. The topic has now been covered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 October 30#Will it fly?. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A plane on a conveyor belt

edit

Someone (163.1.126.41 (talk · contribs)) initiated this AfD. I endorse this nomination, looks like nonsense to me. Ezeu 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per norm--Edchilvers 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Horribly written and sourced. In principle such a page could exist, but would require writing over from scratch and much better sourcing. [ Update: see my comments below. Baccyak4H 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) ] Baccyak4H 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a big cleanup, but overall looks like something we should have. --- RockMFR 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 04:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Because I told you to.

User 71.111.28.69 (talk), please elaborate. Your expressed opinion here is not constructive. Baccyak4H 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup The subject is the basis of an important "thought experiment" that has received mention in many sources. The Straight Dope devoted several columns to the issue. As a subject, it is quite notable. Maybe it needs a move to a better name, but it should be kept. --Jayron 32 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayron32 - but I was the original author, so i might be biased. However the topic seems thoroughly debated all over the internet in Blogs, News Columns, and Message Boards. It was nominated at Mythbusters (NGC) forums for a possible future episode. -- SAO123

So who thought it up? If it was a notable individual or group in the field of Physics then yes, I can see how it would be notable. At the moment however the only mention of its origins are that it appears on some Blog sites on the web--Edchilvers 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The posters to Mythbusters are (apparently) non-notable. But I propose that if it can be verified that that series starts producing a segment about this topic (say, getting past the writing stage to the actual production and taping, but not necessarily to having a finished, broadcast segment), that we keep and rewrite. Baccyak4H 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how the the origin (whether it be insignificant or unknown/anonymous) can detract from the prevalence of the question today. I believe that the mere fact of its continued existance is justification enough by itself. Something so insignificant would surely eventually die out in a matter of time, however this has continued for 2+ years. I also site 0.999... as a similar phenomenon with unknown origin, which still stands as being deemed significant today, and also sites The Straight Dope as a valid source.

Also, The Pilot's Lounge Issue #94: It's The Medium, Manfred (free membership required) which is the official Newsletter of AVWeb.com World Premier Independent Aviation News Resource by Rick Durden (Pilot & Columnist for Aviation Consumer) which would meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Self-published sources (online and paper) could also be used to address the significane of the issue - this citation needs to be added to the original article. -SAO123 November 7 2:35pm EDT

Delete This is basically a riddle, and not a particularly famous one. It is like a question on an exam. Basically, while it is interesting and informative, it is not the sort of thing an encyclopedia would use. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I puzzled over this one long day on Straight Dope before I figured out that the conveyer belt was the length of the runway (I thought of it as a treadmill - I figured the plane would either remain stationary or just fall off!) It was a fascinating Straight Dope article. But I'm of the opinion that it's not an encyclopedia article. It is fascinating, but not famous, knotty, but not notable. I've seen it reproduced in different places, but that's common for riddles and puzzles. What I would want to see to make this notable is an article about the riddle in a national publication (i.e. an article about how many people have tried to solve it, the debates it's caused, that it's taking the world by storm...something like that). So I'm in the deletion camp. --TheOtherBob 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the thinking this problem must be famous in order to be enclopedia worthy. I thought an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference of things unknown, a place to find something when you encounter something previously unknown to you. If all we ever list is common knowledge, why even have an encyclopedia? If people already know the facts, they are not going to come to you for the answers. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference source of uncommon knowledge, meaning, they come to you for the unknown, not the common knowledge or the famous knowledge. As far as being in a national publication, did you checkout the afore mentioned Pilots Lounge Issues #94? - SAO123 10:18am November 09

Well, an encyclopedia is a repository for established knowledge. You may not know about it, but it should be something that IS well known by somebody; to the point that it appears in other reliable sources. Encyclopedias are not the place for original research, there are other kinds venues for this. An encyclopedia may be the place where one FIRST goes to learn about something, but as a first resource, it is always an overview; a superficial study of the subject at hand. The encyclopedia should lead you to the in-depth studies and resources, and be well referenced to do so. That having all been said, I am still of the opinion that this particular logic problem is well enough known in external sources that it transcends the simply trivial; its solution is debated. The Straight Dope article cited above is more than a solution, it is part of an ongoing analysis of the problem. Which is why I vote keep. The subject is referencable in reliable, third party sources. --Jayron 32 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having just read the pages on Wiki: Notability of Science (proposed) and Notability of Math it would seem that under these general guidelines, the article could be considered notable. Consider it under items 2,8,9,10 or 11, under the science page, and Items 1 & 3 (item 2 does not apply) on the math page. Other articles have been posted on Experts.about.com, MadSci.org, and ask a scientist. Furthermore from Wiki: On Notability The primary notability criterion The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. Notability is something that is judged by the world at large, not by Wikipedia editors making personal judgements. If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable. Wikipedia simply reflects this judgement. There are other portions of this argument to long to print here, but also read subsections Notability is not fame nor importance, Notability is not verifiability and Notability is not subjective for further relevent guidance. - SAO123

Those science and math guidelines are, unfortunately, all off-point. This is not a scientific or mathematic principle, it's an example of basic physics (i.e. two objects moving in opposite directions and not applying force on each other don't act on each other.) It's not a significant new development, a new theory, a new explanation, etc. - it's a physics example in the form of a logic puzzle. The question I have is whether significant publications have taken notice of it and written about it (rather than just re-stating the riddle and the answer.) I haven't seen enough of that, hence my vote. --TheOtherBob 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Wiki: On Notability The scope of published works What constitutes a published work is specifically not limited by the notability criterion. A journal article, a newspaper or a magazine feature article, a television documentary, a book, a consumer report by a watchdog organization, or even a widely recognized Internet FAQ document all count as published works. I dont see how you can eliminate a pilot's journal article (he writes for a national published avaition journal), and several Physicists who write internet FAQ / Q & A columns as insignificant publications in addition to The Straight Dope editorial. - SAO123 11:58am Nov 9th

By the way, one small thing - you can more easily sign your post by adding the four tildes. Beyond that - I don't know what to tell you. I've looked at those publications, and draw the distinction I've drawn before. I in no way dispute that the publications and authors you're talking about could, in some cases, be a part of notability. But here I don't think there's enough about (rather than restating) the riddle. For reference, you can see that Jayron applied (I believe) the same analysis and came out the other way - he sees enough about the riddle. I don't. You disagree with my analysis on that, and that is absolutely fine - I think we just disagree and I think that's ok. --TheOtherBob 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears reasonably notable and worthwhile. "...has been showing up all over the Net", as the refs seem to show. Merge with Conveyor Belts on a Plane if desired. Herostratus 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admittedly, I was the person who nominated this article for deletion. The problem is not particularly noteworthy from a physics perspective, but seems to have gained a limited popularity on the web. Admittedly, the fact that I do not agree with the conclusions reached (despite them being echoed by the Straight Dope) may seem to give a limited credibility to its claim to be a paradox. However, there are many such problems that could be posed. Somewhere here somebody cited the problem being nominated for mythbusters - however on the same page somebody nominated a "Helicopter in an elevator" for Mythbuster's treatment - and I doubt too many people would be troubled about the question of whether an elevator when going up crashes into a model helicopter or if the helicopter hovers serenely in its original position with respect to the elevator. - JHill 17:43 GMT
Delete - The article is a physics problem, not an encyclopedia article. While it may have been discussed elsewhere on the web, it does not appear to have achieved enough notability to warrant inclusion at this time. George J. Bendo 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is ill-posed. If the conveyor belt "tracks the plane speed" and "tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction)," then the conveyor will end up going faster and faster (because the plane gains speed using its engines) until friction in the plane's wheels brings it to rest again. It's a language problem, not a physics problem, just like the "irresistible force meets immovable object." HEL 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAR (slang)

edit

Notability evrik ^(talk) 19:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (negative) Shouldn't this have been a Speedy Delete as per WP:NFT and WP:OR? (Or just {{db-nonsense}}?) —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't really qualify for speedy. Even though it may read like nonsense, the term may in fact be a slang term used in the Anime community. Either way, it is a dicdef, and Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not a dictionary. →bobby← 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - /a/ forgets more before breakfast than most people do all day. --humblefool ® 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a real term, and it even has some sort of contest being set up to determine the most GAR anime character or something, but I don't think it comes even close to meeting notability requirements. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as neologism. (/a/, YOU'RE BREAAAKING MY HEAAAAARRRRRRT) --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. GAR is one of the single continuous memes that has become pervasive throughout /a/ and /b/, which linguistically alone constitutes true memetic flow. WP:NOT doesn't apply to specific articles with the research quoted.

Delete Has no merit being on Wikipedia if it has no use outside of a small community. 75.16.218.17 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that "GAR" is only applicable to the Yotsuba community; if it becomes more mainstream, I suppose it would deserve mentioning on a "list of internet slang", though not a single article dedicated to it. Perhaps an article on Wikipedia dedicated to Yotsuba/Slashdot/YTMND slang? However, on this same basis, I should note articles like Equivalent Exchange and Stand Alone Complex be deleted, since they only apply to a single series and have no cultural/literary/scientific significance. 68.189.82.81 02:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, prime example of an community-only slang term. Either that or redirect to Bane. -- grm_wnr Esc 03:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The popularity of this meme is overly exaggerated. It becoming accepted is due to no other reason than constant spamming. An equal is found on 4chans /b/, namely Rozen Maiden Suiseiseki's hallmark, "Desu". Since it's even more "popular" than "Gar" it should indeed pass as an"community-only slang term ready to get it's own article alongside with "Gar". Or why not put up the whole directory of 4chan only memes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.234.147.96 (talk • contribs) .
- Well, I am a little sadden that we no longer have anything about Pedobear :( -- Ned Scott 03:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know, I think Etherchan or Lurkmore could be of greater relevance when talking about such phenomenon restricted to just a small community such as /a/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.234.147.96 (talk • contribs) .
- heh, you've already "voted".. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He probably doesn't mean any harm. At any rate, it's a valid comment, and I've tagged it as such rather than striking it out. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sounds like it could be integrated into the 4chan article under "Memes" but it definitely doesn't warrant its own article. Ariah 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball KEEP Tbeatty 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking Democracy

