Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
ā† Previous editNext edit ā†’
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
TrevorMay (talk | contribs)
60 edits
No edit summary
Line 98: Line 98:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vive le Canada}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vive le Canada}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JKF PREP/SDS}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JKF PREP/SDS}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabble}}

Revision as of 19:15, 4 March 2006

< March 3 >

Purge server cache

March 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, only keep votes were based on the condition of an extensive rewrite which hasn't happened. - Bobet 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jrocknyc

This was blanked and tagged [1] per XCD7. Dispute over this has arisen so I am AFDing this per procedure.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. "The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely." With that advice in mind, the concensus is very clearly to delete. kingboyk 07:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Revolution

A non-notable mod that's still being created, not notable outside of creators. Also confusable with Nintendo Revolution. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.--PatCheng 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While it's still being created, and not necessarily notable until release, as many mods of otherwise notable scope go unfinished and unreleased, I'd say this mod's scope would definitely qualify it as notable if it was actually completed. Furthermore, some of the nomination's comments seem strange to me - some quick research shows that Project Revolution (apparently founded in 2003) predates the Nintendo Revolution (unveiled in 2005). Furthermore, this material doesn't really belong on GameFAQs, not being a commercial game nor a guide to a game, and I was not aware that similarities in name were a reason for an AfD. -- Imban 01:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it becomes big after being released, then it'll merit an article. Until then, not so much -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Warcruft mod. Royboycrashfan 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ""Project Revolution" Starcraft" returns many relevant results, in multiple langauges. Being not released yet, it is a slightly week keep, but is encylopedia worthy nonetheless.MadCow257 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, specifically the statement about game pre-release advertising. ~ Jeff QĀ (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, however, allow re-make of article after the project is released, and if it becomes particularly notable(especially if it shows up in a magazine article)--Vercalos 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article author here. To the person who mentioned magazine articles, Project Revolution has already been in several of them, most notably twice in "Computer Gaming World". However, please understand that these articles cannot be pasted or linked to for proof due to copyright reasons. I no longer work for Project Revolution, and if this article gets deleted it will not likely return unless someone else does it. - Siloh
    • Adding a link as a reference is not a copyright violation. ~ Jeff QĀ (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, just google for "Project Revolution" "Computer Gaming World" (as one phrase, with the quotes). There are far too many links to list here. - Siloh
        • Which is exactly what people with no real evidence tend to say ā€” they don't need to prove anything. But an argument without cited evidence is just an opinion. Don't expect other people to make your case for you. Show us one or two links you think are representative. Expect people to judge them by the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, though. ~ Jeff QĀ (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article keeps repeating that this mod will do something and should not have a certain effect. Also contains rumors. Pagrashtak 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siloh. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've cleaned it up (removing a lot of unsourced material). No vote since it's really borderline for me. Fagstein 20:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jim62sch 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am Cooler one of the coders for the Project. We have been in gaming magazines two times as Siloh said. I would have to disagree with the fact that this project is not well known. We have over 1700 fan base registered users on the site alone. As well as our parent site Warcraft 3 Campaigns the leader of the wc3 mod community who has over 10,000 active members we are considered the largest and most famous of wc3 mods to date. We are also have an exclusive deal which http://www.sclegacy.com/ one of the largest SC fan sites who also owns the famous blizzforums who has over 28,000 users and our mod is constantly mistaken by them and the web for starcraft 2. This is one of the main reasons for this article to stop confusion that a starcraft 2 is in production by blizzard. If I am not mistaken this one reasons why wikipedia exists to stop information confusion on the subject if this articles is removed at least put line in the SC one that says and any screen shots of sc2 are more then likely that of this wc3 total conversion.Also how could the article have rumors in it when it comes from the staff who is creating it. So all information is as accurate as possible. ā€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooler2 (talkĀ ā€¢Ā contribs) .
    • Just to clarify my rumor comment, this was present in the version at the time of my vote: It is rumoured that Blizzard Entertainment will attempt to shut down the project should it be completed. Pagrashtak 13:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious crystal ball, IMHO. Sandstein 10:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obvious Wikipedia is not this, IMHO. Afz902k 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found this article extremely useful - isn't that what wikipedia is for? There is a lot of information here that I'm glad for, and if the mod does get released it will be extremely popular. -- User:Anonymous 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC) ā€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.214.227 (talkĀ ā€¢Ā contribs) .[reply]
  • Keep If anyone actually bothered to do an in-depth research about PR, they would find that it won second place on Mod DB awards, a huge mod site, http://features.moddb.com/111/?fpage=15 PR won against fierce competition and only lost the first place to a mod who benefited from Half-Life's enormous popularity. And if that is not enough to guarantee that PR will be a huge success when released, then consider that PR is a TOTAL conversion, one that is intended to make StraCraft 3D that is much like the much-anticipated StarCraft 2. PR also benefits from StarCraft's popularity. PR is seeking multiple large sites to mirror it when released, proving that the staff has reason to expect mass downloading. I believe that a person qualified to vote here should at least know just how anticipated StarCraft 2 is and what PR represents to the SC fanbase. I am CNX, a PR forum user.Elenalkarnur 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a list of such mods. Stifle 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would just like to note that we are not forwarding people to this site, per "suggestion" of the banner at the top. Most people who have come here have noticed it on their own. Secondly, the fact that you continue to seemingly weigh the worth of a person's opinion on their contributes to Wikipedia shows that we don't really need our article here anyway, as this isn't exactly the mindset that I had imagined to be behind Wikipedia in general - I change my opinion to delete. Siloh
  • Delete no refs. Melchoir 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Heres a link for evidence (Computer Gaming World)Ā : http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcgw/is_200602/ai_n16013903 . -- User:Anonymous
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drudenhaus

Non-notable album by a French band. The album doesn't even have a page in the French Wikipedia and shouldn't have one here. A request for notability claims has so far gone answered, so I'm listing it for deletion Cool3 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Rocket Arena#Clan Arena mode, but I think only a little bit needs to go there. -Splashtalk 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Arena

A poorly written article, does not warrant Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.--PatCheng 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Commando 99

Non notable, illegal modification of a game, plus more POV rant. --PatCheng 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Lucci

