Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 24: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
No edit summary
fix
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:12, 24 May 2006

< May 23 >

Purge server cache

May 24

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Pow 2: Tongue of Fury

WP:NOT a crystal ball, it even says in the article that no release date or even a production start date is known at this time. The two external links are not useful nither Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, Steve Oedekirk has every intention of finishing his trilogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.172.31 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transvolution

Original research, asserts copyright. Prod'ed, tag removed by anonymous contributor. Accurizer 00:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Spot

Fairly non-notable. Granted, some of the performances its hosted are notable, but that doesn't mean that every place that these people visit becomes notable. Will withdraw if notability is asserted Hobbeslover 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (and cleanup). — FireFox 10:14, 29 May '06

Gricel mamery

Not notable -- only 425 ghits. hello,gadren 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, I did not intend it to be a Pulitzer winning biography, but this artist has been in Puerto Rican spotlight for many years, she is not a full scale celebrity even by Puerto Rican standarts ( those standarts are very high at the moment with artists like, Daddy Yankee, Ricky Martin, Jennifer Lopez, Benicio Del Toro, Roselyn Sanches ect. ). My primary language is not english pardon my inproper usage of some words and syntax mistakes. The image is a scan from a weekly magazine this current issue is out of regulation and is about 7 years old, if another image is needed I can provide an original photography, which is purely free of any comercial attachment. Deciding if this artist is notable seems purely subjective, I had the impression this was frowned upon in this project. I did not copy paste this, most of this information I gather from magazines I currently own. My writing is being harshly scrutinized and there are many grammar errors in the posts critizising mine, I do expect we are all adults, and I can take critizism of my grammar, and syntax but there are better ways to come across without making mockering of my composition. Thank you for your time.

zetback 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image I provided is not a collage it is a scan of a page inside a magazine, that current magazine is out of print, it is not available comercialy, I found the scan in the internet, sorry if I misunderstood the image policy, I have original photography a photographer friend of mine took, that I can upload if necessary. - sorry for misunderstanding - --zetback 06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't really see any problem with the notability (except that it seems local to Puerto Rico). And there's really no need to discuss that it needs to be cleaned up since the Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and /most/ of it's articles need cleaning. Keep it. No point in destorying a valuable article. - Tomodachigai


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sasquatch t|c 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sushicide

Google search. Neologism. Beno1000 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Preservation Society

Offensive hoax, author deleted speedy and hoax tags w/o explanation NawlinWiki 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus = keep. — FireFox 10:22, 29 May '06

Dan_McDowell

Deleting this page would be an internet abortion and travesty on par with the attempted systematic genecide as witnessed in Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.130.42.232 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2006

New User probably came here after he heard Bob and Dan read the Wikipedia articles over the air. JohnM4402

Nonsense, unverifiable claimes about what his childern can and can not say. JohnM4402 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone goes about deleting the AfD tag, please note the following Wikipedia guideline "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion

Another note is that it is Wikipedia Official Policy that "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

  • Keep / Cleanup. It needs sources, or all the unverfiable statements need to be nixed. The article shouldn't outright get deleted, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The High Times reference seems to show notability. Should be tagged for cleanup Kevin 02:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In Googling "Dan McDowell," only one of the top 20 hits relates to this Dan McDowell. Googling "Dan McDowell" + "BaD Radio" gives less than 400 hits and only 75 unique hits. Being mentioned in High Times means nothing- he could've been nominated for "Sports Radio Personality of the Year" because he's great at talking about sports, or it could be because he's great at talking about pot. -- Kicking222 04:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not worth cleaning up. RobLinwood 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Googling something is a fair barometer for such an obviously respectable place like Wikipedia, then I die laughing. Anyways, while you're at it, try Googling "the ticket" which is the radio station that Dan McDowell broadcasts from. Hell, simply google "ticket" and see what you get. Also, email him at dan@theticket.com and ask him how his daughter pronounces the word "clock" because numerous times now, he has related over the airwaves of this broad land that his very young daughter prounounces the word "clock" as "cock". You guys have no clue what your'e talking about, and if you had any objectivity whatsoever you'd know that Dan McDowell is a prominent radio host in the fifth largest radio market in the United States. --Monosylab1k 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* You are treading on a very Slippery Slope to use the argument that anything suposedly said on the air is fit for inclusion into a Wikipedia article. If you stand by that argument, then I will have to add to the article a quote from Dan when he said "I like hot dogs. I eat them for breakfast." I heard it just last week while I was driving home from lunch.
What part of "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. " do you not understand? Simply emailing him and getting a response would be "original research" which is also not allowed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research JohnM4402 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what part of "i googled this guy and didn't get any hits, so delete it" comes from a reputable source? Be consistent. You want to delete this page but use questionable methods like "i googled" to do it.--65.170.1.10 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* You should take the time and read over the comments again, I never said I "googled" anything. JohnM4402 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* You should take the time and read over my comments as well, I never said you did. You is referring to people trying to have the page deleted. You're not important enough to speak with on a one-to-one basis. This is for the entire page. Merry Christmas.
* Using the Google Test (while not policy) is generally accepted throughout the Wikipedia community as being a very good method of determining notability. "I googled" is not a questionable method at all. Also, googling "ticket" is an awful way to determine the notability of a guy named "Dan McDowell". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This and all other ticket pages should be KEPT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.213.243 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2006

Please Note The man (JohnM4402) leading the charge for the deletion of the Bob and Dan pages is a fan of Randy Galloway, who broadcasts from the rival sports radio station in Dallas. Unite, P-1's, because this man works for the enemy!--Monosylab1k 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Bowl Stadium

I propose this article be deleted. A quick search on Google for "Apple Bowl Stadium" reveals multiple articles on various wikis that contain the same text. It is clearly spam. Mikesc86 02:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas bratcher

Delete Nick here published one book, "Detention" on PublishAmerica, an awful "vanity mill". Detention is available on Amazon [1], and its Sales Rank is 1,998,267, which is dreadful. The 1st paragraph of the article is pure vanity, and the 2nd paragraph of the article is a copyvio from Amazon. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merged and redirect. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCAF Station Downsview

Improperly formatted AfD. Fixing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks much notable content. And I'm being nice to you by using AfD; most cases it would be CSD. --Alicia Lindgren 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly redirected to CFB Downsview, which is a marginally better article. Feel free to revert if you really want the article deleted. Kevin 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 10:23, 29 May '06

Workplace game

This doesn't seem even remotely necessary. If someone could come up with workplace games, maybe it would be worth keeping, but right now it barely qualifies as a dictionary entry, let alone Wiki. Devotchka 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox 10:23, 29 May '06

Friday's Child (band)

Notability. Does someone having a webpage suddenly make them important enough for an article?

  • Delete or radical rewrite - "new" bands are generally non-notable (except when members are in themselves notable), and one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. If the author wants this to be userfied, I'd be willing to undelete this article and copy it into her userspace. Please ask if you want me to do this. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cause marketing

Not 100% sure, but this looks like "paste in and edit so it's less an advertisement". The author appears to be the editor of the book (at any rate the same name as listed on the cover of the book). This reads like a big marketing spiel and not an encyclopedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JByrd (talk • contribs)

I am the author and I took parts from my book about cause marketing and put it in wikipedia - I spent over 18 months researching and writing the book. If it looks like a cut and paste - what's wrong with that if the information is legitimate? Jocelyne Daw (User:Jocelyne Daw)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_Chong

Vanity page and userfy Dredscott 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pooranee Inspirations

Non notable web design firm, the article fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP - blue520 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakfast Monkey

Assuming all that's in this page is true -- it's a show pitched to the Cartoon Network, that got rejected, and only a pilot was made and unaired, and nothing else came of it. Not notable at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to merge. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copient Technologies

Seems very NN. Author of the page admits he works there in his profile.Devotchka 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vainglory

Delete - dicdef. Although this was kept last time - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vainglory - nothing has happened to it since. It is uncategorised. Mais oui! 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. — FireFox 10:26, 29 May '06

Arbornet

Non-notable organization, article is somewhat comprehensive so discussion on AfD seems appropriate. Gail Wynand 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daloonik (talk • contribs) 2006-05-25 04:19:35 (UTC) User's 8th edit; a suspected sockpuppet of User:Bongout. Henning Makholm 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep M-Net is pretty significant in the history of online conferencing, predating The WELL, which started on the same software and with (as I understand it) some people from M-Net. The WELL had more stars and got more national attention, but M-Net and its spinoff Grex (also the subject of a current AfD) had more users; together they served as a major community resource. Kestenbaum 20:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray's Parlour

4 Ghits TOTAL and the only one that seems relevant is the Wikipedia entry itself. NN. Devotchka 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per author's request--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bio Fox