edit

Non-notable documentary according to the Film notability requirement. Even IMDB doesn't have a lot of details. WP is not IMDB and is not repositiry for every film ever made. This film has no claim to notability. Tbeatty 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: More Discussion on discussion page. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD posted on 'Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard' - Noticeboard - F.A.A.F.A. 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Tbeatty 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete True that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Atlant 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or at least include in a related article. Alejos 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Possibly deserves a mention in a voter supression article. - Crockspot 20:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 20:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film just came out, and already has has quite a few news articles (via Google News) written about it. Seems notable to me. --Psiphiorg 20:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bad faith POV nomination by 'Conspiracy Theorists Noticeboard' Member. 'Hacking Democracy + HBO = 309,000 Ghits and 215 Gnewshits. Highly notable. Misuse of Conspiracy Theorists Noticeboard. This film in not even remotely connected to any 'Conspiracy theory'. Princeton Study documented inherent insecurity and other flaws with electronic voting. New poll shows that over 1/3 of voters 'don't trust' it. I ask that nominator Tbeatty withdraw this bad faith nomination. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [57] 06:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Borderline conspiracy or not, an HBO Film doesn't have a claim to notability? Even without the news links above, the HBO relation confers notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Psiphiorg; at worst it's too early to tell if it's notable or not. --Nephtes 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article is being used as a dumpnig ground for a pirated version of the movie. A user states th eproducers put it there however there is no proof of that and further they have no right nor permission to display and show HBO content. Since the user seems determined to keep putting it back I have changed my vote to delete for the greater good of our copyright regulations on Wikipedia. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Notable documentary, HBO even stood up to the pressure not to air it and went ahead under much fan faire on their website. However if the pirate copy keeps appearing on the page by the end of this AfD I will change my vote as it seems the article will have turned into a promotion of pirated content. No the producers of the film have no right to distribute HBO content, meaning their logo's etc. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; a documentary aired on HBO and widely discussed in the media passes all tests for notability and inclusion. This is not remotely "conspiracycruft"; it's mainstream politics. As for the link to the video on YouTube, its appearance in the article has nothing to do with this AfD. The link can be discussed on the Talk page for the article based on application of WP:EL. --MCB 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I saw this on HBO a few days ago - I can't remember what night but it was given a primetime slot. The argument for deletion isn't very compelling. This may be the first time I've come down on the same side as badlydrawnjeff. GabrielF 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
revised to neutral - As the article is now. Reading the article im hit with a feeling "so what". Perhaps if the article should fill with content that asserts the subjects nobility, Ill glad change my vote. As it is now, the article itself makes the best case for deletion. Dman727 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my view to Neutral. Sourcing from NY times and other major sources is good. I still find the article very lacking. Why would someone choose to view it here on Wiki, rarely than a movie website such as imdb.com? The article now is sparce and doesnt make a case for itself as to why this documentary is notable above the thousands of other documentaries not on wiki.Dman727 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A google news search shows this documentary to be newsworthy, without even having to look at whether it fulfils any other notability criteria as a film. --Aim Here 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Tbeatty 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something hits the news in a major way, it becomes notable and therefore encyclopedic. --Aim Here 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a documentary broadcast on HBO, covered in multiple mainstream news sources, including the NY Times, Washington Post, The Register (UK), Seattle PI, NY Daily News, Boston Herald, etc. Let's avoid WP:OSTRICH in nominations, it's clearly a notable film and easily passes WP:NOTFILM#Released_films item 1. This nomination should be withdrawn. The article needs sourcing, not deletion. Spark* 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though the Andy Stephenson AfDs left a bitter taste in my mouth I cannot argue that this documentary is not notable.--Rosicrucian 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You have got to be kidding me. (Article's creator.) —☆ CieloEstrellado 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an HBO film, it is not a bunch of teenagers with a webcam. That's notable enough for me. --02:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable enough. (Can't speak for the individuals mentioned in the film, however.) Jinxmchue 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable and is properly verified by a reliable, third-party source (could use a couple more, though). -- Satori Son 03:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable, verified, etc. --- RockMFR 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not worried about the threat of re-insertion of improper content. We (the sensible editors) can generally outlast the troublemakers. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major documentary released by major studio on a major television network. WAY notable. --Jayron 32 06:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination borders on the absurd. well sourced. plenty of news coverage. Could we lay off the political stuff until a few weeks after the election? It's become an enormous waste of time. Derex 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, potential single purpose account(s) noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 Doughty Street

edit

Article does not assert notability of subject. --SandyDancer 16:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, this new TV station is groundbreaking in many ways: search the BBC and Guardian websites for supporting evidence.--Ordew 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to delete this. This is a significant new TV channel, with some big name interviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.255.192.21 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - the article doesn't assert notability, that is the test here. I must say I can't see that this venture is notable yet - may become so in future, or maybe it will fold very quickly. --SandyDancer 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, This is a great example of a new phenomenon in "citizen" reporting and political debate in the UK. There are examples elsewhere but 18 Doughty St is a good example of this trend. The article may need updating but the fact stands that 18 Doughty St has been reported on in the US.Westerer 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep significant new quality TV station, and the first of its technological type in the UK.--Phillip Fung 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 19:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a new TV station with professional content. It's not a kid broadcasting a stream of junk from his bedroom. Also second Phillip Fungs comments.--jrleighton 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sure that this will get picked up on by whoever concludes this debate, but I note three of the four "keep" votes so far come from users with little or no edit history... --SandyDancer 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the keep votes seems to be as suggested by SandyDancer, not three.--jrleighton 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more references which makes this probably as viable as it will get. No opinion. Morwen - Talk 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I know this is the first attempt at a serious internet-based news and comment TV station in the UK, which alone makes it notable in my view. Laurence Boyce 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirMagnet

edit

Article does not indicate notability, merely the fact that it exists, has been funded, and has produced products. johnpseudo 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitley needs some cleanup. Article does claim that company was first to do something and lists at least 3 articles from farily reputable magazines (at least in my opinion). Needs some cleanup and work but it does not appear to be too spammish, could get rid of some external links though. Chris Kreider 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - looks like a somewhat close call, but I think it's gotten some media attention [58] [59] [60] [61], and I keep finding product mentions (granted, they're mostly in passing, but it seems the products keep getting listed). Luna Santin 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there is some serious cleanup, has almost as many lines of links as content. Chris Kreider 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hús ö nd 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Above All Kings (album)

edit

Future album. No sources, and created by a user with a history of creating unverifiable/false content (see previous AfD discussion). Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context and content free. Delete. --humblefool ® 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't even mention who the artist is. --GringoInChile 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The artist is Ludacris; this will be recreated in a few months, hopefully with better data. Chubbles1212

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Coming

edit

Was deleted through prod contested on DRV and undeleted. Article doesn't meet WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dont see any claim of notability, how is it different than any other MMPORPG or whatever it is that was copied after the big ones came too? Chris Kreider 17:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure exactly what this game's claim to fame is. Doesn't seem to meet WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my delete nom. Chris Kreider 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page has been cited by indepedent sources and is notable.[62], [63], and [64]. Valoem ^talk 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If so, I would like to see the sources cited in the article before I retract a delete nomination. Chris Kreider 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The game is notable. Some more independant sources are: [65], [66], [67], [68] Sean K 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the game had almost 200,000 players back in 2001: [69]. It was publicised and distributed on CD in a major Australian gaming magazine (PC_Powerplay) when it was first released. I don't have a source for this - I just remember it happening. Sean K 23:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok mmoginfo.com is a listing for MMPORG's, the same for mmorpg.com, gamestationstore.com looks like a combination sale/review site. Pc.gamezone.com is a short blurb about the game no review or anything. Gameogre.com is another listing site, Au.pc.gamespy.com is another short blurb, and appdb.winehq.org is another listing site. Whispering 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - French website which reviewed the game: [70] French Wikipedia article (created 2 years ago): [71] News article on a French website: [72] I think this one's another review: [73] Looks like another review: [74] This is definately a notable game. Sean K 09:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 10:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. yandman 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at the sources, the only thing that's really been proven is that the game exists, which is not under dispute. As for notability, well, there is none. The Kinslayer 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Kinslayer said. (Hmmm...) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of those citations demonstrate notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Saxifrage (reason: unsalvagable nonsense (CSD:G1)). Non-admin closure of AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occult Dragon

edit

Impenetrable ungrammatical bumf. There is a book cited as a source, but the article reads like the output of Dissociated press Leibniz 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. So tagged. Looks more like a horribly botched automated translation than a Markov chain; either way, though, it's impenetrable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suspect a machine translation from another article. --GringoInChile 21:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. "Boldly" means "go ahead and do it yourself". Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was boldly redirected. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Abdulaziz Alsaud

edit

No idea, not my AfD yandman 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Gkklein, type your reason here:[reply]

Article already exists.--Gkklein 20:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Give a link to, or the name of, the version that already exists. yandman 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Waleed bin Talal--Gkklein 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly Redirect Article already exists is a great rationale for a redirect to the existing Al-Waleed bin Talal and if the nominator is agreeable I think we can just go ahead with this.--Isotope23 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Boldly Redirect--Gkklein 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep content, rename or move could be possible. W.marsh 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)