Biographical stub of a non-notable webcam girl. It looks like vanity, but it's probably advertising, since it contains a link to her pay website and the pay websites of three other young women who apparently work for the same company. Brian G. Crawford 01:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of old growth forests

a list of one and already well covered by a catagory."old growth" is a bit subjective anyway. and what forests are supposed to go here, just US ones or others too? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JDoorjam Talk 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istory

A vanity article advertising a service which the creator is a part of. The creator of the article is warning others not to edit the article without their permission. --Tachyon01 4 March 2006 0200 UTC.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'm unwilling to declare an outright keep on a non-article that noone saying "keep" or "keep/cleanup" has actually put a trace of content-production effort into. At present, this is a speedy for failing to have a)a single sentence in it about the band and b)an assertion of notability. -Splashtalk 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ephesus

Dear Ephesus is a non-notable, now defunct emo band. This article has been tagged for verifiability of importance since January 12. Brian G. Crawford 02:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I meant to says the band was "semi-famous" within the Christian community. I could've been more clear on that. They had a short mention in Christianity Today, which is a large, mainstream magazine in that community. They've had several full-length articles in HM - The Hard Music Magazine. They were featured in Cross Rhythms, a British Christian-music website. I'm not sure what the readership is on these, but I think, combined with the short mention in Christianity Today, it's enough to establish that the band was "semi-famous," at least within the Christian community. As for the label information, the band released albums on independent Christian label BulletProof Music. They were on BulletProof at the same time as, and toured with, Squad Five-O, a band that is notable enough to be listed on MTV.com. What that means for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure, but I think all of this evidence supports the notion that this band was "semi-famous," at least within the Christian community. Whether or not that is notable enough for Wikipedia, I'll leave for others to decide. My personal opinion (as voted above), is yes, it is. MikeDockery 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters ā€” Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goron Elder

Minor character from a Zelda game, not listed. Not notable enough for own article. Eivind 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. kingboyk 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Betty's Cafe

Non-notable burger restaurant chain with 2 stores. -- Longhair 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitecore

DePRODed without comment by author. Google hits are scant, and most indicate that this is forumcruft, and possibly even an attack at hardcore punk; at best, it is a non-notable subgenre of hardcore. The only inbound link to this page is from an article about a non-notable band (also PRODed and likely to end up here). Delete. --Kinu t/c 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Rummel

non-notable political theorist; greatest claim to fame is a mistaken claim to membership in a non-existent Nobel short list of a hundred or so. He has a friend who is a Swedish politician; there was a mistaken AP story; he has himself retracted. Statement of retraction: [3] Article hopelessly PoV Septentrionalis 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Rummellite opponent. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this is the statement of retraction mentioned above. Tens of thousands are asked for nominations, including many professors, and many of them do nominate. Septentrionalis 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is incorrect. People are not asked for nominations. There may be about a hundred nominated each year and Rummel has been nominated repeatedly. Anyhow, this is just one of the reasons he is notable.Ultramarine 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable researcher, questionable research, way too POV. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good faith nomination. Rummel's contribution to DPT after his initial study is dubious. Most of his "books" and "papers" are only published on the internet, any contributions by him that were published in any major scholarly journal is minimal and absent after the mid-1980's [9], those that do occur before this time are usually pertaining only to quantitative methodology. Any mention of him by any other scholars is usually anecdotal. [10] Finally, to illustrate a point "Ultramarine" occurs 1.9 million times in google, so that is hardly a standard of "importance". --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another DPT opponent. Note that ultramarine is a color so it is hardly surprising that it gets many hits. ""r. j. ultramarine" gets zero hits.[11] Ultramarine 03:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it gets 10,300 hits. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is outright defamation of a noted researcher. There are extracts from his scholarly books and articles on his website, but they were certainly not published on the internet originally. Many of his works were published in the 1990's, for example Death by Government and Power Kills, often cited by other researchers in this field.(Google Scholar [12]) Ultramarine 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, he has self-published several books since the mid-1980s. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is still defamation. His scholarly books are not self-published.Ultramarine 05:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one is [13]. Septentrionalis 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a supplement to his novels.Ultramarine 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do note with some amusement that Rummel's article exceeds in length the combined articles for Nobel winner Val Fitch, Field medalist Edward Witten and Nobel near misses David Wilkinson and P.J.E. Peebles, any one of whom is a more significant scholar by any objective standard. None have a dedicated fan who is a Wikipedian, however. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced mathematics and physics often do not receive much attention outside the field since it is very hard to understand. Political arguments and theories usually receive much attention and this is reflected in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 12:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, their *theories* are fairly adequately covered under appropriate articles. My point is that I think Rummel's bio overlong, mostly because much of the material looks like advocacy for Rummel's particular position. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has 3 articles about Ward Churchill, so I see no problem with the length of the current article. If you think something is missing, add your own referenced information. Ultramarine 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion belongs on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all. - Bobet 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S. Brett, R. Brett, Bob and Sarah V.S. Vietnam

Two articles about a brother-and-sister amateur film duo, and one about their unreleased film. The two bio articles have a weak (albeit grandiose) assertion of notability as filmmakers, so they do not seem speedy-able. Nothing verifiable on any of these per Google. Website is on Tripod. All dePRODed without comment. Delete all. Kinu t/c 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user has only 7 edits, six of which have involved nominees. I, like many others, am suspicious of "Don't delete" votes. Nobody phrases it that way. Royboycrashfan 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You "know" it's on IMDb? Give us the link. ~ Jeff QĀ (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newman's Hacksaw

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWONK TO WONKTIONARY and DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridonkulous

I prodded which was removed shortly. As I stated in the Prod rationale: Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang --Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the article has been much improved since I prodded, with some links to usage, but all are to dictionary entries --Fuhghettaboutit 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Falcone