Tagged for speedy deletion with this note: "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. Author admits to being the owner of said "company" (read userpage), and does nothing to assert notability in article." This is not according to my interpretation of policy a speedy criterion, though it certainly is a valid deletion criterion. Listing here for review. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grex

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

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

Non-notable BBS whose only claim to fame seems to be as a plaintiff in an obscure state court case. Wikipedia is not a BBS registry. Gail Wynand 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of appreciation here is that Grex, like Arbornet or SDF/freeshell.org: Super Dimension Fortress or nyx.net and few others are Unix shell providers, free for anybody anywhere (membership fees are optional and allow to get a better set of commands/functionality).Very few community-run unix systems have been existing so long, allowing people to get familiarity with what is the most important operating system in the internet infrastucture and history.See for instance the links in the Google subcategory: Internet > Access Providers > Unix Shell Providers > Free Shells or the Dmoz one: [5] The BBS software/service is just a part of these systems, contrary to the full dedicated Bbs. The "Non-notable BBS" characterization stated as motive for deletion is a very narrowed point of view. AntonioB 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The free speech case is widely cited and is hardly obscure, and the nature of Grex as a creative community forum was critical in broadening the plaintiffs from groups which could be dismissed (at least politically) as primarily concerned with sex. Moreover, tens of thousands of users have participated in Grex as a free public access Unix system, a very unusual resource. The Well developed from the exactly the same software, and some of the people and ideas surrounding Grex and its predecessor, but the Well and Grex developed in significantly different directions based on a different emphasis in first principles. Kestenbaum 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The freedom of speech question on grex has been at issue for some time now: a staff member left in a huff and deleted significant portions of the BBS, which the other staff members declined to restore. I don't think freedom of speech is relevant to that article.
  • Keep and Move to Cyberspace Communications; both CC and Arbornet were instrumental in several legal cases (civil and criminal). -James Howard (talk/web) 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RBI2k Leagues and RBI2k6

A non-notable online gaming league. Following the link to their official website in the article results in "This URL is Not Currently in Use." If you look at RBI2k6 you can see that they plan individual pages for each of their teams, for their stats, schedule, the list goes on and on. All of these fail every aspect of WP:WEB and it should go without saying that Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Hetar 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talented offerings for programs in the sciences

Original research, institutional self-promotion, NPOV, and also not notable RobLinwood 04:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Zander

See Talk:Gabe Zander for all the pertinent research...This appears to be an article about a pretty non-notable musician. Zander's only chance at meeting WP:MUSIC is that he's the co-founder (a claim I've not found verified) of a barely-notable band, the Oi! Scouts, and he's been featured in a single article for Nashville Scene (which presented him as a street artist trying to break into the scene). No discography found other than 1 demo. I think the Oi! Scouts might be worthy of an article, and I'm surprised there's no article for Nashville Scene, but I believe this article should be deleted: subject not notable and claims not verifiable. -- Scientizzle 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Church

A nn church in Florida. Has had a lack of notability template on it for almost a year and no edits have been made. There is no information about why this church is notable or encylopaedic, and it only gets 800 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to speedily delete. From Friday, the admin who deleted article: The comic was created by a user named xbox_xpert14 and hosted on the Gmod forums. The creator of the series never finished the series, only getting to episode 4 before stopping production. I am closing this on his behalf. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 09:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Single Act of Revenge

Non-notable, defunct webcomic. Audience seems limited in scope to a single forum, and it doesn't sound like it had a very long run. As well, the article actually seems to contain the whole of the webcomic, which certainly has to fall under one of those categories of what the Wikipedia is not. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hatcher

Non-notable blogger/journalist. Crystallina 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Christian Centre, Bristol

An article about a nn church in Bristol. Gives no information about why this church is notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia. Only gets 336 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childs Hill Baptist Church

A nn article about a church in Enland. No information about why it is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. It only gets 59 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Christian Church Milsons Point

An nn article about a church in Sydney. It contains no information about why it is in any way notable or encylopaedic. Only gets 149 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping Campden Baptist Church

An nn church in England. Contains no information about why it is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 50 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an historic building in Chipping Campden, and needs expanding dvc214 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to keep. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Catholic Apostolic Church

An article about an nn church or religion, it doesn't quite say. Contains no information about why this sect is in any way founded, or if it has any contemporaries or current following, only that it was founded. It only gets 235 Google hits, of which Wikipedia is the first. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery of the Ages

An article about an nn religious book. Contains no information about why the book is notable, and almost the entire content is an ad. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1975 in Prophecy!

Basically an advertisement for an nn religious book by a small sect. Gets only 268 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie_Jane_Duff

Delete. vanity page; nn hence unverifiable. --MishaMisha 05:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herman L. Hoeh

A non-sourced, POV article about an nn person. Has had a template askign for sources for nearly a year with no further edits. The person in question only gets 379 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, even after discounting the many new users and anons. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man Law

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

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

Advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, or even a mention in another article. Google search on +"man laws" +flynn +renteria (the latter two being characters from the commercial) gets one hit only - the Wikipedia article.[6] Might it become notable? Perhaps, but WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not_a crystal ball. Шизомби 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The actor who plays the character of "The Scribe" in these commercials (I can't remember his name now) was featured on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno recently, and the video clip was of a commercial from this series. Also, performing a Google Search on "man law" "miller lite" will get 15,200 hits. However, I will refrain from voting as I cannot decide if this is enough to establish it as notable, nor am I completely convinced (or unconvinced) that this content is encyclopedic. GassyGuy 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now (crystal ball). Personally, I think this campaign is a good one and may make a similar impact as the Budweiser Frogs (decent article, considering the subject). I think we'll see this make a legitimate comeback a few months after it's deleted. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,There is no official policy on notability. Given that this advertising campaign has seen presence beyond the ads themselves, including but not limited to appearances on popular talk shows (like The Tonight Show With Jay Leno), news articles (NYT [8], Detroit Free Press [9] and Business Week [10]) blog presence, etc; this topic is rapidly becoming a component of popular culture distinct from the product with which it is associated. This topic does not satisfy any of the what wikipedia is not; Crystal ball is reserved for the removal of articles which speak exclusively of future events, this is an event in progress. A Google search for "man law" gives 3 of the top 10 on this subject (none wikipedia). Kershner 15:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable advertising campaign. Similar to Spuds MacKenzie, Where's the beef?, Joe Isuzu, etc. The "crystal ball" theory deals with speculation. This isn't a campaign that may or may not happen, it is currently ongoing. There is nothing speculative about it. AriGold 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think I disagree that it has achieved that sort of notability, and I doubt that it will. It's not even a "Make 7up Yours" at this point (which doesn't have an article). I'm not sure where the criteria for a notable advertising campaign worthy of an encyclopedia article is, but I don't believe this comes close. A google search on a not-notable topic will necessarily return results that refer to it, so I'm not sure what that proves. Шизомби 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current ad campaign, may be remembered, may not. We remember Supds and Joe and the beef lady long after the fact. Without a crystal ball, no way to tell if this will stand the test of time. Fan1967 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There doesn't seem to be a need to delete it. The information is accurate (within the realm of the commercial), and verifiable. While the long-term relevance of the campaign may be in question, its existence is not. As long as the article is factual who's to say what others should or should not be able to look up on an encyclopedia where the content is entirely user supplied? Jedi697b 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There should probably be a waiting period for articles about commercials, as its hard to tell which advertising campaigns are "important" until after the fact. Wickethewok 04:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia is and should be a place where people can go to find answers to their questions. After seeing the commercials on TV, I went to the man laws website to find out who these people were. The site provided some information, but not enough for me to identify those people outside of my experience. The Wikipedia entry provides further information on these people's identities that is not readily available and collected anywhere else. Thus deletion of this article effectively deprives would-be seekers of information of an easy avenue to the answers they seek. This is the purpose of Wikipedia. With no compelling argument in favor of deletion, any deletion discussion should wait until this topic has *left* popular culture (should it do so), not while it is of legitimate interest. This commercial series is unique in that it begs investigation and participation, a characteristic uncommon in advertising. Kershner 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The series seems to be expanding and it's relevant in popular culture. Mnapier 21:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The laws are quite funny. My friends discuss the new ones when they're released, and while that may not be a difference, men across the world(if this happens to be running outside of the US) may discuss it at the water cooler, and would therefore, be notable. 209.33.36.146 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per D-Rock. lowercase 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I echo the comments of Kershner and Jedi697b. Comparing entries in Wikipedia to those that would be seen in normal encyclopedias should not serve as the sole barometer for what should be allowable in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has many strengths (and uses) above and beyond standard encyclopedias, and the ability to keep pace with current events is one of them. Tomwithanh 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Throw the term "crystal ball" around all you like, an advertising campaign with such big names is virtually guaranteed to quickly become major enough to deserve an article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comaimprint (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - People at work have been talking about it, I heard it on a sports radio show this morning they spent about 15 minutes discussing some of the funnier ones. I have yet to see the commerical but I have visted the web site based on what friends have told me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.64.83 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best include with a redirect to the article this is used in the ads for. Vegaswikian 22:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Vegaswikian, could you elaborate on what you are referring to? The ads are a collection of very similar television advertisements entitled 'Man Laws'. This article is the article for the ads themselves. The predominent content would be the cast (included) and the list of Man Laws from the commercial series (not yet in this article). Kershner 06:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. The advertising campaign is not notable yet, but if it becomes better known, the article can be recreated later. --Metropolitan90 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought this was the worst idea for an article that I could think of at the time, and I wanted to see if it would take off. Many Wikipedians like to chronicle everything that comes on TV, no matter how inane. Hey, it's on TV, so it must be kept, right? Brian G. Crawford 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is notable. I rarely talk about ad campaigns with my friends, and Man laws is one of them. Arvindn 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable campaign. This wiki entry was the only way I could actually find the official website, google searches came up empty. It also details every member of the square table, information you can't find anywhere else. Wikipedia is a source of information, and it gave me what I wanted. People tend to come here for... anything. There is plenty of useless facts filling the wikipedia, but they are only useless until you actually want to know it. There is nothing to distinguish this from say the history of my car.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.165.200 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. After watching the commercial I felt the need to find more information, and wikipedia had not only the website linking to the main site but also notable information. Many other advertising campaigns have wikis, and therefore this one needs to also, especially as many people (such as myself) feel the need to find information about it. --ReZips 01:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a campaign that can and does require more information with very notable people within the entire campaign. I believe because of the people involved, it is notable enough to keep. A re-evaulation should occur in four months, however. --Mystalic 02:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Any relevant info can be placed on the advertising section of the Miller Lite article. Lots of "new users" and anons seem to be all of a sudden popping up....you guys know what that means.--Jersey Devil 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable ad campaign with each of the men except two having their own wikipedia pages about them, and the two men who do not have wikipedia pages on them can be found at IMDB and also online at other places. The page may require more information but I believe that it should stay. MBob 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is getting huge, I've heard people talking about it and seen people post on Internet forums wondering who the individual characters are. --Liface 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see lots of claims of notability, without anything to substantiate it, except perhaps Kershner's notation of news articles. Whether news articles about ad campaigns are unusual and thus establish notability, I'm not sure. (Personally I don't care for this ad campaign or any fizzy yellow beer or lite fizzy yellow beer, but if notability really were established I wouldn't let that stand in the way of changing my recommendation.) Шизомби 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per the unreliable google test: "Man Laws" gave 3 of the top 10 five days ago, now it gives 8 of the top 10. The Man Laws website has received thousands of submitted man laws and has approved just over a hundred of them [11]. This interaction with the fans of the commercials is demonstrative of yet another reason why this article has continued merit. What separates this commercial series from the rest of the pack, granting notability and merit includes, but is not limited to:

It should be noted that it would probably be more appropriate for this article to be entitled 'Man Laws' instead of 'Man Law'. That error is my own. Kershner 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query Шизомби, in what way does this article not satisfy the definition of notable?: "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". Quite clearly, the commercial series prevalance on TV with a substantive 'cast', coupled with cast members on late night talk shows, news articles, blog activity and watercooler behavior establishes a wide interest group. As this is my first AfD, I am not sufficiently familiar with the Wikipedia usage of notability as a criteria to be certain that my interpretation equates that of the community as a whole. Kershner 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep i know several offenders of manlaws, and to me it is a very emotional subject.--Mattfoley 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment AFAIK blog activity counts for little or nothing and I'm not sure what watercooler activity you're referring to. Users posting in the AfD that they discuss this commercial at the watercooler definitely doesn't count for anything. A newspaper article in which it is reported that there is a lot of watercooler talk about this campaign might count for something (though I would suspect a slow news day and a lazy reporter working from a Miller Lite press release). Celebrities in a commercial is not unusual. The late night talk show appearances and news articles might be getting somewhere, as I wrote above, but again I'm not so sure that's unusual for a commercial either. There are any number of longer-running commercial campaigns that I can think of that don't have articles: Make 7 Up Yours, 1-800-CALL-ATT, the Old Navy Commercials, etc. (and which I'm not sure should have articles either) which to some degree makes me think this one shouldn't either. Can it be proven to be exceptionally popular (or unpopular), can it be proven to have been exceptionally successful (or unsuccessful), has it won any awards, has it been spoofed, etc.? An article for Tastes Great, Less Filling would make sense, since that campaign's notability can be easily established. Man Law, however: not now and not anytime soon, I suspect. Шизомби 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thank you for the explanation. Obviously we have material disagreements on the notability of this topic, but your comments lead me to a better understanding of your perspective on the matter and the usage of the term notable within the Wikipedia community. My primary contention on the difference between the ad campaigns you cite and this one is that this satisfies both a dissociation of product (similar to the other Wikipedia articles cited previously) and interactivity (create / talk about man laws). These two characteristics cause the audience to have questions and comments about the commercial series and not the product. The result of this is that Wikipedia can represent a place where information on the commercial can be collected and presented concisely and for which that information has a substantive audience, as demonstrated by the many 'keeps' noted above. Kershner 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Sigma Phi

comment: The first nomination was for yet another, equally nonnotable sororyty. The vote was delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta Sigma Phi.


My vote is delete solely on principle. I think the NYU article should have persisted since they were around before the USC sorority and it has the potential to be a useful article for women wanting to join sororities at NYU. Regardless, the NYU article was deleted on the grounds that the sorority was not notable on the national level. Likewise, the USC sorority is no more national than any other sorority or fraternity with just one chapter.

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

The result of the debate was Keep, but expand. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick C. Meredith

A sub-stub about a nn person. No information about why this person is notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Tkach Jr.

An article about an nn religious figure. Has no sourcing, appears to be a copyvio, and has no information about why this person is notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Longhair 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of God International (USA)

An article about an nn religious splinter group. Contains no information about why this group is important enough to be notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonamis

Creator removed a prod and two CSD tags, so brought here for discussion. Appears to miss WP:MUSIC, no cites, no indication of being signed. Delete Tony Fox 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Chapel, Liverpool

An article about an nn church in Liverpool. The article mentions that at some point the church changed from one form to another, but gives no specifics. No information about why this church is encyclopaedic or notable. Only gets 518 Google hits, most of which are for a hospital. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of industrial musicians

We have Category:Industrial musicians, do we need this too? -- stubblyhead | T/c 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. — May. 29, '06 [05:22] <freak|talk>

Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal

An article about an nn church in Montreal. Contains no information about why it is at all notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 405 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep, a major local landmark and a large and historic public institution. - SimonP 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable as historical building; could note that this represents an English-speaking institution in a substantially French-speaking city. Also 405 Google hits are a bit much for nn status. Dl2000 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the original poster of this article, (and my apologies for leaving it as a stub for so long, and for "vandalizing" the AfD, but only after someone pulled my original query on "nn church") I have taken great offence to the inital claim to someone who obviously does not know anything about the Canadian Milieu; there have been numerous events taken place in this building (CBC Concerts, Royal Visits, etc) as well as Sunday Worship. BTW, I'm not a Montrealer, but was present for the recent convocation of McGill University's Presbyterian College in the "A+P" --a very impressive building! And, this cathedral-like building is one of the few large Anglo Protestant churches remaining in downtown Montreal.Bacl-presby 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable historic building, reasons given by Bacl-presby, D12000 and SimonP. DVD+ R/W 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - established entity served/serving uncountable amount of worshippers. Lack of google hits should be less of a problem with regard to a religious institution that frankly has very little to do with the internet. --Shuki 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep - right on the edge of the notability threshhold as it is presented in the article. B.Wind 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Little Flower

An article about an nn church in maryland. Contains no information about why this church is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 311 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Mostly a copyvio. Delete RN 08:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Travel Portal

Commercial link Spam promoting two websites. Alas! CSD doesn't include spam!! So, I'm listing them here in Afd. --Ragib 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't have to reply, I'd leave it to the good judgement of fellow wikipedians to determine whether the two links are spam or not. From the votes, it definitely seems most, if not all, consider these as linkspam, and definitely wikipedia can live without having a collection of linkspam directing to your website. Thanks. --Ragib 06:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hickam's dictum