edit

An AfD tag was applied here weeks ago by a single-purpose account and the nomination was not carried through. Now, the article is a CSD-A1, lacking any sort of encyclopedic context. But the editor creating it has spent lierally weeks crafting it. I don't wish to see it deleted per se, but I can't, at this moment, see what our customers (the people who read Wikipedia rather than edit it and who thus vastly outnumber the people who make changes) would make of it. So I ask for others to discuss it in a reasonable way and offer no opinion of my own.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There's no indication how this huge table is in any way encyclopedic, or even what it represents. What does it all mean? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Tennisexpert's changes. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good ol' slow delete. No need to be hasty, but I agree. This article is impenetrable as it stands. --humblefool ® 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There I go jumping to conclusions again. Keep, on the promise that the charts will be made more readable by someone outside the sport. (I can't tell what the colors or abbr. mean, as a member of that group.) Tennis expert seems very dedicated to the idea. --humblefool ® 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The "customers" for this article are the same as the customers for the hundreds of tennis articles that are scattered throughout Wikipedia. Many of those articles are about past tennis champions. See, for example, Steffi Graf and Stefan Edberg. The practice in those articles is to include "Grand Slam performance timelines" (or something similar), which recounts in a tabular form their career performances in the most important tennis tournaments. This article, which by the way was tagged for AfD by single-pupose "Tennis editor" 5 minutes after that account was created, is a compilation of those tables so that the performances can be readily compared without having to constantly toggle between innumerable browser windows or tabs. The article is by no means complete. But for the hundreds (or thousands) of people who read and edit the Wikipedia tennis articles, its purpose is already readily apparent. Please keep. Tennis expert 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you offering to provide context for the article? It currently lacks it, which is why this got to AfD. If you, or any other editor, could provide an introduction, a clear explaination of what the colours and the columns mean, and make the page accessible to non-tennis fans (the vast majority of our readers, I'm afraid) then it might be a clear keep. Oh, and for those tempted to add speedy to their opinions: Don't... unless you can point to policy for why it's a speedy (in either direction). Otherwise it's meaningless and isn't helping anyone. This is a discussion, not a shouting match. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course I'm going to provide context for the article and a complete explanation of the tables, including the symbols and colors. (Part of that is already done below each table. More will be added there and at the beginning of the article.) That was the intention all along. I've edited, created, and contributed to hundreds of articles and certainly know how important context is. By the way, I'm glad you were able to tell me what the intention of "Tennis editor" was when he or she nominated the article for deletion because that user has provided no reasoning directly to me or publicly, as far as I can determine. Tennis expert 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added some of the requested context to the article. But I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Tennis expert 23:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do understand what this article is trying to do. However, I'm not sure that it makes sense to combine all of the Grand Slam finalists of all time into a table of this sort. By contrast, the information when displayed in each individual player's article is useful (see Chris Evert#Grand Slam singles tournament timeline for a good example). --Metropolitan90 08:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables of this sort are a tool that makes it easier for a tennis fan, a sports historian, or just a casual reader to gain a historical perspective about the relative performances of tennis players at Grand Slam events. The tables provide the forest whereas the individual articles are the trees. A person perusing a Wikipedia article about Margaret Osborne duPont probably would have no idea whether she was among the top players of her time because the reader wouldn't know about the results of her contemporaries, namely Pauline Betz Addie, Lousie Brough Clapp, Shirley Fry Irvin, or Doris Hart. But the tables in this article would quickly give the reader results-based information about duPont's contemporaries, enabling the reader to delve further into their careers and the history of tennis by clicking on the links provided. Rankings, head-to-head competition, and relative results are the essence of the sport of tennis. Therefore, these tables are important to people trying to understand the history of tennis and past champions of the sport. Tennis expert 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename? Not being at all interested in Tennis, I had to think about this article. My reason for voting to keep is that it is a good starting article from which to find one or other tennis player whom one has forgotten (but there may be better articles which I've not checked). I don't like the name - at first I thought it was some scientific comparison of serve speed! My other concern is that there is too much detail and I'm not sure whether the notation used is at all standard. --Mike 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The notation is the same that is currently being used in over 100 individual tennis player articles in Wikipedia. See, for example, Billie Jean King. Tennis expert 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is, whilst I know of Ms King and her works, I know nothing of tennis rankings/results/systems or whatever the article is trying to tell tennis fans. If the article has something important to say, then why, even with the changes, do I not understand it? I'm not thick, I'm not playing stupid, I simply know nothing about whatever these complex coded multicoloured tables are trying to tell me. A need to simplify exists. Without it, CSD applies: no context. If I can comprehend an article like the ones we have on quantum physics (a subject I know even less about than tennis, of which I know almost nothing) thanks to having the issue discussed first, the meta-meaning of the item second and the weird science third, then asking an article about tennis to do the same (what are the championships? How important are they comparitively? How has tennis changed over the period concerned? Who is deciding this? What will I understand if I read the article?) seems plenty reasonable. As I said in my introduction, the time spent crafting this table is noted and appreciated. But now someone needs to make the table meaningful. It isn't there yet. It's still a CSD as it lacks context. If it belongs in an encyclopedia, then it must have context supplied. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment What tennis is about, how to play the game, how people are ranked, etc., etc. is already provided in innumerable tennis articles. Are you wanting me to repeat those articles here? Have a look at the tennis articles that provide data without the context you are saying is necessary. For example, look at French Open women's doubles champions. That is not my article, by the way. But it illustrates the data-oriented tennis articles that abound throughout Wikipedia. Should all of those articles be deleted (trust me, there are lots of them)? As for whether I have "something important to say," it would be a violation of Wikipedia's POV doctrine for me to say that so-and-so was a greater player or had a better career than so-and-so. I am presenting a lot of the relevant data so that a reader could draw his or her own conclusions. The tables are very simple. I've changed the article to discuss the color coding. The concept of this article is much simpler than the quantum physics article, which I'd bet, by the way, any reader would have to spend a considerable amount of time trying to understand - much more time than understanding the tables I'm presenting. But if you want to delete the article, so be it. I think you would be holding the article to an unprecedented standard when compared to virtually all the tennis articles that are out there. If the article is deleted, I'll still have it available for my own purposes and will continue working on it. But others will never see it. It's up to you, I assume. I'm done debating the issue and I'm not going to beg for the article to be treated fairly and consistently. Tennis expert 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As stated above, I'm against having this article. However, I don't think it should be considered difficult to understand. The idea is that for every female tennis player who ever won, or came in second, in any of the four major tennis tournaments, her lifetime record in all of those tournaments is shown, from the first time she entered any of them to the last time. And for each such tournament in her career, there is an indication of whether she was the Winner, a Finalist, a Semi Finalist, a Quarter Finalist, or lost in one of the earlier rounds, or didn't compete in that tournament. So if you see some player shown with a lot of Ws, that means she won a lot of major tournaments. I don't find it easy to read or particularly useful, but it's certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A problem for Wikipedia - There really ought to be a method to discuss and article before an author is encouraged to spend so much time and then see their work thrown away by potentially having it deleted. This is something seriously amiss with wikipedia. In theory, it should be possible to create a stub article and then just put it up for AfD, but too many people don't judge the article, only the contents and so an AfD discussion doesn't work as it should! There needs to be another way to prejudge an article to give a potential author an idea of whether the article as invisaged would be acceptable. --Mike 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the point, but this is one discussed endlessly all over Wikipedia, and has been for years. An individual AfD is not the place to start yet another new discussion. At the top of the index page for this discussion, you'll find a big big pile of links to places where people are talking themselves into circles about this very point. Hope this helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers - positive comments - unfortunately there may be many talking, but is anyone listening? I've pesonally posted on this subject, (I even created a new AfDU) and your's is the first comment I've had! This is a problem of power disparity. Those without power need things to change, but those with the power and influence to make things happen have no need to see any change. I only grumble because it makes me feel better, not because I expect anything to change! --Mike 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My honest opinion As a non-expert in tennis, I must say I find a table such as this one rather useful. For better or worse, I find information assembled in a tabular format rather helpful and easier to assimilate. Admittedly, some of the features (colors, symbols) could be simplified but, all in all, I believe this article serves a useful, albeit infrequent, purpose. Carpe diem 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful for gauging the longevity and relative dominance of top performers. There may be a better way to convey the info (a color scheme similar to gold/silver/bronze like figure skating pages such as Brian Boitano may be more intuitive), but the info itself is encyclopedic, and not all that difficult to understand. Neier 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neier. - Nick C 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a useful tool in comparing players from a time period of tennis that many know little about--Flute138 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial state

edit

Ill-defined term, sometimes used to refer to a multi-ethnic state. Favor deletion, merger/redirect. I don't think the article can stand alone. Deodar 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as nom unless someone has a redirect to suggest. --Deodar 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The seed for this article is from this blog post; that *might* make it a neologism. Is there a better term for nations created by outside pressure? No Vote for now. --humblefool ® 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's plenty of evidence that this term has frequently been used, but little evidence that it exists as a concept in political science. I'm not sure that we need an article about a vague political usage or derogatory term, and it seems unlikely - especially on the basis of the life of this article so far - that such an article would ever get to the point of being particularly informative, let alone reality-based, comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written or, in short, encyclopaedic. However, I must admit that we have plenty of other articles about equally indefinite concepts/usages. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even Weaker delete. I was initially going to vote "keep" as I can see many reasons why this article should stay, but I think that the reasons Palmiro brought up are stronger.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms, this article isn't ready for Wikipedia. Specifically, the relevant section of WP:NEO states: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." TheronJ 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per deodar --Nielswik_(talk) 11:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. GringoInChile 12:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Abe

edit

I have my doubts about whether this article meets WP:BIO and thought it should be discussed here. Being married to a notorious person doesn't make someone automatically noteworthy themselves. The only possible inkling of notoriety in her own right is the mention of her being a vocal proponent of his release; but it is not stated how much coverage has she received. GringoInChile 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here to merge, just redirect to Chapman's article. --humblefool ® 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of consensus on articles like this. I've boldly redirected it. Ohconfucius 04:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that seems fair enough. I guess this AfD is closed then. GringoInChile 12:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, I'm going to follow your example and boldly make a non-admin close of the discussion. GringoInChile 12:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; its existence may be verified, but there is no verification from third-party sources that this is a notable product. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immunocal

edit

Advertisment for a product Rich257 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources provided, so no credibility. Green451 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advert - parts come almost verbatim from thier publicity/publications.SkierRMH 07:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete per nom. Green451: Numerous sources are provided including US Patent office and National Library of medicine/pub med. What else do you require? Apparent Logic 05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that there are sources and that we can believe the product exists and it seems that there are sources to back the claims, although some the references could perhaps be better embedded within the article. However it's still advertising for a specific branded (probably trademarked) product isn't it? The article is not about a class of supplements, for example. Rich257 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, where do I begin? First of all, although patent documents prove that the said product (which I have never heard of) DOES exist, that does not mean it is notable to a wide audience. I would consider most medical journals to be unreliable sources, as some have come under fire for being paid by a manufacturer to write a positive article. Give us a citation from the New England Medical Journal or from a source that the general public knows is legimate, such as The New York Times (or such). A lot of the statements in the article are attributed to "According to Immunotec...". This is a primary source, and thus a no-no. Use inline citations for statements, providing a reliable secondary source. While I believe this product does exist, it's nothing personal, but I believe Wikipedia must maintain a strigent article acceptance policy, because otherwise it would soon become a walking billboard. If the article is kept, it needs major cleanup to make it look less like a spam article (all of the external links in the article text need to be converted to inline cites) and more understandable to people outside the medical community. Green451 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Green451: You suggested either the "New England Journal of Medicine" or the "New York Times" as credible sources. That's like saying I want the high standard of a either a Ferrari or a VW bug. Highly divergent. The NEJM typically requires the highest standards for inclusion of clinical trials (unlikely that a nutritional supplement trial will meet this criteria unless it is subsidized by the NIH). The New York Times is least credible source in scientific terms. Heresay and author opinion. Most journalists are not scientists. Your statement that "most medical journals [are] unreliable sources, as some have come under fire for being paid by a manufacturer to write a positive article" is something that is not accepted in the scientific community. Most are "peer review" journals and almost all today require authors of articles to state "conflicts of interest" which would certainly include being paid for writing a positive article. I am a scientist and if I participated in that, I would lose all professional credibility. It happens, but it is the rare exception and not the rule. Lets re-write as necessary, but not exclude minor journals as references because they could be "tainted".Apparent Logic 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, I will assume a leap of faith and believe that the nine journals you cited are legitimate. Which brings me to another point: What makes this drug as notable as, say Penicillin or Ibuprofen? Why would people want to know about this product? I just thought of those examples off the top of my head, but they are notable drugs. I do not have a scientific mind, and, although everything on the medical journals may make sense to you, it's all gibberish to me. My question above stands. Green451 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete per nom. This article is NOT duplicated in manufacturer's literature and provides beneficial information to patients with CFIDS. I suffer from cfids and the information here is helpful. I found info here I have not seen elsewhere. Cfidsguy 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does the article fail WP:OR in that case? Rich257 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OR Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. Rich257: I don't believe this meets that criteria as the arguments are published. Apparent Logic 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that earlier in this thread Cfidsguy said "I found info here [that] I have not seen elsewhere", which seems a claim of original research? It certainly implies that that material is unverifiable. Rich257 08:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich257: Not necessarily. Only that the reader hadn't seen it before. SkierRMH stated: "parts come almost verbatim from thier publicity/publications" but I also reviewed the supplied manufacturer's link and didn't find verbatim lifts. I reviewed the WIKI article and most statements are documented by external links to credible sources. If the contention concerns "the manufacturer states", perhaps an editor could do a little research to find references beyond the manufacturer (i.e. compensated by Medicare/medicaid, etc). I believe this may need a re-write, but dont think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater... Apparent Logic 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rich257: You are correct. The class of supplements is "undenatured bioactive whey protein supplements". There are only 2 or 3 that I am aware of, however the Immunocal is the original supplement in the class, and most folks search for it by brand name. I checked the Yahoo network and found no searches for "undenatured bioactive whey protein supplements" but numerous for the branded product "immunocal". Users of Wikipedia would therefor be more likely to search for the branded product. (This is similar to the brand "kleenex" which is more likely to be searched for than "facial tissue", and is included in Wikipedia as the branded reference for that reason. Apparent Logic 14:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless information can be references and importance is demonstrated through independent, non trivial citation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Magnusverdixon: Viable sources are provided including the United States Patent Office and National Library of Medicine/pub med. A search will yield thousands of monthly searches for this product.