Delete - Does not appear to meet music notability criteria. In addition, the majority of contributions to this article come from anonymous IP addresses with no edits aside from this article; this may lead one to believe that this is a vanity article. JerryOrr 04:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per above. maybe redirect to Carmine Falcone. Eivind 04:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 05:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up - Falcone meets three of the criteria for a musician to be included in wikipedia. (1) Falcone has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Falcone released two albums on Cleopatra's Hypnotic Records (which has been in existence since the early 90s). Cleopatra's roster has included releases by Gary Numan, Yes, Motorhead, Hawkwind, Future Sound of London, and more recently Elvis Presley and The Ohio Players. (2) Falcone leads a number of music projects that contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Falcone leads Spirits Burning, a musical collective that has included members of many well-known progressive and space rock bands (such as Gong's Daevid Allen, Porcupine Tree's Steve Wilson, Hawkwind's Bob Calvert, Can's Mal Mooney). Falcone is also part of Weird Biscuit Teatime (CD on Voiceprint), with Gong's Daevid Allen. (3) Falcone has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. Falcone's Spaceship Eyes wrote the theme for the rave film "Better Living Through Circuitry." Article would be better served to have the above info in its intro. The material about Falcone's hometown, college, and early bands (pre 1990) should be removed.

The informant 06:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Billboard lists the two Cleopatra releases.The informant 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IMDB lists Falcone's Spaceship Eyes as the first track of Better Living Through Circutry soundtrackThe informant 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Falcone work with Daevid Allen of Gong includes recent Voiceprint release of Weird Biscuit Teatime CD. Also noted on Gong site. Amazon has first Spirits Burning CD. Description reads: New project from Don Falcone, the man behind Spaceship Eyes... Includes contibutions from Daevid Allen (Gong, Soft Machine), Steve Wilson (Porcupine Tree) members of Can...." Second Spirits Burning CD editorial includes the following: SPIRITS BURNING is a one-time band made of the best musicians (Ancient or modern), that performs Progressive rock, new musics, neo-psychedelic and Krautrock. The keyboards player Don FALCONE (Ex-TRAP & SPACESHIP EYES) is here accompanied by guitarist Daevid ALLEN (GONG), drummer Gary PARRA (TRAP), singer Malcolm MOONEY (CAN), drummer Paul WILLIAMS (QUARKSPACE) as well as guitarist Steven WILSON (PORCUPINE TREE). Numerous other guests greatly contribute to make even better this adventurous music that re-visits the complete palette of its participantsā€™ original styles. Recorded in 1999 on the label Gazul, "New Worlds By Design" presents an explosive and surprising cocktailĀ ! The miracles of technology allow the participation of the legendary Robert CALVERT, despite the fact that the legendary HAWKWIND singer is now deceasedĀ !"The informant 17:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup Definately notable, despite the fact that I've never heard of him.--Vercalos 07:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless The informant's assertions are properly sourced. The current links all look like promotional or fan sites. In fact, 8 of the 10 misleadingly call themselves "websites" when they're just separate pages on the same Earthlink personal web account. All-Music Guide has an entry for Don Falcone which contains no biography information whatsoever (usually the sign of an unnotable artist), but its long lists of Falcone songs and credits suggest that there should be some real sources of information. As far as Don Carmine Falcone goes, if we keep this article, we should probably add a dab line at the top. ~ Jeff QĀ (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apparently notable more by association than anything else, but gets just enough legit mentions (e.g., at planetgong.com) to put him over the top. May not "deserve" to be notable, but there are many, many categories of articles whose subjects fall into that category (Serial killers, people on sex tapes with Paris Hilton, fortunate sons who've been undemocratically installed as US President after losing the popular vote . . .) Monicasdude 14:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Has enough recording credits to indicate notability within genre. [19]

Capitalistroadster 22:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBridge Apartment Complex

I don't think that an article about an individual apartment complex in Orlando, Florida is notable. JeffW 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Greetings, while I do agree that this article reads like and ad for the complex. I would like to point out that it is valuable as a supporting article for this page, WDWCP. While an article on a random apartment complex in Orlando FL is not exactly what people on Wikipedia want to read, its status as one for 4 housing complexes in an international internship program for a fortune 500 company.... is.

Please consider using your talents to edit the article so that it doth not offend. Shifter55 19:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shifter. As this is not a general interest for the general community, it is meant for a particular group of readers. The Disney College Program is a very big program and this page supports the topic for that page. Thousands of students research and look up information about the program every semester and a major question that they would like answered is what their living arrangements would be like. Please help in edit the page to help it fit the Wikipedia mold and reconsider the deletion if page is reposed. --Cw532 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion barrier

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (diffusion-barrier) James084 04:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen is gone.Ā :) Royboycrashfan 23:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For sure it needs more work, I've been at it off and on and will contiue to expand - have to wait 'till I get back to work to cite my references properly --DV8 2XL 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Aristides

Contested PROD. Author is nn, does not meet WP:BIO. Books chart at rank#2M in Amazon criteria, 512 hits on Google are mainly mirrors of this article. ćæä½æ恄 Mitsukai 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Hill Baptist Church

Contested PROD. nn church, 267 hits in Google. While I have no problem with Churches being in WP, they have to be notable for some reason, otherwise, the millions of churches/synagoges/mosques/temples/etc. are going to swamp the system. ćæä½æ恄 Mitsukai 04:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirimens Copulatio

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (dirimens copulatio) James084 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The latin word copulatio does not refer to sex. It may be translated as "union" or "combination". Fan1967 16:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate recovery

This article has been transwikied to Wiktionary. (corporate recovery) James084 05:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterword

This article is a dictdef and already has an entry on Wiktionary. (Wiktionary:counterword) James084 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films by gory death scene