Non-notable, 9 hits on google, 1 repeat, 1 non-english Crossmr 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has been cited in the Journal of Internal Medicine, the Journal of Neuro-Opthamology and the New England Journal of Medicine. Who cares how many hits it has on google?--Pharos 06:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an important piece of medical doctrine, even if it is a little tongue-in-cheek. - Richardcavell 06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Scientizzle 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic is notable, not because of its level of popularity on the web, but because of its intimate connection as a polarity or balancing principle to a topic of central importance in diagnostic medicine. ...Kenosis 14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main reason that search results within Google do not turn up very significantly more "hits" is that most of the medical literature on the web is available only through an https (secure protocol) or otherwise requires log-in with a password to access relevant articles. This is typical of professional medical literature on the web. Indeed the New England Journal of Medicine search result appears to have come up only because of a meta-tag embedded in that particular page. The relevant aritlce itself is not available without payment of a subscription fee and logging into the secured portion of their database... Kenosis 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that if I went up to any doctor and asked them what Hickam's Dictum was a notable percentage of doctors should be able to tell me what it is? Notability has nothing to do with what it is, as say a balancing point for Occam's Razor. Notability would have to do in this case then, how notable it is within the medical community. How many people are at least familiar with what it is. While it may have been cited in three different journals, unless its actually notable inside the medical community it falls under only being notable to a small group, and according to wikipedia that qualifies as non-notable. As it is, from the google search its quite obvious the public at large likely has no idea what Hickam's Dictum is. I haven't seen the citations from the three journals, so I can't tell if they're major or minor citations, how often it was cited, and what the context for the citation was. --Crossmr 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reply: I am asserting that physicians as a class are increasingly aware of this term in professional discourse with one another. Yes, a very significant number of physicians will have heard of this principle today, and a competent physician will tend to immediately understand its significance in diagnostic methodology. The original statement, a combination of tongue-in-cheek with extreme seriousness, appears to be "People can have as many diseases as they damn-well please." It serves as a counterbalance to the standard concepts of Occam's razor and "Osler's rule" (commonly stated as "One disease to a patient", named after the late 19th Century physician William Osler)... Kenosis 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. All I was looking for was notability. When I asked for a source of notability on the article page, you removed the prod and told me to go through the deletion process which I did. Having never heard of this and with no real information or sign of notability resulting from google, it wouldn't be the first time someone tried to push a theory on here that wans't notable. --Crossmr 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just felt the template was too hasty. I appreciate your efforts at double-checking things. Take care. ...Kenosis 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I often heard this sentiment expressed by seasoned practitioners when I was learning the ropes of statistical consulting in medical research settings. Naturally I was disillusioned at first to find out how practically useless Ockham's razor and the often allied Bayes' rule were in actual practice, but it was an illusion well dissed. But I doubt if Google hits are a good test of notability, as I don't remember hearing the many variants of this maxim under this exact name. Jon Awbrey 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually then, thats a vote against notability. Its not a particular abstract theory. If people aren't referring to it by name and actually calling it that, then its not notable. --Crossmr 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Occam's razor and an extreme version called Osler's Rule (often casually stated as "one disease to a patient") are standard in the medical lexicon of the 20th Century. Occam's razor is an oft misunderstood principle, because it does not demand that every diagnosis be reduced to a single disease involving the simplest possible qualities and quantities. Rather, it demands all possible diagnoses (hypotheses) that explain all the symptoms be considered, shaving away any unnecessary elements in the hypothesis — which may well still leave multiple possible diagnoses remaining under consideration while investigating further. It is a conceptual razor, not a hatchet; but because of the extreme variants such as Osler's rule and other misunderstandings of the principle, counterbalancing principles such as Hickam's dictum have become necessary to keep excessive "reductionism" in check. The balance being: "As simple as possible (in keeping with all of the complexities of the situation), but no simpler than necessary to solve the problems". ... Kenosis 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I said only that "I don't remember hearing [it] under this exact name", and though that may speak only to my memory, cog.sci folks can tell you that people in general are better at remembering the gist of information content than they are remembering the incidentals of a particular syntactic utterance. Plus, I know all sorts of heuristics and theorems and stuff that have different names in engineering or psychology than they do in mathematics. And then, of course, others have already testified to the eponymous Dr. Hickam being immortalized in reputable sources. If you review the pages on William of Ockham and Ockham's razor, you will note that it is customary practice in this area to attribute a historical accumulation of interpretations, and even the sediment of subsequent syntax to the legendary harbinger of a distinctive idea, even when these glosses and not a small measure of pure shine have yet to be found among his or her works, but are only asserted to share its spirit. Funny though, I do remember the damn well part, and will insist on its being restored for the sake of idiomatic accuracy. Jon Awbrey 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm a medical student and I've come across this one twice, both from senior medical staff (although I always thought it was Iccam :-) see the Occam's Razor page history ;) ) Gergprotect 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Riedl

Unverifiable person. A google search gives no relevant results although does give some German websites, so could any german-speaking users can check them out? Anyway the talk page discussion shows some people have already tried to find references but have failed to get any. If references are so hard to come by probably person is non-notable. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power supply unit

I believe that Power supply would best be titled Power supply unit; this redirect page needs to get out of the way so that Power supply can be moved. ~ Booyabazooka 06:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this nomination is withdrawn, because there's way too much confusion over it. I thought this would be a simple task. I'm relisting this as a requested move, as that's probably where it should have been in the first place. ~ Booyabazooka 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism, patent nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Fartio Brothers, Fartio, Lupeegi

These three articles do not seem to refer to anything but the fantasy of their author. Conscious 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, article underwent an extensive rewrite throughout the course of this AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full service

slang term for sexual intercourse, apparently created just to link some spam page. It should be a redirect bogdan 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just took another look at the article page and then clicked on the link to the user page of OrangePeel, who created the page. I am now concerned that OrangePeel is engaged in some deliberately disruptive editing. He has removed all comments on his talk page regarding a number of other problems his editing has generated. His edits, at least at first glance, seem to focus on recategorizing various articles that relate to erotica or commercial sexual activity. I don't know if he is actually causing real problems or not but perhaps an admin might want to take a look at the pattern of strange edits and stranger replies he has left on other user's pages. (Will Beback's talk page comes to mind.) Ande B 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, the deletion nomination is inaccurate. it is not a slang term, it is the term used for a specific act within the sex and massage industry. heres the link[12] and a stub has been added. individual who has nominated this article has harassed before. OrangePeel 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine, you acknowledge it is a term. Definitions of "terms" are not suitable for articles on WP. Definitions belong elsewhere. Ande B 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The page certainly is quite different at this time. Looks like a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with WP policy regarding standards for disambiguation (even though I have created one!). Does this one currently comply with any disam standards? Ande B 23:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it can not be a dab page since it is an article rather then a list of links to articles about the various forms of Full Service. I'd also add that if you look at the links to the articlem they are not about sex but mostly about broadcasting. I did not include broadcasting since I'm not sure what the term means in this case. Vegaswikian 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual release

slang term for masturbation, apparently created just to link some spam page. It should be a redirect bogdan 07:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by Mailer diablo. Sango123 (e) 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern global music

This looks like original research. Conscious 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, closing early per WP:SNOW. 26 deletes, 2 clearly valid keeps, 1 kind of fuzzy keep and a sack of falsified sock puppets make a tasty stew that serves no purpose.  RasputinAXP  c 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Dragons

Made-up baseball team, from what seems to be a made-up book (at least, its title gets zero Google hits).

See also 2009 MLB Playoffs (now speedy deleted and protected) and 2009 MLB Postseason (its re-creation), by the same author. Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was actually made by User:64.12.116.69 -- Kevin 10:38, 24 May 2006
  • If I may add, the ISBN would not be enough - the article would still need to show that the book was sold in at least 10,000 copies or was otherwise notable. Crum375 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and a book can get an ISBN without actually having been published at all. I've also seen ISBNs on such unlikely things as card decks, bookmarks and stuffed animals! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Since the only author requested deletion, I deleted the article and am closing this nom early.. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmouche (name)

Thought about speedying it, proded instead, prod removed and now we are here. Only original research (and is highly speculative) and poorly written. Hardly seems notable, Karmouche+surname gives only 13 hits. If someone wanted to create a proper article, they could start this from scratch without losing much/anything. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - appears alread userified and the originator has added a comment eh this never worked cos i dont know nuthin about how to use this. you can delete this now. which has been reverted by Tawkerbot2. - Peripitus 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prune tang