The issue is not whether the product exists or not, the links show that it does. The issue is that it is an advert for a product from a specific manufacturer. Rich257 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The precident is that products from a specific manufacturers are included in wikipedia: An abbreviated list includes these major products. There are hundreds of minor products. [[75] windows XP], [[76] Kool Aid], [[77]Kleenex], [[78]Fruit of the Loom], [[79]Band Aid], [[80]Coca-Cola]. If "most well known" is the criteria, then how well known? According to searches on the Yahoo.com network, immunocal has about 25% of the searches of the established brand "Band Aid". Apparent Logic 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't know if this article is a copy from company literature, the substance seems to be real and written up by independent reliable sources (cached for your convenience) [81] [82] --Oakshade 17:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luminary (album)

edit

The actual band (who don't appear all that notable aside from their singer) doesn't have an article, so it makes little sense that their albums would.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Tempus Aurum -- cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the band is not notable enough to have an article on wikipedia, that should by far eliminate their music. Chris Kreider 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two albums by notable singer. The fact that the side project doesn't have a separate article is irrelevant. Kappa 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article about the vocalist who may be notable in the context of WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe merge to a Adeyto discography since the current article is rather long (suggestion supplements "keep" vote above"). Kappa 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable album by a notable band. The answer here is to make an article about the band. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idolblog

edit

Blog site that doesn't assert notability. I'd recommend it for speedy A7, except that the article's been around for a while, and [83] says it won an award, although I don't know how significant that might be. gadfium 21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm changing my (implicit) vote to Keep following the rewrite. Impressive work from Muchness.-gadfium 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the second ghit for New Zealand Idol. Delete in its current form as nothing more than publicity for the blog design site, however. There's not much to say about the place. --humblefool ® 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That cleaned up nicely. Keep. --humblefool ® 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per {{db-web}} and {{db-nocontext}}. Cbrown1023 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs a complete rewrite to establish notability and remove promotional copy. The website is highly notable within the New Zealand internet community. It has received national coverage in mainstream media; for example, item on nationally broadcast TV show; coverage in national periodical; several mentions in the New Zealand Herald, NZ's largest newspaper. --Muchness 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've rewritten the article with references to attempt to establish notability. --Muchness 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NZ Idol. utcursch | talk 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with it. - TuiKiwi

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Hollingshead

edit

This garage-built Gravitational Lensing Generator is obviously complete WP:BOLLOCKS. But as we all know, that alone is no reason for deletion.

So I plead: No reliable third-party sources!

Let's dissect the sources (actually external links only) given

2x http://www.americanantigravity.com/
1x OhmyNews, the first of its kind [online newspaper] in the world to accept, edit and publish articles from its readers, in an open source style of news reporting
1x the (in)famous Tajmar preprint, its merit being heavily disputed (Is it accepted for publication? Does a link to the ESA exist or is it only faked?) -- but anyway its content has no relationship to Hollingshead

Pjacobi 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable even if pseudoscience. -- Petri Krohn 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very long way from meeting WP:BIO if the absence of reporting means anything at all (and usually it does). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not making any observation about the science, but the article lacks any independent reliable and verifiable evidence of notability. Blogs and websites are not sufficient. Edison 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaybag

edit

This article looks like vandalism. Google shows no results for "gaybag recipe." Definitely not a traditional cookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfeditor (talk • contribs)

Delete seems like vandalism and created by a newbie. Cbrown1023 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously some bored high schooler. --humblefool ® 22:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things thought up in school one day. Hello32020 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vandalism. --- RockMFR 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. We do not need this. Yamaguchi先生 06:15, 9 November 2006
Delete This one had me scratching my head. Too bad this couldn't be transwikied to WikiKitchen. --Oakshade 06:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Immediately. Googled it - got this and a whole bunch of homophobic name-calling. It has no references. It is not notable. Phyesalis 04:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bocaranda

edit

This appears to be advertising. The IMDB link is to Bocaranda's personal resume, not an IMDB listing. A search on IMDB's database shows no credits for Bocaranda. Google search shows that Bocaranda is very good at spreading his name around, but there doesn't appear to be any level of notability here. IrishGuy ^talk 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a bad translation from Spanish, making this seem more and more like vanity. Delete. --humblefool ® 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the categories added to this article, Bocaranda is a Forbes ranked billionaire Jewish-American Oscar winning director who hails from Cincinnati and has been knighted...which seems highly unlikely to me. IrishGuy ^talk 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He also seems to have directed 1000 more commercials since this went up for AfD...which is an impressive acheivement for a twenty four hour period. IrishGuy ^talk 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you see all problem is because IrishGuy is a racist, if you see all his articles he's with guerrilla film, Mad magazine, with vandalized 94 times, are you believe this? please check it. He's doing this because he is irish and not american —The preceding unsigned comment was added by True12 (talk • contribs) .
- Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before continuing to make wild and rude accusations. Guerilla film is an article...one of many I have edited. I didn't create it, I merely cleaned it up and expanded it. I'm not clear on what Guerilla film has to do with Steve Bocaranda advertising himself (yourself?) on Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend you (IrishGuy) got more discussion than any body, if you see all your discussion are racist with vandalist and more, Maybe you know a lot about to destroy articles here in wikipedia but God is watching you someday you when you got trouble you going to remind all of us, Hey man don't be a racist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by True12 (talk • contribs) .
- So apparently you decided to go ahead and not read the guidelines on civility and personal attacks. I'm not a racist and simply declaring it repeatedly won't make it so. This article doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for inclusion. None of the claims are verifiable. IMDB has nothing on this person. It has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity and everything to do with the fact that this is spam and personal advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search on google.es doesn't appear to bring up anything but self-promotion and aggrandizement . shotwell 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All of 108 Ghits, none from particularly reliable sources. Possible conflict of interest. Article is not sourced, and appears to be a poor direct translation by the immodestly handled Jesus Christ of the wiki article in Spanish, which was authored by Usuario:BocarandaSteve and which has been on spanish wiki for 2 weeks. Ohconfucius 05:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google shows up nothing. The quality of the English doesn't bother me, but the notability and verifiability of the subject does. Mr Stephen 08:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All signs point to self-promotion, especially considering the seemingly random categories this article has been placed in. Stebbins 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have idea who is Bocaranda, ask to latin people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuscristo (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 was Keep. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 06:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Serebrian

edit

Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood an astroturfing campaign that involves paid translations of author's autobiography.

Compare this article with the appearance and contents of this very piece on various European Wikipedias: de, pl, es, fr, hu, it, ro, ru. All these articles were created from a Molvadian IP address (195.138.119.133) that otherwise had little or no interest in contributing to Wikipedia.

The notability of this person is not clearly established; he was a local politician / ministry spokesperson, and a local scientist who, judging from the article, had published about five articles in various magazines and/or larger compilations, but has no own published books; this is perhaps more clear when you look at the references on pl.wiki. Although this is not mentioned in the article, he is the leader of Social Liberal Party (Moldova), but this party does not seem to have any notable accomplishments ("[...] in 2001 Oleg Serebrian released a manifest with the intention to found a social liberal party. This initiative was joined by the Christian-Democratic Women's League and the National Youth League of Moldova. In 2002 the Party of Democratic Forces merged into the party."; the members of the party had three seats in the parliament prior to forming this bloc).

This is our AfD vote on Polish Wikipedia. I'm just dropping by to share our findings. Regards. lcamtuf 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The most notable aspect of the article (in my mind) is Serebrian's position as chairman. As such, I propose giving him a permanent home within the article about his party. -bobby 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and recommend speedy keep. Under WP:BIO, "members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are strongly presumed notable enough: he is a member of a national legislature. Questions about the article's neutrality or potential conflicts of interest by its creator are probably addressed best in the article's own talk page. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: OK, if that turns out to be the consensus here, I won't make a fuss. The article did not explicitly say he is a member of the parliament, and the question of verifiability / POV in a potential autobio remains - but if he's notable enough for en.wiki, there are other ways to take care of this. --lcamtuf 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I edited the article to make it somewhat clearer that he was in fact a Moldovan MP, and found an English language site confirming that. Some Romanian language sites also seemed to confirm it, but I don't really read Romanian. Other English language sites called him a "deputy", which is an ambiguous title in American English. It does seem that he is both an MP and the leader of his party's faction in parliament, which makes him a significant enough figure to pass IMO. -Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of a national legislature, thus notable under WP:BIO. -- Necrothesp 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links: Serebrian is a MP and leader of SLP faction. He is also author of several books (not only articles). This is an information from Tiraspol Times http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/149

"Born in 1969, Oleg Serebrian is one of Moldova's youngest and most promising political leaders. He has a solid background in international affairs, with a degree in international relations from the European Institute of High International Studies in Nice, France, and post-graduate work done at Harvard, Edinburgh and Paris. In the late 1990's, he worked for his country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is also the author of several books on international affairs and foreign policy, the latest being "Dicţionar de geopolitică" (Geopolical Dictionary), a 340 page tome on international politics which has just been published simultaneously in Romania and Moldova." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.56.58 (talk • contribs)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep badly written articles are no reason for deletion. The SUBJECT of the article is a member of a national parliament. Ergo, he is notable. Ergo, keep the article. A rewrite is needed, not a deletion. --Jayron 32 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron. Meets WP:BIO despite origins of article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Volfson

edit

YANNAGI (Yet another non-notable antigravity invention).

No reliable third-party sources

And, without necessarily attributing reliable to them, please discard the the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. They don't have a connection to this specific invention, they are only put into external links sections of every antigravity article. Finally, patent (granted and applied) aren't reliable sources either.