Extreme, useless listcruft. This one has been around here for a while, but I cannot see a reason for its continuing. Its 50kb of largely unencyclopedic material. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split per Royboycrash. --CrypticBacon 08:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is extremely useful for people who need this info such as film scholars and fans. The list should not be split though. -- JJay 09:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have absolutely no interest in this stuff, but I can see how it would be very useful for people who are interested. Logophile 11:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SimonP. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified original research in which many of the entries apparently don't meet the stated criteria for inclusion (death depicted via "special effects.") And this article includes a woefully incomplete section on "death by gunfire," which will overwhelm the article if taken seriously; a section on "death by blendering", a purely subjective category; and no section on "death by bow and arrow," which I suppose means that Native Americans can die gorily, but not cowboys. But NOR/verifiability is the central problem. Who's to say that a particular death was depicted by special effect or implied by skillful editing. And how can you verify, say, that the character in Ghoulies 2 died from having his buttocks eaten? Has anyone ever died from that? How much more of this silliness can I type with a straight face? Mock article, then delete. Monicasdude 14:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think "special effects" requirement needs to be retained. I don't think any of us want to see any real-life beheadings or baghdad sniper videos showing up on this list. Ewlyahoocom 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, as per Monicasdude. Chairman S. Talk 20:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not orignial research. Movies are soruces. And this is an impressive compliation of data. Tobyk777 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not enough reason to delete it. Not original research. Aris Katsaris 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't OR for the above reasons and in any case has a book reference which includes many of the listed movies. I wouldn't however object to the removal of the word "gory" in the title. JoshuaZ 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay, lose the word "gory." Maybe "notable death scene" instead?
  • Keep. I completely disagree with everthing the nominator wrote. It is indeed encyclopedic. -- Freemarket 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly broad, totally arbitrary, tenuous theme. (In fact, any one of the subsections would be hopelessly broad on its own.) This list isn't useful for navigation or organization. - A Man In Blā™Ÿck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this article needs to be rethought, but I like it too much to recommend its deletion. Maybe it should just be notable death scenes in film (in which case many of the minor deaths would be removed), but I think gory deaths (or unusual ways of dying) might be interesting also. Fagstein 06:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep gory listcruft. Ewlyahoocom 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather off-putting but if there is some interest then so be it. Probably of interest to some film researchers or psychologists. --JuntungWu 11:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klah Korp

Non-notable web-based group. Fails to meet the WP:WEB guidelines; possibly just a vanity page.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant church sex scandals

I prodded which was shortly removed. The rationale I gave for the prod follows: This is 100% original research and POV, to wit, no encyclopedic content. While it is possible that a proper article could be created on the sex scandals plaguing the protestant church, this isn't it. Note that the author removed most of the text after removing the prod tag (see history for the full text). I do think an article can be created on this topic, but just because an article can be created is not a proper rationale for rehabilitation of unencyclopedic content. Fuhghettaboutit 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

  • I did revise it and shorten it. It is really little more then a stub at this point. However, there is nothing in it that is demonstrably false. I suggest leaving it as a stub until it can be polished. ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei (talk ā€¢ contribs)

Keep it. There are 30,000 Protestant churches. You can't write an article about abuse cases in every one of them, so it has to be general. There is one just for Catholics. Why not have one for Protestants? Sections for Jimmy Swaggart etc. can be added. It is POV to delete it just because it's creepy. The one on Catholic priest sexual abuse is pretty creepy to, so shouldn't it be deleted? This gives a starting point to balance the whole issue of sexual abuse instead of making it appear to be solely the perogative of Catholic priests. I think there should also be entries for abuse among Rabbi's, Buddhists, Muslims, and others. It is POV just to have one for Catholics. Let's be fair here. Also I would like to add there is a dearth of information on Protestant church scandals. They are not studied or covered as much. This makes it difficult to write an entry. Let it stand as a stub and be improved over time. Cestusdei ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk ā€¢ contribs)

  • Comment. Um yeah, Catholic is *one* denomination, that's why there is an article for that. The term Protestant Church includes tens of thousands of denominations, each of which may or may not have such a scandal. You can't lump these all together. pschemp | talk 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are 22 ritual churches within Catholicism. Should I demand that we have a seperate article for each rite? One for the Roman Rite, one for the Coptic Rite etc.? There is simply no way to cover the issue without using the word "Protestant" to cover the spectrum. Otherwise this is simply a pretext to avoid writing about the issue at all (except for when it's about Catholics). If you check the link you will see it covers many denominations. This is the only way to do it. I am aware that there is sentiment to not focus on Protestant scandals. But they do exist and deserve the same treatment as the Catholic ones. It is admittedly harder to do, but we should start somewhere. Cestusdeiā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk ā€¢ contribs)

  • Comment. you wrote: "There is simply no way to cover the issue without using the word "Protestant". Um, yes there is. You say Methodist, Epicsopal, Presbyterian, Lutheren, Baptist etc. Its easy. Besdies, I'd hate for wikipedia to get sued for libel when it lumps all protestants together and says they have sex scandals. And don't confuse Catholic rites with denominations. They aren't the same thing. (although those who recognise the pope and those that don't (Orthodox) *are* different. pschemp | talk 06:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No meaningful content. Unless a generalization can legitimately be made for Protestant scandals, I don't see how the article can be salvaged. A category of (verified!) Protestant sex scandals might make some sense. Peter Grey 13:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the Catholic Church sued Wikipedia for libel? You cover only abuse scandals in the Catholic Church as if they don't happen elsewhere. Do Protestant children count less? Is their abuse somehow different or okay then if the perpetrator was Catholic? Are you prepared for 30,000 articles each covering a different denomination? And you claim there is no central Protestant body, so who exactly is going to sue wikipedia then? If you check the link you will find almost 1000 scandals with their respective denominations listed. That's pretty meaningful and verified. What I see here is an intense desire to avoid covering an important issue due to POV. If this article doesn't make it then the one on the Catholic scandals should go. Unless you simply want to admit bias. Frankly I don't see the problem with an article on this unless there is bias at work. Again part of the problem is that there are no comprehensive records or studies. No one has bothered, other then that one site, to start adding up the Protestant scandals. The denominations aren't trotting out their records for public perusal. If anyone knows where we can find more detailed info please speak up. But if you look at the site you know it is happening. You say be more specific. I would be delighted to, but the Baptists et al are not being real cooperative. They don't have to be since they are not under the microscope. The Orthodox are mired in sex scandals right now in Greece. Have you heard about that? Probably not, since it isn't a Catholic scandal. Why in the world do you want to keep facts out of wikipedia or should I say THESE facts? Cestusdeiā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk ā€¢ contribs)

  • Delete. pointless... "my church is being blamed, i wanna share the pain" Other churches have sexual abuse scandals... look them up, add them with sources, maybe this page won't just be rampant POV. WookMuff 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ps. start with the churches with young boys in robes... oh wait, there is already a page about that religion[reply]