Bogus sociological article about sex among the elderly. When asked for references to this neologism, response has been to put up a citation to scholarly journal -- as if sociologist would use a boy's junior-high phrase -- and to slap a "vandalism" warning on my talk page. Calton | Talk 08:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. The phrase is used because that's what the elderly themselves use. The only thing I put on your talk page was a request to explain why my reference wasn't good enough. You've been nothing but rude and abusive to me since I created this page (my first on Wikipedia) and attempted to work WITH you, and I don't understand why you have a vendetta of some sort against me. Bongout 08:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase is used because that's what the elderly themselves use. Really? Mind providing a smidgen of a scrap of a particle of evidence for that, as I've repeatedly asked?
  • You've been nothing but rude and abusive to me since I created this page Yes, those standard requests for verification are so rude. --Calton | Talk 08:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided a scholarly, peer-reviewed source for the use of that phrase. However, that problem could be solved by moving the article rather than deleting it, so that's a discussion for somewhere and sometime else. As well, searching Google for "Prune tang" will provide amble evidence of the phrase's use.
I never claimed your requesting verification was rude. However, the snide, sarcastic remarks you used to request verification was rude. The way you accused me of editing your talk page to add a vandalism warning was rude (since, afterall, placing something like that on the page of someone so obviously committed to fighting vandalism as yourself would be farcical). The way you abrasively refused to clarify why you had a problem with my reference was rude. The way you put the article on AfD right after I explained to you in polite, civil words exactly how the paper was relevant was rude. I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I feel you're unfairly bullying me. Bongout 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asking you to back up your bogus-sounding claim with actual evidence and bringing it to wider attention when you refuse: very nasty behavior, ennit? But if your claims about this article -- and this word -- are true, you ought to welcome the attention, where you can prove the veracity of your claims and show me up by actual demonstration (instead of off-topic complaining). I'm asking you to prove a claim: if that makes me rude, then that means you're dealing with an army of Grinches here, since simple verifiability is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Don't like it? Go to Urban Dictionary or Uncyclopedia and try your luck there. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Google, the reference provided does not exist, nor does the journal the reference was taken from. The author of the reference, "Ping-Chun Hsiung" does exist (she's an associate professor at Toronto University). I am attempting to email her via a provided address to verify that she did indeed write such an article. Stay tuned. -- saberwyn 08:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google isn't an authoritative source for scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, I believe you may be wrong in your assumption that it's the Ping-Chun Hsiung of the University of Toronto that we're talking about. Bongout 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already provided a number of sources that show the phrase is indeed in use, including by the elderly. It's notable because it is an entire movement among some populations of the elderly. Bongout 09:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already provided a number of sources. For the umpteenth time, you have done NO such thing. You stuck in a scholarly looking footnote for a probably non-existent journal: "Prune tang" is not in the title of the alleged paper, nor is there use of the term in a quote from the paper -- or, indeed, any quotes or direct references whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My compliments - you're working hard. However, the article does not go into sociological analysis. Its referent journal does not exist according to ATHENS or MUSE (or Google Scholar for that matter). There are no web references, even disreputable ones, using the term in this way. Give it up. Vizjim 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does go into sociological analysis. ATHENS and MUSE simply don't carry all journals, especially not one as highly specialized as the one I drew the article from. We should wait for further verification before deleting the article. Wikipedia is a great place for notable but obscure topics. 09:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The onus is on you to provide checkable verification for the article. A seemingly non-existent journal is not verification. If you can provide another scholarly article that cites that publication, a library reference anywhere in the world, details of its publishers, or a website for the journal or its sponsoring institution, there will at least be something to go on. As it stands, this article is an unverified dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working to provide you with all the information I have that could possibly be relevant, yet the deletion procedure continues before I even have a chance to provide it, let alone before it can be WP:Ved. I am currently looking into things, but the best I can give you write now is the address of the publisher listed in the journal: Department of Sociology Publishing Division, University of Tirana, Square "Nene Terezat", Albania. Please stand by while more information is obtained. Bongout 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's oddly unsurprising that when I phone the University of Tirana (+355 4 228402), the lady there has no record of this journal. Though this discussion is livening up a tremendously boring day at work no end, I think you're reaching the end of this one. Vizjim 10:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's more surprising is that in your user page, where, by the way, you say you enjoy obscure topics, you make no mention of knowing Albanian. The University of Tirana is a big institution, and do you really expect a mere receptionist at a general inquiry number to know of every publication at the university? It's more likely that some combination of the following interfered: a) communications difficulties; b) ignorance; c) disinterest in helping a foreign national, Albania still being one of the most insular countries on the Continent; and d) unluckiness. I have a copy of the journal, so it does exist. If people are unable to contact the publisher, I am willing to mail the journal to someone trusted who will verify that it does indeed exist. However, I really don't think we will have to resort to that. I am confident the publisher can be contacted. Bongout 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't speak Albanian: the person I spoke to spoke English (and, by the way, they don't deserve your series of cultural stereotypes - they were lovely). I don't expect them to know the journal: I do expect them to know publishing divisions. Again, I repeat: the onus is on you to verify, and you have not done so. Vizjim 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you knew more about sociology, you would know it is very common for people to be excessively but only obstensibly kind to people who they consider to be part of an out group they feel they should be antagonistic to. I understand the onus is on me, and I'm trying everything I can think of to veryify it to your satisfaction. However, due to the obscurity (but not invalidity) of my source, I seem to be having trouble doing that. Do you have any suggestions? Bongout 11:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. The Journal of Comparative and Contrastive Sociology does not exist. Name the publisher and provide proof of its existence if it does. It has no impact factor [15], and as such I question its use as a verifiable scholarly source. -- Samir धर्म 10:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a classic argument from authority. Also, it can hardly be said that Thomson -- itself a publisher -- wouldn't have a vested interest in keeping certain journals from looking good. Bongout 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer this one: What institution is Dr. Hsiung affiliated with (if not the University of Toronto). Should be right in the article... -- Samir धर्म 10:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the journal, she is (or was) a professor specializing in comparative sociology at Liaoning Normal University in Dalian. Bongout 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that was a classic straw man. Delete. --Agamemnon2 10:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a straw man. I'm not ignoring the thrust of the concern, i.e. the sometimes difficult task of finding a copy of an obscure scholarly journal. Just as I have done with everyone from the beginning of this whole mess, I have complied as completely and to the best of my ability as I can. You can dismiss my specific argument against Samir's concerns, but if you look into it at all, you'll see that I have been very amenable and compliant. Bongout 11:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without getting into an intricate ontological debate that is itself of and on ontology, I can assure you that, for any normal sense of the word 'exist', this phenemenon/movement does indeed exist. Bongout 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. If it does exist at all, it's a dicdef and not a Wikipedia entry. Devotchka 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --LambiamTalk 18:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely no evidence that the only source exists. I'm sure that even a small journal could muster one Google hit. -- Mithent 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think this article is an excellent addition to wikipedia's sex archives. The journal cited is also a scholarly and verifiable source. I invite all the users who are pressing for this fine article's deletion to go visit Phoenix, Arizona and experience Prune tang for themselves. Aside from some sexual first-timer pleasure, they will be hit with the undeniable fact that this movement is alive and well in the United States of America. --[User:Daloonik|Daloonik]] 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC) User's 5th edit on Wikipedia. The first, note, was to the article creator's User Page [16]. Hmm, I sense knit footwear.--Calton | Talk 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly obvious delete, although the author is to be congratulated (is that the word I'm looking for?) for their dogged determination. Picking an article written by an author in China published in a Albanian journal was a nice touch; props to Vizjim for the legwork. If this journal does exist, a scan of the masthead with the board of editors, and the table of contents of the issue in question would make me pause long enough to reconsider my vote (and eat my hat). Highly entertaining. bikeable (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, this latest delete suggestion should not be considered, since the author mentioned is neither in China, nor is Albanian. Please eat your hat. Daloonik 03:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 12:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Revolution

Tagged as speedy - maybe it is. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC (one album, no mention of label etc.) RN 08:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Fifers

Non-notable sports group, vanity, deprodded Koffieyahoo 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by MONGO. Sango123 (e) 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jestina & Jestina for Lillian

Likely a hoax (see page history and also Billy Collins article), but listing this here before deleting and blocking the creator, just to be sure. Found zero outside Wikipedia Google hits for query "Billy Collins" Jestina. Delete. Also delete Jestina for Lillian for lack of other content than verbatim poetry/lyrics. jni 09:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 Delete RN 09:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles James Abbott

Disputed as to whether the page should be kept of deleted.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of web development companies

I found this orphan AFD, so I'm making sure that it's listed properly, but I also feel that it should be deleted because Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think this page should stay and would be a good resource for people who are looking for web design companies.