Pjacobi 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pjacobi. I've been watching this article to make sure someone didn't start adding back dubious additions, such as calling Volfson a physicist. I've flagged Phonon Maser for deletion for much the same reasons as this article (not to mention that a real phonon maser would be something very much different). Michaelbusch 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I could get a Wikipedia article with my theory that gravity can be manipulated by leaving out tiny cakes for the massless gravitation faeries that keep the universe working. No? Delete. --humblefool ® 22:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how gravity works, isn't it? Delete. Hasn't this lot or something very like it been deleted before? Tonywalton | Talk 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's see you get a U.S. patent, then 3 independent articles in the mainstream media. I will gladly write the article. Ever read the editorial in the New York Times in 1920 ridiculing Robert H. Goddard's theory that rockets could reach the moon? In their scientific opinion, rockets could not work in a vacuum because there would be nothing to push against.Edison 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into this article the Phonon Maser article. The editors of Wikipedia absolutely are not the arbiters of scientific validity. Claims by an editor that in his expert opinion it won't work is the very definition of Original Research. We only have the right to determine whether or not some person, patent, etc. is notable, based on the presence or absence of citations in mainstream publications. The AfD nomination claims "non-notable" and "no reliable third party sources," but there in fact are reliable thrid party sources to show notability now cited in the article. The article includes references showing this individual was issued a U.S patent, which is certainly verifiable, then the patent was written about, in some detail in the following major publications or the online versions thereof: National Geographic News,the British newspaper Telegraph, and the major science journal Nature (print edition). These three articles makes a strong case for keeping the article about Volfson. In addition there are about 3,000 Google hits, and it was discussed at many websites. It may be pseudoscience, but that is not the criterion for including or deleting an article. We have and will keep articles on many discredited or plain wrong theories such as Phlogiston. Rather than deleting the article with a claim that it lacks "scientific validity," edit boldly and include in the article the criticisms of the invention in the references, so the article serves the important function of debunking any doubtful claims. This is not to say I think his ideas will work. Edison 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If at all, this may give a small sentence at US patent office. The short news stories [84] and [85] focus on the failings of the patent office. That's the only verifiable fact on this invention. --Pjacobi 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the other Volfsoncruft. As Pjacobi says, the only notable thing here is the "let's all laught at the Patent Office" aspect, a subject to be mentioned at United States Patent and Trademark Office along with their other blunders. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep • Some comments show exactly the problem with the american scientific community, apparently no one is keeping up with the work of Dr. Ning Li... I know it's difficult when she is under DOD contract. Check it out, note the similarities. Check out Volfson who has co-authored two "mainstream" physics-heavy patents, both with proven prototypes, and a couple of papers on geophysics. If the US government is paying for similar research, Volfson should at LEAST keep a Wikipedia article. Reactions such as these are EXACTLY why 99% of all Physic research is regurgitation — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicP31 (talk • contribs)

'Delete". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phonon_Maser for my response to the above. Michaelbusch 07:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not impartial, so I remove my vote. However, the statement that I am the inventor of a single non-notable and inoperateble device is incomplete. The last time I checked with the USPTO site, it listed the following patents:

1. 6,962,737 Simulated stained glass modular electroluminescent articles 2. 6,960,975 Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state 3. 5,965,897 High resolution storage phosphor x-ray imaging device 4. 5,656,814 Versatile method and device for thermoluminescence comparative analysis 6. 4,826,044 Dispenser for viscous fluids 7. 4,411,044 Cord weight pulley 8. 4,399,855 Roll type closure assembly for a window

All these patents (along with some foreign patents) are to my name only except for ##3 & 4 on the list where I am listed as a co-inventor. Most of the patents are physics-related. All the patented devices other than the item #2 were built and worked as intended.

The device of item #2, the "antigravity" Spaceship, worked too. But it cannot be demonstrated as it broke through the ceiling, the roof and flu away toward Mars. The "antigravity" Test Chamber is used by the CIA in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for questioning of the enemy combatants. The "antigravity" Phonon Maser is hidden in the secret undeground lab.

The device of item #6 was sold for many years as Colgate Toothpaste pump. The pump was very popular and sold in the millions in many different countries (the product currently sold under this name in the UK is slightly different from the originally-produced pump). Volfson,boris

Delete. I'm afraid the above entry only confirms my opinions. Further discussion does not seem to be required. Also, Mr. Volfson should review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Michaelbusch 02:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Edison's remarks are thoughtful and salient. This is the sort of thing one would want in a civil forum. In response to pjacobi: If you read the text of Volfson's anti-gravity patents, there is extensive reference to, and use of, both of the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. Podkltnov's work was the inspiration for Volfson's. The following are directly from the "theory" page linked to his site (borisvolfson.com). Emphases added by me:

"A series of experiments, performed in the early 1990’s by Evgeny Podkletnov, reportedly resulted in a reduction of the weight of objects placed above a levitating, rotating superconductive disk subjected to high frequency magnetic fields. (“Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu33O(7-x) Superconductor Below 70K Under E.M. Field”, E. Podkletnov, LANL database number cond-mat/9701074, v. 3, 10 pages, 16 Sep 1997). The drawback of the technology described in Podkletnov’s above-mentioned paper is the weakness of the resulting effect. Even though Podkletnov has reported .3%-to-2.1% weight reduction with the device described in the above-mentioned 1997 paper, many scientists point to a likelihood of error in Podkletnov’s measurements."

and

"Also in Nov. 2005, scientists led by Clovis de Matos and Martin Tajmar and funded by the European Space Agency, published a paper on their research of gravitomagnetism. They measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field in a laboratory by rotating a superconductor ring at 6,500 revolutions per minute. The scientists found that, under certain conditions, the gravitomagnetic effect is much greater than expected from general relativity. However, at just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the effect, which the scientists identified as the Gravitomagnetic London Moment, is very weak. Unlike Podkletnov who used the Type II superconductor, de Matos and Tajmar used a Type I superconductor (“Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass Inside a Superconductor”, C.J. de Matos and M.Tajmar, Physica C Volume 432, Issues 3-4, 15 November 2005, Pages 167-172). The relative weakness of the artificially-generated gravitational effect makes it necessary to consider amplification before this effect could be used in many practical applications."

Moreover, Volfson provides a well-documented path though his reasoning. See his step by step inferences from work of his predecessors: http://borisvolfson.com/GravityTheoryPaper.html.

I am not a physicist. However, I know that without imagination, physics would stagnate (and often has). It's still incomplete and confounding. We still don't have a unified field theory. Even the "standard model" has been found wanting.

I am not suggesting dumping currently accepted theories regarding gravity. Darwinian theory is also gappy, but this doesn't warrant disregarding constructive, well-supported parts -- in fact, we rely on them. We should embrace attempts like Volfson's to creativly extend existing theory, provided there is sufficient justification. (An examination of the path he provides, referenced above, would be warranted.)

Mathematics and logic have lead, in the past, to new empirically interesting ground. Group theory, for example, provided particle physicists a fruitful heuristic for empiricle research ... in spite of group theory not being an "empiricle" science. Volfson's work follows an analogous route.

Hostile arguments like some provided by other commentors contribute nothing to a search for truth and understanding, but contribute to the growing climate of incivility and to rigidity of thought. Consider the values behind the attitudes displayed. Consider allowing others to judge for themselves from the evidence he provides. If you find actual errors in the science or logic, please document them. It's more useful to offer constructive suggestions, and to avoid criticism base on mere failure to match current accepted theory. That does not provide anything fruitful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedekind cut (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extrordinary claims require extrodanary evidence. I see no evidence other than a patent, and that means nothing. Only assertions. Let it be well known and verified first, then go into an encyclopedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. HEL 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Consensus?

edit

After six days, I count eight votes for deletion and three for keep. Admins, does this count as rough consensus? Michaelbusch 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitophonon

edit

Per the arguments given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Volfson

Pjacobi 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My faeries have a better chance of being proven correct. Delete. --humblefool ® 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're at the bottom of my garden right at this moment. Delete per reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Maser. Tonywalton | Talk 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Maser; walled garden anyone ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Maser; Ricp31 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Maser and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Volfson. Michaelbusch 07:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep • See my comments to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boris_Volfson. Volfson,boris
'Delete Non-notable, complete bollocks, and lacking independent sources. (The discussion page of a patent application!?) HEL 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core des at 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Potter (actress)

edit

Non-notable actress. Speedy was contested, but there's very little assertion of notability in the article. Subject fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. She was a regular on Beverly Hills 90210 for several years. --Metropolitan90 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a criterion for inclusion. There are no WP:RS written about her, which is why she doesn't satisfy any of the actual criteria:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers

A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following

An independent biography

Name recognition

Commercial endorsements

On Wikipeida, decisions are by consensus. WP:BIO is not policy, but a general guideline not meant to automatically exclude subjects that might be notable. --Oakshade 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to add the other part of WP:BIO you left out:

"Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers" Sorry 'bout that. --Oakshade 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She did appear in a well-known television production and does have name recognition. I also found a newspaper article about her, which is now used as a source in the article as revised. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Speedy contesting was justified. Cast member of BH 90210 for eight years and numerous guest star credits on hit shows such as NYPD Blue. --Oakshade 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Five years in a co-starring role on an Aaron Spelling prime-time network series is enough to assert notability. Enough people would come here to find out "Who played the MILF on 90210?" to warrant its inclusion. Needs expansion, though. Caknuck 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notability asserted.. looks notable enough for an article. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous arguments Optimale ^Gu 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since notability is asserted and meets our policies and guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 06:16, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7th Wonder

edit

This song is simply not worthy its own page. Drew88 08:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid deletion reason given. feydey 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the reason: Many other songs have placed second at the Eurovision song contest, inluding Malta's own Chiara with her song "Angel", but none of them have their own page. Drew88 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - before I created a few of them this year, many multiple Olympic gold medallist swimmers, world champions and Tour de France winners did not have articles- so we should delete them too? Just because others are lazy does not mean a hard-worker should have their hard work cut-up and binned. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just because they don't yet doesn't mean that they won't ever. I'm currently working on pages for ESC entries going by country (in the middle of Luxembourg at the moment) and I can tell you that the following Contests have their second-place songs written up: 1956 (inasmuch as there was a second place, we probably have it), 1957, 1967, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002 (the subject of this AfD), 2003 and 2006. The majority of the missing years are due to the fact that the United Kingdom has placed second something like 15 times and I just haven't got as far as U yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the song placed second at a major (arguably the major) international competition. Eurovision performances are broadcast throughout Europe, as well as at least as far as Canada and Australia, which means that it attracted a sizable audience. Additionally, to get as far as the Eurovision stage, it had to win a national competition (the Maltese pre-selection) first. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While "precedent" is often a dirty word around here, I'd point all concerned to these two AfDs, in which the consensus was established that even a song which came second-last was sufficiently notable for our purposes for the simple reason that it was the song which represented a country at a major international event for that year. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also rewritten the article in order to show a clearer level of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcus1234 11:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This despite the fact that the song in fact passes the proposed guideline with flying colours? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass the guideline exactly? The song does not satisfy any of the listed standards. It did not win a major award, it is not an anthem, and it is not a musical standard. It did not appear in any top 20 or top 100, it did not define any music genre etc etc Marcus1234 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Meets all criteria in WP:MUSIC - won a nationally televised competition, must have charted higly in the given country, was screened across all of Europe and widely across the world to more than a billion people - came 2nd in a continental music competition.....etc, etc....much more than the bar wich seems to allow random pub bands performing to a crowd of 300 in some random city to be kept. 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs)