WookMuff makes my point for me. You can see his bigotry. This is exactly why we need an article that covers the issue in Protestant churches. It gives facts rather then simply reinforcing bias. Cestusdei ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk ā€¢ contribs)

Damn, i am discover ed. Quick, scatter! Tool, i have nothing against catholicism in general or in the specific. The reason i think catholics cop more flack about pedophilic sex scandals is mere opportunity, not the quality or quantity of men called.WookMuff 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's logic. Are you denying that there is abuse in Protestant churches? Look at the link. You have Islamic terrorism and Zionist terrorism articles. Is that tit for tat? Is it an attack to provide information on this issue? If I call the Catholic one an "attack" will you delete it? Probably not. Cestusdei

You're willfully missing the point. There is no conspiracy against the subject matter. We are a cabal, but only to the extent we want this encyclopedia to have encyclopedic content. If you had penned a good, sourced article, we wouldn't be having this "debate." --Fuhghettaboutit 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link to the best source I could find. No studies have been done as far as I can tell. By providing at least a brief stub with the link we put as much out there as exists currently. It's the best that can be done at this point and is better then nothing. At least if someone has a question they get pointed in the right direction. We can certainly link to the TV evangelist scandals. I argue that this be permitted despite it's stub form since it seem to be the only information available. The alternative is to simply ignore what is there. Perhaps others have access to more information and can add to it. So why not leave it as a work in progress? Cestusdei

That woud be fine if this was a different type of reference work. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are not the venue for news, or original research or academic papers, etc.. An encyclopedia is a compendium of already know information. It is not or should not be a first source but a second-hand source, and good articles are a synthesis of original source material, if you will. I (we?) have no problem with the nature of what you are writing per se, what I object to is its inclusion in this encyclopedia. There is no rancorous intent or hidden agenda. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the problem. What is known is minimal right now. If I had detailed studies I would certainly put those in. I wish I did. All I can do is put in what is available. I can't do the research myself. I grant it is just a small stub with only one link, but if that's all that's out there then that's all that can be put in. But something is better then nothing. Maybe someone out there will see the stub and have access to more information then I do. It won't hurt to let it stay. It may be that someone will find the reference useful. I think I have said as much as I can say about the article in it's defense. I hope that wikipedia will keep it at least until something better comes along. If something does then it can be replaced. I think that is fair and will also shield wikipedia from the claim that they focus only on catholic scandals out of bias. Keep it, everybody wins and no one really loses.


I found some more information and added it verbatim. I think you should give it a look. Hopefully this answers the problems. It is virtually a new article and no longer a stub. Cestusdei 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this self-admitted verbatim lifting of a Northwest Indiana Times article [21]. Editors shouldn't create or "improve" Wikipedia articles by violating others' copyrights. We are expected to write our own material based on sources. ~ Jeff QĀ (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to improve the article and you still don't like it. You say there is no agenda here, but my doubts are resurrected. I cited the article I used. This is getting ridiculous. I have checked other articles on wikipedia. I find plenty of stubs which are allowed to survive. Other articles contain blatent bias or falsehoods or unverifiable statements and they too are permitted to continue. POV seems to be ignored in many cases. Yet here suddenly all the rules apply. This doesn't seem to be a real encyclopedia at all. Just a forum like any other that pretends to be more. I think that no matter what I do you will not allow this article to survive.Cestusdei 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, your own anti-religious bias is noted. I don't think that anti-religious bigots should be permitted to remove anything from religious articles.Cestusdei 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I am not, however, persuaded by the author's comment, since those other articles are not in this debate. This debate is about this article, other debates may be about other articles. -Splashtalk 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Kansas

Unencyclopedic list of red links. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Fightindaman 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACPOC Syndrome

Article is an unverified neologism. Google produces zero hits for entire term; acronym alone has no hits for legal connotation (chiefly for "Association of Childrens Prosthetic-Orthotic Clinics"). Subject material seems worthy of an article, but should be moved to an appropriate title. Precisely what to call this isn't obvious to me. Delete if we can't source this term or find an appropriate title. ~ Jeff QĀ (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and redirect. kingboyk 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Xi

Non notable winner of a non notable contest. --PatCheng 05:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Progressive Party

Contested PROD. Was prod-ed as "Non-notable student organization", the prod has been removed by an editor and the proposed deletion has been disputed. Blue520 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Google is not enough, especially for small but focused online communities (too much intra-community linking biases the results); Alexa ranking of main website > 60,000. I've created the redirect to Bootlegger myself. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleggers

comment How are they 'way different'?--Vercalos 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameRanger

A hugely overblown article on a non-notable gaming community. Doesn't seem to have any purpose, and is extremely vanity-focused. The "EvilToastHead" pic serves as exhibit A for this. Harro5 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo homes, i vote we delete harro peace out Haroo is just angry EvillToastHead didn't work for him.ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheds (talk ā€¢ contribs)

"Currently over 200,000 accounts have been registered" ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheds (talk ā€¢ contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. A clear example of what prod was created for. In fact there should be a CSD for this. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weasel pit

I give you... the weasel pit. This contested prod is a completely unremarkable website with no Alexa rank. Delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, borderline speedy (asserts importance but vaguely). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl_Stanton

Delete. Non-notable person. Website for his business Chef Flavor Catering has no alexa ranking, and a google search on "carl stanton" and "chef flavor" yields zero results outside his own website. --Xyzzyplugh 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Xyzzyplugh 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyzero

520 Google hits for this online community forum, 31 pages linking to the website, no mentions in the news in evidence, no evidence of the significance of the site. Ziggurat 08:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Angr/talk 15:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team X (developer)

No google hits. Company this team is part of has no article of its own. I still say delete. The company may be notable but its development team isn't.Fagstein 08:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per author's comment below. Fagstein 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and also removed the AfD tag from the article. --CrypticBacon 08:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from creator: I am creating entries relating to the company I work for, which has been creating prominent games for 16 years. I apologize if this entry comes off as a vanity page but please rest assured it's an official development team and will be connected to multiple other entries on wiki as I put additional time into this. --AdamTierney
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. KnowledgeOfSelf 11:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diederik Marius