- -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Web site design uk (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 May 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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Real Lancashire

A quixotic movement, affiliated to one which is barely notable, and a movement which scores a whopping 275 ghits, including Wikipedia mirrors. Which are near the top. This is essentially another example of the traditional counties movement pushing their POV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It has the support of at least 6 sitting MPS, both Labour and Conservative. It has widespread popular support and is frequently mentioned in the media. Basically you think an entry should be deleted just because you don't agree with the subject's aims. You are the one pushing a POV here. I've made sure the article is unbiased. Strong keep Lancsalot 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to add references to those media stories to the article? --Rob 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the nominator that verifiability of this particular group is very poor, but can someone fill in us non-Brits about the issue at stake here? My county was part of a much larger county back in the 17th-18th century, but no one seems to care these days since the modern counties more accurately reflect modern political divisions. Or is this more like Retrocession (District of Columbia) where billions of tax dollars (pounds?) are at stake? — AKADriver ☎ 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you recommended deletion of ABC as well so you clearly have an agenda here. It was decided to keep that article so why are we having the same debate again? As I pointed out FORL clearly has significant influence in Parliament, having the patronage of at least 6 MPs. How many other pressure groups have this? Chances of success are high - several traditional counties have already been restored and FORL's aims were endorsed by the local government commission in 1994 (you clearly haven't read the article). Lancsalot 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I have three agendas actually: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In order to satisfy my agendas, the subject of an article must have sufficient coverage form neutral and authoritative external sources that we can ensure it is covered neutrally. This group gets around one tenth the number of Google hits I do. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If substantial coverage of this is demonstrated (by citations) from multiple independent sources, I'll happily say keep. Without that, we're just promoting a cause for some group. I figure WP:CORP is the best guideline for this, and it fails it miserably. --Rob 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP does not apply since this is not a corporation. It is a pressure group. Should every pressure group be deleted from Wikipedia? Lancsalot 09:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got a better guideline? I'm open to suggestions. Here's the part that is relevant "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". Now substitute "company" for "pressure group", and it works great. We can't follow WP:V and WP:NPOV policies, unless this requirement is met. We shouldn't delete all pressure group articles. We should delete all ones lacking potential for verifiability and neutrality. Now, you claimed "It has widespread popular support and is frequently mentioned in the media". Care to provide those sources in the article? If they exist, that should be easy for you to do. I'm not sure why you dislike WP:CORP's application. It's actually a stunningly low threshold to meet. No need for popularity, success, influence, fame, notoriety, or anything like that. Just substantive coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. I can't see setting the inclusion requirements any lower than that. --Rob 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just do a search on google you will see that it's been mentioned in Parliament, on the BBC, Manchester 2002, Lancashire Life, This is Lancashire etc. Also search for "Bolton Lancashire" = 500,000 hits, "Bolton Greater Manchester" = 80,000 hits. This clearly demonstrates the popular support for their aims. Lancsalot 09:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about whether Bolton is in lancashire or Greater Manchester, or the traditional counties movement in general, it's an article about a group called the Friends of Real Lancashire. Just zis Guy you know? 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    • Three slots on prime-time BBC television [17], [18], [19].
    • Mentioned in Parliamentary Hansard [20].
    • Patronage from 10% of Lancashire MP's.
    • Discussed twice in Lancaster City Council meetings, includsing a motion passed endorsing and supporting their campaign [21] [22].
    • Discussed by South Lakeland council, some support from Cumbria County council's working party noted [23].
    • Mentions of FORL and support for Lancashire Day initiative on:
      • Wyre Council's website [24]
      • and more significantly on the Lancashire County council website [25]
    • Mentioned in NHS ambulance authority reforms documents [26]
    • Mentions in
      • Bolton Evening News (multiple) [27],
      • Westmorland Gazette, [28]
      • other Lancashire online news websites (multiple mentions) [29]
      • and BBC news [30]
      • (I can vouch for appearances in at least two other Lancashire media; however their websites do not keep archives; verifiability does not equate to access via Google - this is verifiable via print archives).
Multiple non-trivial published mentions? See above. Verifiability? This group certainly exist, and their views have been considered by decision-makers. Notability? They are certainly notable enough for the councils in question to consider, and this is the important measure of a pressure group's notability (but notwithstanding the media mentions above). Neutral point of view? That's a question for the article-writers; articles are not deleted because they are POV; they are discussed and re-written until they are NPOV. See any other politics/pressure group article.
Someone researching this topic or watching Lancashire media will see mention of this group, and there should be an encyclopaedic article they can turn to for reference. An article including the above citations is not worthy of deletion. Aquilina 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First some links aren't on point (at least the first three). This article is about the specific group. Somebody needs to update the article (not this discussion page) with independent sources about "Friends of Real Lancashire", not just the issue of old counties. The problem with articles like this, is they can sit forever in a poorly sourced state, because there so obscure, nobody cares to update them. If it's not updated in the course of AFD, it probably never will be. --Rob 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for the moment, I'll abstain. I'll wait to see if the article is updated. I suppose now, there's a chance it will become worthwhile. I don't quite understand why independent sources weren't added at the start. I'll try to check the article just before the AFD closes, and cast an appropriate vote then. --Rob 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I should have left a further note about the first three links (those from the BBC) - if you click on the "reveal extra detail" button under the description heading on each of those pages, it gives a list of the screen caps, interviewees and content of each of the news items - that's where the explicit mentions are.
I am currently extremely busy indeed in real life, and have very little time to edit (see my user page and contributions). I am willing to incorporate this information as soon as I can, should nobody else do it first. I just wanted to show that this article has the potential to meet Wikipedia standards, and didn't want to see it deleted before I had the opportunity to make it so. Aquilina 15:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now had a go at including these references in the article. Lancsalot 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you clarify exactly which parts of WP:RS the BBC, Hansard and records from county councils fail to meet? Aquilina 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence above suggests the converse. Please could you clarify why you believe the group is non-notable, despite being considered in local and national government and multiple appearances in national media? Aquilina 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being mentioned in Hansard just requires an MP to say the words. BBC Local TV coverage ... meh. Local newspapers... Gee, it's not like they're ever short of stories. -- GWO
The point about Hansard is that their campaign was being advocated by an MP - they weren't just being namechecked. And the nature of the group means that they will primarily be of interest to local rather than national press. This does not mean they are insignificant (Lancashire is a county of 5m people). Wikipedia has entries for various Cornish nationalist groups which are of far less significance. Lancsalot 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pressure groups exist to influence councils in their decision making. There is evidence above that councils and parliament have taken this pressure group's views into account. That establishes notability; surely anybody studying the actions of these decision making bodies should be able to research here the groups explicitly mentioned? This group's actions have been covered in the most notable regional media sources, and this region is the size of a smallish country. Aquilina 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it would do the same. Lancsalot 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like that whittle away my faith that this AfD is helping us to write an encyclopaedia. Aquilina 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - clearly meets the guidelines for notability and verifiability. Really wasn't expecting to vote this way, but the links are convincing. Vizjim 11:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. And I'm from Yorkshire. Ouch, that hurt. Jcuk 11:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep... with a lower case k' - whilst I am ideologically opposed to the group, (being a Greater Mancunian!) and would love to have this pressure group expelled from the universe (and not towards the heavens either!), I agree with Aquillina's earlier comments that it is very much a verifiable body, which is more county specific than the Association of British Counties, and . It does however need a little cleanup/revamp and is in danger of violating NPOV in the future given that the organisation (!?) does have a clear agenda. Keep with a cleanup. Jhamez84 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - just because the nominator doesn't agree with the group's policy is not a valid reason for deleting the article! The same argument was used to try and delete the main Association of British Counties article, but as that clearly failed, this should fail too. There are numerous reliable and verifiable references to this group and their work. Owain (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbat

  • Delete nn neoligism created by blogger. Last afd was kept via no consenus without, it seems, the closing admin taking out the keep votes from meatpuppets. Jersey Devil 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In very wide use- both on the internet as shown by google [31], and in the press where I get scores of hits from newspapers like the Washington Post, Boston Herald, Times of London etc. -- JJay 11:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Books that describe word usage are called "dictionaries" -- GWO
Gee. Well, that would be because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- GWO
User's 2nd edit at wikipedia. -- JJay 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee University Shinty Club

Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty ClubYdam 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque

Unknown in the medical community, non-medical term, violates WP:OR, WP:NOT, copyvio,[32] is unencyclopedic and Wikipedia should not list all possible idiosyncrasies posing as medical condition/therapy. Or is it an advertisement?

Dr. Anderson is in the business of selling such products, as well as books and media that promote the concept.

Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin please note that this is the same person that put it up for deletion --mboverload@ 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the nominator can have his say, can't he? Or, is nominating itself sufficient?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term clocks up a fair number of ghits, however those are almost entirely on websites selling things. Remove this as a neologism that hasn't cauhgt on. Dr Zak 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDefend vigorously blocking POVAdverSpammingFraudulent editors or merge into a "health fraud (colon)" article. Tearlach's original article was good, there is some merit in having an article on a fraud like this, but unless the POV-pushing anonymous editor can be prevented from turning it into apparent support for the ridiculous and self-serving claims involved and a sales tool for quackery and charlatanry WP is a bette rencyclopaedia without it. Tearlach should be notified, having started it. Midgley 12:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't Answers.com uncriticaly copy Wikipedia content, rather than it being a copyvio?. Midgley 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, had another look, and (whispering) it would seem you are right. Making it worse, because wikipedia is now the source.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have just changed it to stating that it is a health fraud in the first line. I think it is important that we dispel this myth on wikipedia. --mboverload@ 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mboverload. I've no great attachment to the article (I didn't come to it until late 2005). But it is a fairly entrenched and vigorously promoted scam, with more Ghits than many other topics in Category:Quackery. Despite the hassle, I think there's more benefit in shedding light on it than sweeping it under the carpet. Tearlach 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case we should keep it in some form. I'm bothered by the amount of effort that could involve. A version would be difficult because it is frankly not stable. I'd actually support reverting to Tearlach's original version, I don't think there is great improvement since. I do wonder if a change of title, so that this quackery is dealt with within the frame of an article on people who pay to have their bottoms washed out, what the colon actually does etc. Perhaps putting "fraud" in the title eg Mucoid plaque (health fraud) (or even Health fraud (mucoid plaque) might actually reduce the conceptual problem, and reduce the appearance of reality it gets via Google and answers.com and so on. Sorry to run on.Midgley 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The (whatever) in names is really only used to distinguish things with the same name. I'm making this up, but say Chicken Egg (hippie movement) and Chicken Egg (band) --mboverload@ 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... thus far ... I could criticise it myself in that it mixes data and classification, but WP:IS NOT an ontology or relational. And the brackets are optional. Midgley 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I check my Wikipedia watchlist obsessively so don't worry about any edit getting past me. --mboverload@ 07:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This "condition" is mentioned every night on multiple television networks via infomercials. The people perpetrating this lie are making it up in order to make a quick buck, and consumers need to have some source of truth. Wikipedia entries rate highly in search engines, and this article may educate some otherwise ignorant consumers. Not a real medical condition, but that doesn't stop the con-men trying to push their "colon cleansing" products. I can't watch late night TV without seeing this scam. Besides, we have seperate articles on phrenology, homeopathy, and dozens of other health scams.
  • Rename but keep as notoriety established. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow University Shinty Club

Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty Club Ydam 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews University Shinty Club

Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty Club Ydam 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veripic

Blatant advertisement. I caught this article months ago on RC Patrol and edited, wikified and tagged it as needing cleanup and references. Since then nothing has been done except to make it more blatantly into an advert. Hasty Delete Zunaid 11:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 14:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoArt

bordering on patent nonsense, probably original research, link looks like advertising... the works, really! Happy-melon 11:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet-Elite war

nn video game fancruft. The search Prophet-Elite war Halo (without quotation marks) gets a massive 34 hits on google AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 11:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaVaR freeware

New DAVAR freeware page was created. Delete this old article so it is not duplicated. ValenteM 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naismith Family, Carolina Family

Earlier deleted via WP:PROD, then contested and restored. The reason for its deletion still stands: it's an apparent neologism with no sources and none that appear on Google. Most hits for "Naismith family" relate to his literal family. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research etc. Delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being bold and adding Carolina Family to this AfD, as it appears to be another related neologism created by the same user. Ral315 (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cull Group

Advertising article for non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Originally listed for Afd on 18th May by Anon user after prod on 10th May. Peripitus 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to follow up, at the time of prod'ing the above, I also prod'ed a number of other article creations by the same user. These have in the meantime been reverted, but included Jeff seaver and Freethought Association of West Michigan. See Special:Contributions/Jeffseaver and contributions from at least two other IPs to those pages for more possible AfDs. dewet|✉ 14:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford scholar

Modified nomination comment: this was created by a vandal and looks like a prank or spam for a minor hotel[34], but please note Bduke's comment below: it seems pretty old (founded 1887) and may have some local historical significance to Melbourne. Presumably just a form of spam. Seems like a completely insignificant hotel. The author, Privacypolicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also vandalized other articles, has repeatedly removed an {{importance}} tag from the article, and a request on his talkpage to explain the importance of the hotel was just blanked without comment.[35] up+land 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added what little I know, but I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Melbourne's older pubs. The Oxford is very popular and certainly notable in Melbourne; not in Young and Jackson's league but probably in the top ten. Unfortunately it's own web site is (like many of Melbourne's pubs) mostly incomplete, incoherent, incorrect, and filled with broken javascript. -- Synapse 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see that you added anythink. Did you forget to save it? --Bduke 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears so :( I only expanded on the location and features/interior, anyway, I'll make sure to save it this time. -- Synapse 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iraq War veterans

The function of this list is handled more effectively by the categories Category:United States military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison and Category:American Iraq War veterans. Keeping the list simply asks for it to stagnate. Kcordina Talk 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Simplified Bible

Completing nomination. Conscious 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:New Simplified Bible:

I am requesting that this article is deleted.

  • This article is, I believe, merely advertisment
  • Despite the large size, I believe that most of the content (always written without a signon) was by the author of the translation; if this were not the case I doubt that the article would even exist. There are many things which make me suspect that: edits always done anonymously, huge content on something really non-notable, the wikipedia edits usually contain "according to the author...", when I added a list of critiscims of the translation in the article the rebuttal appeared on the authors site and links were added to the rebuttals within the wikipedia article.
  • This translation (despite the author having laboured for many hours on it), is non-notable. It has never been published and never looks likely to be notable.
  • It was already deleted previously and has been recreated

It might be thought that I have something against the translation since I have put a large amount of effort into the article describing why I believe the translation is a bad translation, but I fully support articles on notable bad translations, such as the Jehovah's Witness official translation, but I do not support articles on extremely non-notable translations, and whether it is a good or bad translation is irrelevant. In someways it makes me sad if my "criticisms of the translation" part of this article go (which I think is a good rebuttal of the translation errors made), but the real problem with this article is that it is just self-promotion. Brusselsshrek 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the first nomination. Conscious 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Don't know if there are any other notability guidelines for this, but it isn't like new electronically distributed Bible translations are threatening to fill the encyclopedia with translation-cruft. This doesn't read like the first article with was justly deleted, and comes closer to being encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a new translation; it's a self-published copy-edit of existing translations. --John Nagle 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AFAICT, this does not meet WP:WEB. Basically seems like someone did WP:OR, put it on the Web, and expects to use WP as a vehicle to promote it. Crum375 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. --LambiamTalk 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Smerdis's inspection above, don't think it qualifies. --Chaser
  • Delete as generally non-notable, though I don't think WP:WEB or WP:OR should be applied to Bible translations, nor this for that matter. --Chaser (T) 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep well...it doesn't sound like advert to me, but it's only got 25^2 (=625) Ghits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per first AFD. Wickethewok 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I mentioned in the introduction to this AfD request I did extensive work on this article during which I became highly suspicious that ALL the other content which was added anonymously was done by the author of the translation themself. It is difficult to convey to you without a great deal of work how just how much it seemed that I was writing some sort or information in the "Criticisms of the translation" section, and all of a sudden, under an anonymous edit, there would be a rebuttal written in an encyclopedic style of the type "According to the author...blah...blah...blah". An example of this sort of very suspicious style of editing:
  • In the Revision as of 09:11, 3 April 2006 I wrote ridiculing the extremely grandiose name which the author had chose for the translation "The New Simplified Bible Limited Edition II". Then, in the Revision as of 10:45, 4 April 2006 in one of a number of anonymous edits the article the name of the Bible is suddenly no longer "Limited Edition II". Now, had the Bible actually changed name and some observant Wikipedian was updating this newly found important information or was it (as I suspect) really the author of the translation trying to hide one of the more easily hidden stupidities of his self-promotion having read my encycolopedic criticism in the article?
  • If you think this is actually the author of the translation doing some self-promotion, then take a look at the further edits done at the same session by the anonymous 4.228.204.115 or for example the suspiciously similar IP address 4.228.204.206.
Brusselsshrek 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was it's already been merged and made into a {{R from song}}. — May. 24, '06 [18:22] <freak|talk>

My Shit's Fucked Up

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusselsshrek (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a nomination. That's not even a sentence. Please remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and that a well-written nomination can give a big boost to the value of the discussion itself, and to your chances of getting your way. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 DELETE RN 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandwiche

Vanity page. Skeezix1000 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temeka's Video

Non-notable video store. Does not meet the criteria in WP:CORP. Skeezix1000 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eeriecore

I think this page is practically vandalism. Possibly another attempt to reclassify nu metal bands so the author can try to pass of their tastes as more crdible. I have never heard this term used in this context, it has almost no links, it is poorly explained and devoid of information. Switch 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 25 Ghits only cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands the article is next to useless as it does not mention a single proponent of the supposed genre - only its "influences". Were there any actual information in the article it might be more worthwhile; but even then, as has been said, the lack of Google hits (nearly all Wiki mirrors or Myspace pages) suggests that it has never been used in a critical context. Seb Patrick 14:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to make a practically-unheard of term seem notable. Devotchka 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'd love to add something to the discussion, but it's all been said. -- Kicking222 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of Refuge