Comment That's not the song guideline, it's the musician guideline. Marcus1234 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per that guideline, too, it's notable. The big four it misses out on, true, but turning our attention to the other 11 criteria we can see that it Is the signature song of a performer, certainly in the sense that Losco has a signature song for non-Maltese listeners. It was also the subject of a major publicity campaign, in that Maltese television wanted it to win the ESC that year and promoted it accordingly. I'd argue that it is also a particularly well-known song from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television, being performed live at an internationally-televised event. I'd also suggest, subject to research which I'm mid-way through at the moment, that it could well have appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country or Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months, although I may be proven wrong there. Add into that the fact that it was nominated for a national award and I think we've got a notable song on our hands. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript The song placed in the top 20 on the Maltese chart this is the site with the information, although it's not set up well enough that a direct link will work. You'll need to mouse-over the "About Ira" section and then go to the "Detailed Biography By Year" and select 2002. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You said it yourself: Maltese chart. Malta is far from a large or medium sized country, hence, it misses out on that criteria. You also stated that it's her "signature song", but that's merely your opinion. You also stated that it's a "well-known piece from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television", citing the fact that it was performed live on tv, but you are fully aware that the guideline refers to a theme song or other song associated with a specific production. I will concede that it was subject to a major publicity campaign, but that's about it. Delete Marcus1234 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in fact blissfully unaware of that interpretation of that clause, for the simple reason that it's not clarified anywhere on that page or its associated Talk. In terms of one's "signature song", the description of any song as such is often going to be a matter of debate. What I will say, though, is that it's the song for which she is best known outside of Malta, which would go quite some way towards it being her signature song. In terms of the size of the country, there's also some evidence that it charted in Germany. I was reluctant to add this at first, since the page doesn't actually say what number it charted at, but in an effort to counter systemic bias then it seems important. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is not a song competition covering all of Malta a "major award" within the meaning of WP:MUSIC/SONG? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding being in the German charts, there is absolutely no evidence that it was listed for at least six months and I'm most certain that it was never in a major Top 20 chart. Regarding your other point, I certainly do not classify winning the "Malta Song for Europe" as a major award, and I doubt anyone would. Technically, it's not even an award, as the wikipedia page itself states: it's the song festival which decides who will be Malta's entry in the Eurovision Song Contest. If the "Song for Europe" competitions were a "major award", then every song that has ever participated in the ESC would merit its own page! I'll stop here...Marcus1234 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response So far, the precedent has been that every ESC entry does merit its own page. The two AfDs I've linked to before have upheld that idea, even as far as to say that a song that came second-last is notable. Indeed, a song which came stone motherless last was sufficiently notable to appear on DYK. We talk a lot about "ESC winners" meaning the artists who perform the song, but in a very real way it's actually the song which wins or places - hence the notability of a song which places second, especially when this is the equal-best (then-best) result that a country has had. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect Redirecting for now, information seems to be in Cathay Pacific already. W.marsh 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Marco Polo Club

edit

Please note that that the airlines wikiproject guidelines state that these programs should have their own articles. This is the forum for real consensus among the community and any discussion of removing these articles should be made there first, not scattered among the individual pages. Parnell88 01:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another article on a non-notable frequent flyer program. Some multi-carrier ones have been kept (such as Miles & More), but this is a single-airline program, no different from Mileage Plus or SkyMiles, both of which have been deleted and redirected DB (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: that should have said, both were merged and redirected. DB (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the content to the involved carrier, Cathay Pacific. That such programs exist is inportant in the context of the airline, and the merge would not intorduce an unreasonable amount of information to the large article. -- saberwyn 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, at this point, to Cathay Pacific article as above. Perhaps once it has grown beyond a stub it can have its' own article just like Asia Miles. Luke! 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a copyvio from IMDb.com. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cariba Heine

edit

Non-notable person. Speedy was contested, but very litle assertion of notability is made. Subject fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G10) Article is a copyright violation, C&P job from IMDb profile [86]. Subject's only claim to notability is a starring role on an Australian TV show, which does assert some degree of notability. Caknuck 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an indiscriminate list. --Core des at 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of influential texts

edit

Hopelessly POV, and there are thousands, no, millions of texts that could be potentionally put here. What is the definition of influential? Also, influential to whom? The Western World? Muslims? Feminists? Scientists? Militants? Consumerists societies? Socialists? Daoists? Stoics? These are a drop in the bucket of the idealogies and demographics by which billions of peoples' daily lives are affected. And each group could credibly point to hundreds, if not thousands, of influential texts that espouse these lifestyles - everything from poetry by Robert Frost, to the Kama Sutra, to the Iraqi constitution. There are many notable and influential texts for sure, but the Category:Literature would probably be someone's best bet to sort through such an incomprehensible list, and even that cat has a tag on top saying "This category requires continual maintenance to avoid becoming too large." But at least that cat has a fighting chance. This list will always be POV, random, inadequate and unfathomably large to the point of inutility.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be bigger than List of non-notable people. Delete.--humblefool ® 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: absurdly unmanagable. Sam Clark 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this pretty much defines what a indiscriminate collection of information is. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Inherent POV and not really useful. Carlossuarez46 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Arbritrary point, listcruft, can never be complete, or more than just a list. Even if the criteria could be well defined it would suit better as catagory than an encylopedic article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Hunt

edit

Contested prod of article about a non-notable model. No claim or evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Valrith 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No established notability under WP:BIO. Hello32020 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Armstead

edit

Non-notable author. These books are published by iUniverse...which is self-publishing. IrishGuy ^talk 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of the book is not notable. Hello32020 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable author. For example, "Darkness Fears" is ranked #2,451,730 in Books on Amazon.com, published by "Writers Club Press", a pay-to-publish press.[87] Hu 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable author. Almost all of his books, if ranked, rank around the 2 millionsths mark per Amazon.com. 99 unique Ghits for "Joseph+Armstead"+horror. Ohconfucius 05:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ariah 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (as a convient excuse - real reason is spam). -- RHaworth 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOON-CHOSEN

edit

Subject of non-notable self-published books by Joseph Armstead. Armstead's article is also under AfD. IrishGuy ^talk 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I put this up for speedy deletion under the Copyright Violation category. See http://www.freewebs.com/jarmsteadsnocturnes/theconcepts.htm. Beyond that, I agree with the nominator's nomination. Hu 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Dark Memory

edit

Yet another vanity article for the self-published author Joseph Armstead. IrishGuy ^talk 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY. Hello32020 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Probably also a copyvio from the author's website. -- RHaworth 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Furthermore, this guy has used an anon IP address User:63.146.72.9 contribs (talk) to promote his books on Wikipedia as well. Hu 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ariah 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as copyvio. Fang Aili ^talk 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Quinn

edit

Yet another vanity article for the self-published author Joseph Armstead. IrishGuy ^talk 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY. Hello32020 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Probably also a copyvio from the author's website. -- RHaworth 03:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copyright violation (up for speedy) [88]. Also vanity for non-notable self-published author, as above. See Joseph Armstead page up for AfD. Hu 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and vanity, but this does not qualify as a copyvio under G12. --Robdurbar 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It does qualify as copyright violation. In the discussion page of the article I point out three paragraphs that have been lifted from the URL noted. Hu 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talley Nichols

edit

Non-notable biography. Article provides no claim or evidence of satisfying WP:BIO, nor does it provide any sources that would allow verifiability. Valrith 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself states that the author is a relation of the subject as well as ...the author is also a primary source for these materials, having been an eyewitness. That is a violation of WP:OR. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being WP:NOTABLE, appearant WP:OR. Hello32020 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. I have added the merge suggestion templates, there is probably a consensus to merge but it might be best to make sure. W.marsh 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Fourteen

edit

Delete.At the end of the final Lemony Snicket novel, The End, after the thirteenth chapter (which is when the books usually end) there is one more chapter, titled Chapter Fourteen. This serves as an epilogue of sorts to the series. Snicket formats this chapter like a whole new book...title page, copyright, etceteras. Because of this, it has been granted a whole article. As it is only one chapter, I do not believe it deserves an entire article. There is nothing about it that couldn't be succintly described in the page for The End. CyberGhostface 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE I have merged and redirected the page to The End (A Series of Unfortunate Events). Hope you enjoy it. Please leave the redirect there as numerous pages dealing with ASOUE link to Chapter Fourteen, even though its apartently not important enough to have its own page. Clamster5 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules state "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." Just wait until a consensus is reached.--CyberGhostface 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense at your attempt to be high and mighty, but that is the concensus.

Clamster5 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you watch your act, pay attention to the rules and wait until a consensus is properly reached by an administrator, as it always done in AFD cases. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 04:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. You for whatever reason are very against this chapter/short story (whatever you would like to call it). So you nominate it for deletion, even though you don't really think it should be deleted, it should just be merged/redirected (per your comments on the End talk page). You cause a big argument/discussion/debate (once again stick in whatever word you want here). People have differing views and sometimes we have problems accepting that. So after legthly arguing/discussing/debating (see above parentheses), I merge and redirect the page as you originally wanted quite a while ago (once again referecing comments on The End talk page). And now you're upset? I don't get it. You got what you wanted and you're still upset? If you truly are this upset, maybe you need a cup of hot chocolate, a kiss on the forehead, and a nap. Clamster5 04:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at this point I no longer care. Stomp your feet, pout your lips, and whine like a five year old. Nominate every book for deletion and say they should be merged into the main asoue page. Tell everyone you see "There was this truly horrible, truly dastardly editor on Wikipedia. She thought she could actually have a differing opinion. (Laugh)." I don't care. Have a nice life. Clamster5 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: This post was made 5 minutes after my first one, roughly 9 hours before you posted. Check the time stamps. I didn't reply to you. You just thought I did. This is just to show that you're too dumb to check time stamps. Clamster5 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your time stamps says you posted it on the eleventh, the same date I replied. Unless you're referring to something else. And if you weren't replying to me, then who the hell were you replying to? And keep up the personal insults. I've already warned you once, and if you continue, I'll have no choice but to report you.

BTW, if you "don't care", why are you still posting here?--CyberGhostface 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine hours, huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say, or why its relevant to the discussion. All I know is that when I replied you had the last message. And if you weren't replying to me, who were you replying to? And why does this even matter in the first place? Do you care that much about it? I wonder what that says about you given that you've long given up any reasonal debate and have instead resorted to petty namecalling and random stupidity about timestamps.--CyberGhostface 23:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be ignorant or does it come natural to you? The rules state that you do not change articles into redirects while they are nominated for deletion. No exceptions. You wait until the admins look over the article and reach their decisions. There's nothing more to say on that matter, so I suggest you just accept it and get over it.--CyberGhostface 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're the one who is throwing a tantrum because you're not getting your way. I'd also mention that merging a chapter into a novel's page and merging a seperate book into the series' page are too different things. You probably knew that, and were just trying to be obnoxious.