Doesn't assert notability. Fagstein 08:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HackThisSite

I think this site is non-notable. It has an alexa rank of around 80,000 and returns no google news hits. There is no other claim to notability in the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Truth Behind Bars

Found this entry via wrong information put on an unrelated page for a Sarah Hudson album, Naked Truth. Ran a Yahoo search for this supposed CD, and could not find any information about this album (The six links that showed up were either Wiki links or blogs making jokes about Lil' Kim being in jail.) Appears to be a violation of WP:Not a crystal ball, but further, I can't find any reliable sources that verify that this CD or the information within exists or plans to exist. No other wiki articles link to this one. Ataricodfish 08:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted early because the author/subject has requested deletion on her own site, and consensus is clearly leaning towards deletion. Rhobite 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old, but non-notable website. Original version had about 6 external links to the site. Main claim of notability seems to be that it is in the Library of Congress's Sept 11th Internet archive; this is not significant, as that archive contains a large proportion of all sites on the net as of that time; it's no claim of notability, afaik. Also the site has a prominent banner saying that it is being sold; this looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Delete JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP.USNewsLink's main claim to fame? There is no main claim to fame. This website is constantly updated and provides information about a variety of subjects and issues. Jesse's criticism is unwarranted and his summary of the site's importance is petty at worst and inaccurate at best. Jesse does not have a clue about the history of USNewsLink or its "external links.ā€ USNewsLink's US Casualties pages are constantly read. The Archive is constantly read, and re-read. And I doubt that anyone at the Library of Congress would agree with Jesse as to the importance of the Sept. 11 Archive. While there may be many entries in the Archive, they were hand selected by an editorial committee. Every article was read by one or more people before it was nominated for inclusion. The efforts of Jesse to minimize the importance of the selection of USNewsLink's articles and commentary for the Sept. 11 Archive is certainly no reason to delete USNewsLink from Wikipedia. The fact that USNewsLink is for sale in no way implies that it will not continue in its present format because it is funded by my foundation. I will remain a Director and my stock ownership will revert to the foundation for USNewsLink's future overhead. And for the record, Jesse made no effort to notify me of his deletion nomination. I have revised the content to bare bones information and hope that Jesse will remove his objection and allow the content to stay in the directory. Usnewslink 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comment on this. I didn't leave you a message before nominating the page because I noted that you were currently active on the article, and I assumed(correctly) that you would see the message, and would comment if you wished to. Regarding your description of Wikipedia as a "directory", please review the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also Wikipedia:Notability (websites) would be useful, as it lays out some good guidelines regarding the inclusion of articles on websites in Wikipedia. Reviewing the LoC site, I see that you are right - although the total collection is over 30,000 sites ("selected", but mere mebership in such a large list would not be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia), there is a smaller collection of approx. 2,300 sites which were further indexed, and USNewsLink is one of them, which I agree is some claim to notability. I still wish to leave this up for nomination for some more time, as I'm not yet convinced, but I do appreciate the comment. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of USNewsLink's articles and commentary in the Sept. 11 Archive ensures that historians throughout the ages will have access to what Americans - in particular this American - thought and felt during the aftermath of Sept. 11. But from your view, people who read Wikipedia would have no interest in such. You think USNewsLink is not relevant or important enough to be included in Wikipedia and want it deleted. But thankfully, the Libary of Congress doesn't share your view. Usnewslink 11:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Your position is well-known. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 11:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. Please keep things civil, assume good faith, and cease making personal attacks. Thank you. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 11:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shimawa, identifying you as the liar that you are is not a personal attack - it is the truth. Do not lie about USNewsLink and expect me to remain silent. Is lying civilized? No it is not. Suggesting that USNewsLink be deleted by lying is unacceptable conduct on your part. Now retract your lie. Usnewslink 11:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (withdrawn by nominator). kingboyk 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sharkey

Survived the first vote on the condition that notability information be added. In over a month, that hasn't happened. No claim to notability outside of the marginally notable Freeform hardcore. Hence, the reference to him in that article is adequate. No need to merge because it already contains all the notable information about him. Image reeks of vanity, as did the disambiguation page before I cleaned it up. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, anyway...delete. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. Looks like once again I have proven myself horribly out of touch with music. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alkivar below. Fagstein 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up and notability established. Stifle 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Keep EASILY passes WP:MUSIC guidelines:
    1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.
      • his track Toytown from 1995 charted at #5 on the UK Dance charts around that period.
    2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.
      • all of the Bonkers compilations have certified gold or platinum (worldwide sales), he's on all of them.
    3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.
      • Has internationally toured in: US, Italy, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada (he's British)
    4. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
      • Is clearly the most prominent representative of Freeform Hardcore music. This is easily verified, via a simple google search.
    5. Has released two or more albums on a major label
      • had an album released on Sony Music Entertainment (UK) and EMI Records (Italy) ... thats just two.
    6. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media.
      • Was on a CD attached to the cover of MIXMAG, with a bio inside the magazine in December 2003. That certainly covers "non trivial" and "verifiable media"
    7. Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.
      • CO-HOSTED John Peel Is Not Enough hardcore special on BBC Radio 1 with John Peel. Title of the special comes from a track created by CLSM (another Freeform hardcore artist). I have an mp3 of the show if anyone needs verification of it.
    8. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
      • Founded a genre, is always mentioned by name when genre is mentioned.
  • Speedy keep as a notable figure in the happy hardcore genre and per reasons given in the original AFD nomination. Hall Monitor 22:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notability was established in the last AFD, this is a pointless nomination. --kingboyk 07:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every paragraph asserts notability, by the way. 1) "one of the originators of the Freeform hardcore sound" 2) "achieving silver sales status in the" UK 3) "played at most major United Kingdom festivals" 4) worked with John Peel. --kingboyk 07:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blork

Neologism, made up in 2005. NO claims of wide use or notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica at the 2006 Winter Olympics