This article does not describe a traditional or widespread Buddhist practice, but is the invention of one person; it is unverifiable (all mentions on the web point back to this article) and there is no evidence that anyone actually uses it. This makes it a subject which is too trivial for Wikipedia. The username of the person who created this article is also verifiably linked to that of the stated author of the text [37], suggesting that this is a vanity project. The introduction to the article also gives the false impression that this is a generally used Buddhist text, which is not the case. RandomCritic 13:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket G2

This software has been in "limited alpha" for more than a year. The website tracking the project, http://www.pocketg2.com/ is stagnant. Its forum has less than 200 posts. Mikeblas 14:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zvi Mowshowitz

Closer's notes
The only argument in this deletion debate was notability. Those in favour of deletion raised the argument that the article did not meet WP:BIO (an argument made without qualification), and an argument that card players generally are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Conversely, IdahoEv made a comprehensive argument about the subject's notability and prominence within his field.
In my opinion, the "keep" argument was by far the most persuasive and outweighed the limited and weak arguments raised in favour of deletion.

Delete this professional magic card player. I mean, really! 172 unique Google hits [38] which is very very few for a dude who used to be a "popular internet writer". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am pressuming he confined most of his writings to just a few sites, which is common to do. Even very popular writers might post all their writings to a single site. Mathmo 03:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BIO: Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports. Zvi has won a Pro Tour and a Grand Prix, made four Pro Tour Top 8s, and earned a total of over $140,000 playing Magic. -- Norvy (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note on professional magic

... for those who consider articles such as this merely "fanboyish", or don't consider the game to be a "sport".

Magic is played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and played professionally by tens of thousands. The Magic professionnal world championship has been held annually since 1994. Individual events have prize purses over $200k, the Pro Tour's annual purse is $240k, and the top pros have lifetime winnings well in excess of $300k.

Magic has all the trappings of a smallish professional sport: thousands of professional players, television coverage, player sponsorships, large prize purses, an international governing body, trade publications in both print and electronic media, and a Hall of Fame.

Magic should be considered the same as any other professional game/sport played for money, such as Chess, Poker, or Pool, and as such its important, famous, or influential players are eligible for inclusion. Given that many other games with professional competitions are treated like sports WRT WP:BIO (Wikipedia contains entire pages just for lists Go_players and Poker Players, for example), Magic should be no different. It is certainly newer than many other professional games, and perhaps attracts types of players some would consider "fanboys", but those facts on their own shouldn't constitute a basis for not treating it seriously as a professional sport. I would also note that there is significant and growing overlap between professional Magic and professional Poker; a number of Magic's top players are also professional Poker players, including Thomas Keller, Noah_Boeken, Jon_Finkel, and David Williams

As an international game, players like Zvi are visible to a wider audience than the typical US college sports player.

Phrases like these ("professional magic card player. I mean, really!" and "obscure non-notable fancruft") expose a fair amount of personal bias about what constitutes a legitimate sport.

Zvi in particular may not have won as much as some of the others, but was probably more influential on the game's evolution than any other single player. IdahoEv 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hart

He sounds like a top bloke, but there's nothing to suggest he's notable, though that information has been asked for. --Hughcharlesparker 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable sources can be provided. I only got 54 ghits for '"ken hart" "dogface soldier"', but it may be that there's info available in back issues of stars and stripes or something. -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wrote a notable song with sufficient additional accomplishments to be considered notable himself. Those additional accomplishments need to be sourced, however. Powers 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I must say that I didn't realize that by putting an unsung hero into the annals of cyber history would cause such a stir, but this is good. I want to say Thanks to those of you who say Keep and can see that the significant importance of Wikipedia is to historically log events, people, places, things, happenings, etc. that have never been given their due notoriety. I intend to keep my personal association with Ken Hart out of this article, and keep it completely factual with the help of Wikipedians... I work for my livlihood, and have limited time to grow this article, but I hope that the Wikiculture shall bare with me as I provide enough facts to allow others to assist with the article and spin-off other articles from this man's life that need to be known as well. As noted, Mr Hart died in February, and, coincidentally, his wife Jane has just passed away peacefully this past Monday morning..there are others in Frankfort Kentucky and military veterans who will supply me with the facts and/or become Wikipedians themselves. This is the least I can do for my friend and a man that touched so many lives. This includes prominent people, some of whom were not aware that Wikipedia even existed. This article can only produce a positive karma within Wikipedia. THANK YOU --ZorroZ 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that as written it is a memorial and not an encylopedia entry. For instance, "lovely" wife would have to go (although I have no doubt about that fact myself), as well as the many obit-like items. IOW, a major rewrite is needed to transform what is currenly an obit into a proper WP entry. But being a publisher, actor, WWII pilot and co-composer of a famous song sung by troops everywhere with a monument for the song, assuming all properly sourced, IMO merits a WP:BIO entry, certainly under the "WP is not paper" policy. Crum375 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (author request) Kusma (討論) 15:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carsparefinder

Delete as advertisement. Previously prodded...tag removed by author. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.Nagaraja(M.T.B.)

No sources, and no evidence of notability. From reading the talk page of the editor who created it, it looks like the material has been deleted once already.- Motor (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep (revised below). Having userfied this article (in an even worse state than this), I am prepared to be lenient but netgir netgir must:
    • Wikify and do basic formatting of the article - add spaces after full stops! and remove spurious capitals
    • Explain why this page lists B.N. Bachegowda and not N. Nagaraja as the member for Hoskote in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
-- RHaworth 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete Complete agreement with RHaworth as to bullet point two, but I default to delete. --Chaser (T) 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless someone can show it meets WP:BIO. Vegaswikian 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect as the article is already userfied. No notability asserted in the article, which needs a complete overhaul if it is kept. B.Wind 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep No one has notified netgir netgir yet. I msged him on his talk, but he doesn't seem to be contributing. --Chaser (T) 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got a response. Here are the google results for "MTB Nagaraj". His full msg at my talk page is: I would like to comment on what RHaworth has told regarding MTB Nagaraj. Please go to google search and type in MTB Nagaraj you will get latest information about him. B.N.BacheGowda has been defeated in the 2004 Assembly election in Hoskote Constituency which comes under Bangalore District North. But Mr.RHaworth Sir has told that a web page has mentioned that B.N.BacheGowda has won, yes it is true but it was in 1999 Assembly election and not in 2004 assembly election as said by the author. And Regarding leaving space after fullstop it will be corrected and I am sorry for the same. I hope now the things will be cleared. From, Netgir_Netgir In light of this, I recommend everyone reconsider their votes. --Chaser (T) 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
- Liberatore(T) 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chile v New Zealand (2006)

Friendlies are very seldom notable enough to have their own articles, and this is no exception. See also short talk on WikiProject Football and proposed criteria for notability on the same project. Delete and if needed merge content with a created 2005-06 in New Zealand football, like many other countries have. – Elisson • Talk 15:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
– Elisson • Talk 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield M21

I don't know anything about guns, but an article that starts out "No gun officially known as the Springfield M21 exists" has got a problem. From the orphan article list, not edited in 18 months. Note that it used to redirect to M21 (rifle) until this diff [44] pointed out that the M21 was not actually made by Springfield. Thatcher131 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:M21 (rifle):
:Springfield Inc. makes M21 and M25 rifles which are loosely based upon their military counterparts of the same designation. Much like the way that their name implies a relationship the former US military armory, the commercial firm Springfield Armory capitalizes on the implication that their products are the same as those used by the military. FWIW: The article should probably redirect here. --D.E. Watters 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This supports redirect notion. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aren't there any gun nuts firearms enthusiasts on wikipedia? After looking around wikipedia and the web, I will withdraw the nomination, in favor of some rewriting and disambiguation. It seems that the Springfield Armory, a US Gov't operation, manufactured the M14 Rifle, which was converted to the M21 (rifle) by the Rock Island Arsenal in the 1960s. Meanwhile, a private gun manufacturer bought the Springfield name and now operates as Springfield Armory, Inc. which does sell a model M21, although I can't tell if it is the same design and specs as the government model (I'm sure its at least close). I think there needs to be some disambiguation between models made by and for the military versus models made by the new private company for private use. Thatcher131 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See now, this is exactly the sort of situation where polemic userboxes would come in handy. We could just go look for the users with Template:User_NRA. :) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI I asked the fine upstanding gun experts at Talk:M21 (rifle). - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgressSoft (second nomination)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24&oldid=54913571"