And if you are done with this page, is that going to stop you from replying again? I thought not. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take some hot chocolate before I get tucked in for my nap.--CyberGhostface 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it's already in The End, anyway. Redirect. --

humblefool ® 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment.I could agree with it being redirected if nots deleted.--CyberGhostface 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information not already in The End and redirect. T Rex | talk 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lemony Snicket (or Daniel Handler if you want to get technical) treats this as a seperate book. It has its own copyright, is listed as an idividual book on the list of books in the book, has its own ending picture, own page with Lemony Snicket's and Brett Helquist's pictures/bios on it. If the author treats it as its own book, we should too. Clamster5 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What is told there that couldn't be told in The End's main article? I fail to see how one chapter warrants its own article, gimmicks aside. --CyberGhostface 03:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would just like to stress that this is the most important chapter in a book series with 13 books (more if you count non main series books such as the Unathorized Autobiography). At least take that into consideration if you think your opinion is better than that of the author. Clamster5 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So in other words you assuming you know what Snicket's opinion is, even though he has never said it it outright and you are just speculating? And is it really the most important chapter? That's debatable, and frankly, POV. For example, I could consider Chapter Thirteen the most important; Olaf and Kit Snicket die, Baby Beatrice is born, and we find out the fates (albeit indirectly) of Fernald, Fiona and the Quagmires. Does that chapter deserve its own article because I think its the most important?--CyberGhostface 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Hey, let's keep it civil here... (which I say in a purely preventive and totally-non-accusatory way!) Anyway, point taken that "importance" is a relative term (though it's clearly one of the most important), but nobody is proposing giving any other random chapters their own pages, so the example is a bit of a straw-man. Clamster's knowledge of the author's "opinion" is obviously based on the simple fact that Chapter 14 is treated completely by "Snicket" as a book-hidden-within-a-book. It's hardly an unfair logical leap... Further, the fact that it is the ONLY Chapter 14 in a series of consistently-13-chapter-long books clearly sets it apart as special in the author's mind as well as just about anyone else's. I honestly don't understand the urgency to get rid of it. --Arvedui 08:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Yes, its important. Yes, its the only Chapter Fourteen. But its only one chapter and can easily be explained and referenced in the main End article. You're right, no one is proposing any other chapter-articles because doing so would be foolish...just as giving what is little more than a glorified epilogue its own article is. It does deserve special mention in the End article, but it does not deserve its own article.--CyberGhostface 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, you've once again ignored the key point of the author's fairly obvious intention that the "chapter" be treated as a separate small book hidden inside a larger book. That alone clearly distinguishes it from "foolish" proposals to dedicate separate articles to any other random chapter. It may indeed be a "glorified epilogue", but it's clearly being glorified for a number of reasons which are important to the story as a whole, and I think we would be doing a disservice to the series and Wikipedia's coverage of it to lump it in with the "previous" book in any way other than appending the entire Chapter 14 page (including book info-box) to the end of Book 13's--which would then inevitably lead to the question of why it doesn't just get its own page, as it happens to right now. --Arvedui 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Who says it deserves its own infobox either? That'd be pretty redundant given that 90% of the information applies to the End as well, right? Its not a seperate piece of work, which is what I don't think you understand. Its a continuation of an already existing novel. If it was say a new short story that could stand on its own (like Snicket's Lump of Coal story which was published in the Boston Globe) it might deserve its own article. But right now it could very easily be condensed into one paragraph at the end of the End article rather than a bloated redundant article. Its not two different stories in one book. Its the same one, which just so happens to be split up near the end.--CyberGhostface 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        (sigh) One more time, all together now: "Authorial intent" ... "glorified for a number of important reasons" ... "disservice by lumping it in" ... "what's the harm?" I also think describing the Ch.14 article as bloated and redundant is a bit much considering the only duplication at the moment is the section on the Charles Beaudelaire poem (which could just as easily be removed from "The End"). --Arvedui 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And to think you were talking about being civil before? But maybe the rules only apply to you when you want them to. And I noticed how you ignored everything I said and just regurgitated your old comments without responding to what I said. Its not a seperate work. The End is seperate form Penultimate Peril. The Bad Beginning is seperate from the Reptile Room. Chapter Fourteen is not a seperate work from the End. Its a disservice by writing about a ten-page chapter in the book that it appeared in? Whatever you say.--CyberGhostface 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm very sorry you feel I was being uncivil towards you--my comment certainly wasn't intended that way and to be honest, I don't see any incivility in it myself. If you mean the (sigh), that was simply an expression of exasperation at the fact that your response didn't address a single one of the key points I raised, which is also why I felt I had to repeat them. Also, "Authorial intent" plus "glorified for a reason" (plus some comments elsewhere on this page) were my earlier answers to your assertion that the Book and the Chapter are totally inseparable, which, again, you haven't yet addressed (beyond pointing out that they are published in one volume, which is still beside the point).

Incidentally, I haven't heard of the "Lump of Coal" story you mentioned. Perhaps you could start a page on it. --Arvedui 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding you. For the record, the Lump of Coal (which is, I just found out, from Usa Today) can be read here.[89]

I don't really believe that Snicket intends for Chapter Fourteen to be considered a seperate work. Wouldn't the title alone make it Chapter Fourteen of an already existing work, not an entirely seperate one? If it was a seperate work, why didn't Snicket give it a more distinguished name, like the Eerie Epilogue or something? Also, its not like its even its own seperate story in terms of plot...its just another chapter carrying on from the previous chapters. Had Snicket done another plot that was unrelated from the general story (like one chapter detailing the lives of Lemony and Beatrice) I might be more willing to consider it a different story. But formatting gimmicks aside, whose true intentions are unknown, is there anything about it that makes it a different story for deserving its own article?--CyberGhostface 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Regardless of how Snicket considers this chapter, it's bound and sold as part of "The End". We don't have separate articles for the six "books" of The Lord of the Rings, even though they're written separately: we have three articles for the three bound volumes. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, the 6-book division was arbitrarily imposed on Tolkien by the publisher, who believed that people wouldn't buy or want to read such big thick books, but it was in fact written originally as a trilogy. The analogy between the two doesn't quite hold, then, especially since the numerology is clearly irrelevant to Tolkien's work while it is central to the structure of ASOUE. --Arvedui 08:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It may be only one chapter, but what nobody seems to have considered is that it's one of the most important chapters because it's the last. Declaration of interest: I'm one of the article's contributors. Lee M 03:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The author treating it as a separate book is a joke similar to meta-fiction, not a serious assertion that it is actually a separate work. JChap2007 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It cannot be considered a 'book' in its own right - not without some mention in either Library of Congress or British Library. Eddie.willers 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Clamster5. It's not like including one extra page is going to fill up Wikipedia. Also, the entire set of books is already practically A Series of Meta-Fictional Gimmicks which the existing articles basically respect (with a wink and a nod, so to speak), so I don't see why or what it would hurt for us to respect this one too. -- Arvedui 05:50, 7 November 2006
Keep per Clamster5 --Orpras 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 08:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge don't delete; the content has value and should be blended in the the existing! Authorial intention is to be counted - but does not overrule basic practices. If a chapter is called a chapter it is a chapter. If a "chapter" is called a short story is guess what, a "short story". If a chapter is included as part of a publication of single narrative stream it is part of that publication, either a collection of stories or one story, i.e. a novel. The publisher obviously considered the "chapter" as part of the final novel and bound and published it that way. Initial publishing vehicle should be considered the "prime" and historically significant method of delivery. The same arguements (allbeit reversed) apply to Lord of the Rings and it's three novels. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this line of reasoning, except that I don't for several reasons. In the LOTR example, the "books" were separated simply by a single page which said "Book Two" or "Book Four". It was clear that they were little more than section-markers, and indeed many authors use divisions like "Book One," "Book Two" etc without ever intending that they be published separately. In this case, Chapter Fourteen is preceded by all the usual trappings of a regular book, including blank pages, copyright info, title-page, other-works-by, etc. It also isn't intended to be published separately, true, but there is also an internally-consistent (to the story) logic behind having it published the way it was. And don't get too hung up on the name--meta-fiction is tricky that way! --Arvedui 10:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would be the purpose of deleting this page anyway? Since you clearly feel very strongly about not having this page for some reason, why didn't you just discuss it on the Chapter Fourteen or the The End talk page and then simply merge the information and redirect "Chapter Fourteen" to the end? What was the point of a full blown afd? Just a thought. Please don't attack me. Clamster5 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, I have a strong feeling that this page won't be deleted, just merged, as that seems to be the general consensus.
- I also noticed that you removed all of Chapter Fourteen's information from The End. That alone proves that all the relevant information of it could easily be condensed into two paragraphs and that this article is entirely redundant.
- If I had merged it or redirected it without any general consensus from anyone, don't you think someone would revert it?
- I just feel that an article devoted to one chapter is unneccessary. Its not a seperate story. Formatting gimmicks aside, what is in the plot that couldn't be described in The End?#--CyberGhostface 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Above Comment Deleting the page implies that you want the subject not to be covered and when someone types in "Chapter Fourteen" for there to be no page. But even you seem to think the chapter needs a mention, a paragraph, something that signifies its existence. So why didn't you have a discussion on both talk pages, stick the template that says "it has been proposed that these page be merged", wait patiently for at least a week or so, and then merge giving Chapter Fourteen the coverage you feel it deserves in The End article? Honestly why? I don't want to get you angry/upset/acting like 5 year old. Please just answer why you proposed to delete instead of merge? Clamster5 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the page means that I do believe the subject should be covered, just in the article for The End as one chapter does not deserve its own article.

And whats there to merge? Chapter Fourteen is already covered in the main article! Excluding the fact that the general consensus is merge, so chances are thas what the result will be.

And if you still have to ask why I want this deleted then I guess I haven't made myself clear for the last three days. I've said nearly everything there is to say on the subject.--CyberGhostface 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.

There are 13 books in the series, each with their own title and ISBN. This fourteenth chapter is not a book and does not have a title/ISBN.
The fourteenth chapter is specifically a chapter. You cannot buy a book by Lemony Snicket called "Chapter Fourteen".
Any information in "chapter fourteen" is also applicable to "The End." --JCoug 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The End, and designate a section. bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment I think this comes down to a matter of semantics. Are we defining a book as being a physical entity, or are we defining a book as a logical entity? There are 13 physical books, 14 logical books. I do think the author intended there to be 14 "books" but the publisher has done 13 books. If the publisher were to publish a separate book 14, then I could justify listing it in an encyclopedia as a separate entity. As it is now, it is merely a section of book 13 and therefore should fall under the page about book 13. Therefore, I think we should merge the pages. --JCoug 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Evidence of reliable third party coverage was not presented (see WP:WEB), as always I will undelete if some can be presented to me. W.marsh 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey Games

edit

Contested prod, original reason for nomination was "Doesn't seem to be particularly notable or meet WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB." Procedural nomination, please count me as neutral. JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see what makes this notable. Fails reliability/verifiability requirements as well. Wickethewok 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The website is ranked roughly 2700 by Alexa (which ain't bad for a flash games site started a few years ago. Obvious cleanup is needed, but I think the website's sheer number of hits should eliminate any mention of speedy deletion. I'm not saying the article should be kept, but it certainly cannot be deleted for notability concerns given the Alexa ranking. -bobby 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, no expediency required. Wickethewok 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use Alexa rankings to determine notability - see WP:SET. --163.1.165.116 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the founder of Crazy Monkey Games (but did not create this article). Since I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policies and am obviously biased in this matter I'll refrain from voting. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's requirements to improve the article myself, but I'd be happy to communicate with an experienced contributor to answer any questions and provide verifiable information for use in the article. To start off, I would like to share some information about why I believe that Crazy Monkey Games is notable:
- CMG was created by a single individual working out of his home, and within less than 2 years grew to become one of the top 2000 most visited sites on the Internet.
- The website currently receives over 300,000 unique visitors per day.
- CMG pioneered the game sponsorship model now used by 100's of Flash gaming sites across the Internet. This model allows game developers to earn money from their games while still being credited as the author and retaining the copyright on the game - Something that was almost unheard of before the sponsorship model was introduced.
- CMG has sponsored the creation of many extremely popular Flash games, including:
  - The Thing-Thing series. Evidence of notability: 1,370,000 results in Google.
  - The Stickman Sam series. Evidence of notability: 675,000 results in Google.
  - Adrenaline Challenge. Evidence of notability: 741,000 results in Google.
  - RaidenX. Evidence of notability: 537,000 results in Google.
  - Many others, as can be seen in CMG's listing of sponsored games.