Unlike Morocco at the 2006 Winter Olympics (which is up for AFD), Jamaica didn't, and was never supposed to compete at the 2006 Olympics. I think we should not have articles for every country that did not participate. Perhaps merge to Bobsleigh at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Punkmorten 10:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European superculture hypothesis

The whole article is original research -- and one of the most vile variations of such original research, namely the kind that doesn't limit itself to one article, but tries to insert itself into a variety of other articles as well (e.g. see creation of articles Celtic Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe etc). There's certainly lots of things that can be spoken about cultural divisions in Europe -- and for linguistic and religions divisions as well. But this overall "hypothesis" that conflates culture and history, objectivity and subjectivity, fact and research into one single thing, and tries to lift artificial concrete border where the reality is much more fluid and abstract -- ugh, this is a horrid and ugly thing; less a description of reality and more of a original-research modelization thereof. Delete. Aris Katsaris 10:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merely tried to create a bridge, with existing information between those 4 "[...]Europe" articles, I know it's far (and further) from perfect, and I wouldn't mind it being deleted but I still think there should be some embodying article between these 4 articles.Any ideas? Sander 11:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Culture of Europe could certainly be heavily improved (with maps and the like) to include/explain the cultural divisions that exist in the continent. But that's a different thing altogether than creating an article about a "hypothesis" that tries to gather together already flawed articles under one umbrella, thus enhancing their flaws by superimposition rather than reduce them by factuality. Aris Katsaris 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be the best, but do we in fact need these articles? All four of them (to me) are filled with culturalism-nationalism. Shouldn't they be deleted as well. Sander 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh , you can stop saying delete, even I (the creator) want it to be deleted Sander 14:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fbinlol

(Listing of orphaned AFD by User:60.224.0.83) Neologism/Protologism. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 10:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend jen

Non-notable organization, possibly an advertisement. This is the author's only contribution. CrypticBacon 10:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Wing

Non-notable school building. Delete. Oldelpaso 10:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was listed for proposed deletion, listed here as tag was removed by creator. Oldelpaso 11:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Aficionados

Most likely a hoax, as this Google search turns up nothing relevant. CrypticBacon 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spazcore

Delete. The term "Spazcore" or "Spazzcore" is irrelevant and contrived. No one uses the term except for occaisonally those who are far-removed from the DIY hardcore scene, who are unfamiliar with the actual terminology and therefore invent their own. For instance, mainstream rock journalists who have likely never attended a DIY show in their lives may make up their own terms ("spazcore") to describe music that already has a more legitimate name ("second wave powerviolence"). The article is pointless; it's obviously one person's attempt to use Wikipedia to legitimize a silly and non-existant term. Alexanderj 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Crossbar

DeleteThis article is nothing more than an advertisement for a non-notable new book from a non-notable author--TheKvetch 13:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large Amateur Telescope

Delete Article about a proposed telescope does not say where, when, how or why. Prod was removedPorturology 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Eivind 14:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a notable project from their web site, but fails a Lexis/Nexis search, and web site has not been updated in 14 months. Have they ever been written up in Sky & Telescope or something similar? Should be kept with rewrite to bring in history, photos, progress to date; but might still fail notability if no external write-ups. Thatcher131 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Current content is "The Large Amateur Telescope is a large (1.8 meter or 70 inch) telescope being built by and for the use of amateur astronomers." This has not been significantly edited since Mar 2004. The quoted Web site was last updated in Dec 2004. If someone can add to this it may be worthwhile but at the moment it looks like some groups dream project, which has fallen by the wayside. User:Thatcher131, are you volunteering to verify and rewrite this article?--Porturology 02:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but someone removed the prod tag. Thatcher131 02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac renshaw

non-notable teenager CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete. He is notable down here in AUS! - Maccy

What maccy said. he's a good kid. dont delete it!!! -jamesdale

yep. Heaps of people know him in vic and all around schools in Australia. i mean hes a notable swimmer. - Dom16

I know Mac personally. He's lucky to have his own bibliography on here! Come on, just leave it on! - Frankwaters

  • Strong Delete or speedy per nom. 15-year-old with some very non-specific and non-verifiable claims of athletic awards and such. 6 Google hits, all look unrelated as far as I can tell. Pathetic attempts at sockpuppeting make my vote a Strong Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Swimming Competitions were held incompetecne of the School. they will not appear on any websites from google or anything thats for sure. Mac Renshaw was awarded 3 years ago a Science award. (scroll down to mac renshaw) http://scienceawards.bhpbilliton.com/repository/studentWinners/studentWinnersEncouragement2003.asp He does have a place on this website he is athletically and educationally blessed. - Charlie33

Good point there Charlie. it clearly shows that Mac was won an award. And as far as medal tally's for swimming goes, they wont be very easy to come across. Only the Australian Swimming Association will have that data as well as schoold competing. - Bob Barne

I agree with everybody else. I think that it should be left there. I have read paper articles explaining what a true champ he is to his school, family and all his friends. He has put it a great deal of effort and he truly deserves this pageĀ ! - Ashlee Heir

I have heard a great deal about this kid and how he swims. Never met him or saw him but he definately deserves this page from what i have heard and read! Frank Frutz

  • Dont Delete I have looked through and all the articles that were written up top, were infact different users and it is not a case of sockpuppeteering Bobet 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above signature by Bobet is forged. The entry was actually by Fredman007 (Contribs), the author of the original article - Fan1967 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was about to close this early and delete it, because "Clear deletion concensus, possible speedy (there are claims of notability, which may or may not be hoaxes)." Then I discovered that early closing is not allowed if the result is to be a formal deletion. So, since there's vague assertions of notability, and I can't close early, we have to leave this lying around for a few more days. Isn't process great? --kingboyk 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Croatia

Reasons for deletion

Well - over 50% is not original research. However, it deals with information that are not even close relevant to the subject - or incorrect.