Ack226 21:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, but what we are looking for is reliable third party coverage. While your site may or may not be popular and may have many sites linking to it or whatever, it still needs information from published sources, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas and synthesis. Wickethewok 21:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand Instead of going and deleting this article, make yourselves useful and expand it! DotDarkCloud 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems notable enough, but needs better sources. --Alan Au 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Could be noteworthy, but the sources aren't there to confirm that. Lots of search hits, but the first 10 pages or so of search results are to the site itself, to programmers, or to forum posts. I did find [90], in which a library offers it among other teen-oriented sites, so that's an argument toward passing WP:WEB. Am willing to believe there are other similar... endorsements, I suppose? Recognition, at least... out there. Shimeru 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, default to Keep. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 06:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salthill Devon F.C.

edit

Non-notable club. Returns 409 ghits. Appears to have youth teams between under-11's and under-18's but not much else. Not in notable league. Bubba hot ep 11:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 11:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. feydey 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays one level below Football League of Ireland (3rd level overall in Republic of Ireland) Has played numerous times in FAI Cup and even in League Cup Dodge 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know I can't think of a criteria either for deleting it or keeping it. 530 junior members is quite considerable, but then again many schools of 530 where the children are "full time" get questionned. --Mike 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian Reign

edit

Contested prod, no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSIC. Khatru2 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have sought the Cleaned Up method for the page, and I am now re-submitting it for approval. I am a fan and friend of the band.Merauder 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable and doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Encyclopaedia Metallum confirms only the release of 2004 EP [91]. Only 973 Google results (altogether) too. Prolog 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universo HQ

edit

I found this while finishing my new page patrol last night, and it was marked with {{db-site}} when I checked its history using pop-ups. The Alexa rank for this site is 82,920, and hence fails WP:WEB. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At least the article makes an assertion of ntability, unfortunatley, not cited and possibly not true. Chris Kreider 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I would try to find sources for something like this, but I keep running into translation issues. Probably doesn't fail WP:WEB, but in its current form we just have no idea. --- RockMFR 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core des at 20:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron D'Souza

edit

Vanity article by User:Aaron kimi whose only contribution is to this article. Google hits don't give any links to a racing driver.[92] . The Hindu does list an Aaron d'souza, but he is a swimmer [93]. Should have speedy deleted, but the article is 3 days old Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Wareq 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that the speedy deletion criteria don't limit speedy deletions to newly created articles (although we hope that most of these articles get nabbed on new page patrol). JChap2007 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doctor Bruno 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 13:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Doctor Bruno 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteNileena joseph 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Cadet Squadrons in Canada

edit

meets criteria for what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a mere list of squadrons. While only some may be notable, not all are. Additionally, this listing is available externally at [94], [95], [96], and [97]. Luke! 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's complete then it's a useful enough list for someone who's interested. -- Necrothesp 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was useful for me trying to find some old friends from camp! I say keep it, I know people that use this list for other things too. Archie325 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (See if you can guess what MY sqn. is)[reply]

Come on now, how did this list help you find some old friends? I find this notion a bit of a stretch. Even if you did find your old friends through a listing such as this article, the content is almost exactly duplicated in the external links given above. And what other uses could this list have other than to show a list of squadrons, of which only a minority our notable? Luke! 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't matter if some of the squadrons are not notable - the general topic is notable. --- RockMFR 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general topic being the Royal Canadian Air Cadet organization, not the list that this article is. It would predominantly be a red-link article spurring eventual article growth of other Air Cadet squadrons that may not be notable. Luke! 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sum of the four pages you reference is less than the one page that you're proposing to delete. This page tells me that there's a squadron (825) in Yellowknife, NWT, which is not listed on any of those four pages. Plus there's the entire central region (Ontario), which doesn't seem to have a convenient page like the four you list. I'd also opine that there are things you can do with a single list like this that you can't do nearly as easily with a list split across five or six pages - like identify gaps in the numbering, identify the highest and lowest numbered squadron, count the total number of squadrons, look at the distribution of squadrons across the country, etc While I agree that the general topic is the RCAC, I feel that this page does provide value, and that it wouldn't be easy to merge it in with the RCAC page. Looking at the List of Sea Cadet Corps in Canada, that page was created in July by splitting the info out of the RCSC page.

There is more rationale at User_talk:Dark_Shikari/Archive1#appeal_.3F. Finally, I have to disclose that I'm the one that spent quite a lot time pulling this information together.

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

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

The result was keep.--Hús ö nd 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Hardcore War

edit

This was a one-time house show by TNA. It wasn't very notable at all. RobJ1981 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the event was notable for its timing, ___location and certain events that transpired in the course of the show. 14,400 Google search results for TNA "Hardcore War". 89.241.180.247 19:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this was a house show, it got a huge trascendence as this event was related with ECW One Night Stand. If you criteria was right ("It wasn't notable at all"), then Hardcore Homecoming should be deleted too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.181.230 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This was essentially to One Night Stand 2006 what Hardcore Homecoming was to One Night Stand 2005 - an ECW reunion show at the former ECW Arena. TheNewMinistry 04:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Layton

edit

Nice kid but nn self-published author (book by Virtualbookworm publish on demand house), fails WP:BIO, few unique ghits, authored by SPA with no other edits. Tubezone 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something new comes to light. Perhaps an article on the book with the author bio there if it meets the notability criteria. Harr o5 03:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. Nexis found an article about him. The wikipedia article was terrible, and I have rewritten it, but Nexis did find an article about him, and he does videotape veterans, and has won awards for it. Uucp 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nexis found ONE article. Still misses WP:BIO by a country mile. Lots of kids get scholarships, self-publish books, etc. Delete as nn. I've self published books that get piles of ghits, and have been on the web for 10 years, yet I don't get a Wikipedia article. So a 16 year old kid whose parents help him publish a fancy book shouldn't get a WP article, and friends of the author of the book shouldn't guilt editors into keeping an article on a non-notable author. EVERYONE wants to honor WW2 fighter pilot veterans, but IMHO this object would be better served by work on individual articles on the important fighter pilots rather than keeping an article on a totally swell but non-notable (as an encyclopedia subject) high school kid. I think Andrew Layton himself would agree that the point of encyclopedia articles on the subject of fighter pilots should be to honor notable fighter pilots, not Andrew Layton. JMHO.Tubezone 06:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say Keep it. This kid is impressive. I found plenty of hits about him on dogpile, and a couple more articles that were pretty good. Sure there are lots of high schoolers out there who get scholorships, and maybe a few who publish books, but have you ever heard of a 16-year old getting a special award from the U.S. Congress? I haven't. Andrew is evidently a pioneer in youth volunteerism within the VA, let alone his accomplishments in writing and in filmmaking. He is obviously a rising star who has a great career ahead of him. It's refreshing to see our youth rising up to do positive things like this. If VA and congress have given him so much credit, why shouldn't wikipedia? The kid is an inspiration.walkintheline 10:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: walkintheline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- WP:MEAT. Harr o5 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice to see someone added references, still, it's up to Wikipedia editors to come to a consenus on whether this meets notability guidelines, or violates WP policies on advertising or vanity, this is a discussion, not an election. I would note that use of single purpose accounts to vote on this issue actually detracts from a notability argument (notable people don't need to use SPA's to argue for notability) , and raises red flags about advertising and vanity issues. Tubezone 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Last night a friend informed me that she had submitted my name for a biography page on Wikipedia. When I took a look at her nomination, I was flattered by the amount of references and facts that a number of people had taken the time to track down about me. To be honest, I was surprised that a couple of editors had even suggested keeping it. However, I would agree with user Tubezone that I really do not belong in this database. I am grateful to those who left their comments and revisions for the page, but I give it a delete vote unless someone else adamantly thinks it belongs here ofr some reason. Tubezone, you were right when you said that the people who should be getting wikipedia articles are the veterans who have fought and sacrificed for our freedoms here in America and not people like me who got lucky with a couple of scholarships. Sorry for the inconvenience and any confusion that this may have provoked and thanks to everyone for their time. I’m honored even by the consideration. – Andrew Layton. “History is more than just places and dates. It’s how those places and dates changed people’s lives.” Andrewlayton 08:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am torn on this one, he has certainly accomplished alot, but just barely passes my own rather flexible definition of notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not the New York Times, the references are many and varied that establish notability. --Oakshade 03:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If his only claim to fame was the one self-published book, I would say delete. But it is not, and for a kid that is quite noteworthy.--Nascarfan1 18:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but please see WP:CITE to cite sources in the article. W.marsh 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend Robotique

edit

Delete: Non-notable performance artists. Prod was clearly contested (although folks didn't know how to actually remove it). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete a google search turns up only trivial mentions (i.e. "BOYFRIEND ROBOTIQUE present "English Lessons For The Foreign Artist" & "How Do You Feel" at the Market of Vain Desires...") that merely note where they are performing. There does NOT appear to be any critical review of their work. If no one in the media cares enough to review their work, how can they be notable? --Jayron32 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Vote changes. See below --Jayron32 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no verification. Ex-Boyfriend Robotique, perhaps? "It's not me, it's you..." EVula 05:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Google also returned nothing comprehensive about the artists. Cheers -- Imo eng 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated in my prod: "Non-notable performance troupe (150 Ghits); no sources to back up claim of being "thrown out of Canada."" ... discospinster _talk 13:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I am working on what you asked for. This link takes you to a review of a Boyfriend Robotique show http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=outabout&article=86 Also, this magazine features a set of images from another show www.psiloveyou-magazine.com So that's two reliable media sources. As for the other problems I have edited the page to include a line as to why they are notable (as per guidelines) and also have referenced the newspaper where I read about their deportation from Canada. I am new to wikipedia so please do forgive my lack of tech-savy. My point is simply that if this is to be an encyclopedia (and not just a high brow version of US Weekly) it really needs input on artists other than those who rotate heavily on MTV. I intend to get better at the technical side of wikipedia and contribute to the community information on the well known and less well known.Roderick P. Bruce 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Its a start. I am not changing my vote yet, but more of sources like this might get me to. Being "well known" or "pop culture" has nothing to do with a Wikipedia article. A subject must be notable. Read guidelines on notability. It expressly states that: " a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself." In several places , you will see that notability is expressly NOT fame. If you want this article kept, continue to provide reliable sources to verify its notability. YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. Its not much, but you stand a better chance of keeping the article by providing these kinds of reliable sources than by appealing to people's sense of pity or justice, or by implying that wikipedia's only criteria is popularity. It isn't. Its notability. --Jayron32 04:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More sources I found a catalogue of images here www.images.ullirichter.com from a German photographer's site (he's a professional not an amateur or fan). Also at http://www.gayliverpool.com/homotopia.htm there is an article about an upcoming show and in the 'Liverpool Echo' (25/10/06) there is a discussion of this show again. There is also a brief article in 'Boyz' (16/03/06) detailing their appearance at a gallery opening in London. I really don't catalogue the amount of press they get but it seems ever with a little research that they're quite prolific.
Change vote to keep I have seen enough. It's getting better. Now that the references have been found, the original article needs to be edited, and the links provided either as inline references, or under the external link section. Reasearch is what this is all about, and it is obvious that research has been done, and evidence of notability has been found. These are honest-to-goodness reviews, and I see that as enough to satisfy WP:NN.. --Jayron32 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Relisting because sources were provided after everyone but Jayron commented. W.marsh 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to recent citations demonstrating notability. Please place those sources into the article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insert References* Should these go in the actual text or as footnotes? Which is prefered? 80.225.119.191 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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