For instance, it says Red Croatia (Latin: Croatiam Rubeam, Croatian: Crvena Hrvatska), was a name that several medieval documents designated to the initial Slavonic states in southern parts of Dalmatia: the duchies of Hu===m/Zahumlje, Pagania/Narenta, Travunia, and Duklja. However, as you can see on Pagania, Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje; Pagania is no where mentioned as a part. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duvno field was the site of the crowning of Croatian king Tomislav in the 920s. The town of Duvno in western Bosnia is now called Tomislavgrad in honor of his coronation. Where is the relevancy here? It only refers to the actual city of Duvno - nothing to do with Red Croatia itself. (the subject) --HolyRomanEmperor 12:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Principalities02.png
this map

...says in the article that it shows the territories of Read Croatia - it doesn't. As discussed, Pagania was never a part of Read Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it says Surbia and Bosnia are used as only geographic locations and not ethnic meanings. The region known as Surbia is divided from RaŔka and Bosnia, it covers a small area which is on the outskirts of the old Roman providence of Dalmatia. The chronicle does not refer to Serbs or Bosnians in the ethnic sense. That is WP:POV, what says that Croatia cannot be used only as a geographical location? Additionally, the region of Surbia wasn't "divided from", but "composed of" Rascia and Bosnia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He in Chapter 30 also notes Croats setting up a powerful military presence in these regions and extracting taxes from the local populace in the southern Dalmatian dutchies. This is not correct, please see De Administrando Imperio, Chapter 30 - you will see that it confirms no such thing. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In chapter 32 about the Serbs, Porphyrogenitos describes an identical settlement of Serbs but specifically notes that Croats settled in these regions first. Porphyrogenitos mentions Serb settlements in Travunia and Hum but makes no mention of Serb settlements in Duklja.

Again - incorrect. Please see De Administrando Imperio, Chapter 32. You will see that there is no mention that Croats inhabited the region first. Additonally, Serbs inhabited Zahumlje and Pagania (as you can see). Also - of what relevancy is no mention of Serb settlements in Duklja to Red Croatia? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Chapter 32 of the De Administrando Imperio, the description of the Serbs suggests that the Serbs were not regarded as an ethnicity but rather as a social class. The Byzantines regarded the Serbs as social servants and even slaves.

Review that chapter of DAI - it says that Serbs means slaves in the language of the Romei (Greeks) means Slaves and not vice-versa as presented in the article. The other sentence is WP:POV and has again - no relevancy on the actual subject of Red Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs probably have not been significant in this region until Croat king King Tomislav gave them a refuge to flee the Bulgarians. - WP:No_original_research; and together with Chapter 32 of the De Administrando Imperio suggest that Bulgarian Czar Simeon I scattered the Serbs into Croatia and Bulgaria after an unsuccessful Bulgarian military advance against Croatia. makes no relevancy on the subject of Red Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References in Scylitza's chronicle

The notion of Croats in Duklja is supported with the testimony from Byzantine Chronicler John Scylitza where he writes:

" Dukljan King Michael rules over those who call themselves Croats."

Indeed correct - but has absolutly no relevancy to the subject of Red Croatia. While, The descendants of these Croats are considered today's Bokelji. is Original Research. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References by Stefan Nemanja

It says here: In Stefan Nemanja's declaration in 1198 he writes how he forcefully expanded the Serbian state to include Duklja. He writes:

"i priobretoh' od' Mor'ske zemle Zetu i s' gradovi, a od ' Arbanas ' Pilot', a od' Gr'c'ske zemle Lab' s' L'planem..." [3]

It has absolutly no relevancy to the subject. AFAIC - he only decreased Duklja's autonomy (which was already subjected "legally" to him). Please see Duklja if you need details. Additionally, that forcefully is - although even true to an extent - WP:POV. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References in Dandolo's article

A Chronicle of Dalmatia by Venetian writer named Andrea Dandolo (1300-1354) gives evidence that where geographic Surbia is a geographic designation of the Croatian-Dalmatian kingdom.

(Keep in mind Dalmatian province extends inland to Bosnia)

Dandolo writes:

"Moderni autem maritimam totam vocant Dalmaciam, montana autuem Chroaciam..." [4]

"The whole Mediterranean coast (Adriatic) belongs to Dalmatia, The mountainous part is Croatia "

That keep in mind is WP:POV (intentional propaganda) and unencylopedia. Not to mention that this sentence to the up has no relevancy with Red Croatia itself - but is actually an incinuation. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and comparison of sources

I don't want to even get near the Original Research (and unsourcedness) of this paragraph. It also claims that Croat historians and most Bosniak historians put faith in the document especially when it regards distribution of land among the peoples of the early medieval Balkans. If you see Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina - you will see that Bosniak historians discard the document as valuable.

This contrast Some may argue against the authenticity of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. and Many believe that the De Administrando Imperio is written from an obvious Byzantine bias. - is obviously taking a side.

The Priest was not a Croat either but he was fluent in the Croatian language. He lived with Croats and thus was able to translate the Slavic chronicle of De Regno Sclavorum into Latin. The Croatian language was created in the late 18th century - all Slavs spoke the Church Slavonic up to then, and when the article was written, Old Slavic was still in some usage. Additionally, if you see Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, you may notice that it was written in Bar at the very end of the 12th century - If one views the History of Serbia - he/she will notice that Bar is deeply inside Serbia; so he would've spoken fluently the Serbian language - just, like I said - Croats and Serbs didn't speak a different language back then and it is Original research anyway. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An old place name in modern-day Bosnia (which part of was geographic "Surbia") has the name Servintium (modern-day Bosanska GradiŔka). This name was already designated before any Croats and other Slavs appeared on Balkan soil. This (irrelevant to the subject) - as many of the previously-mentioned - are dealing with showing of the article is to show that Serbs didn't live there - and not Red Croatia - which is the article's subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle furthermore regulates geographic "Bosnia", and part of RaŔka to the Lipa and Lab (together "Surbia") to the Croatian Kingdom. Bosnia and part of RaŔka are known as "Transmontana" which is also known as Zagorje in Croatian language. Original Croatian Zagorje included Bosnia (small land in southeast modern Bosnia) and the frontiers of RaŔka (part of modern Sandzak). - this is - aside from being Original Research - dealing with the Chronicle far more than it deals with Red Croatia. Should the article's name even be "Red Croatia"? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbs under Stefan Nemanja expanded their state to include Duklja (Montenegro) which Serbs named Zeta, Herzegovina, small parts of southern Dalmatia, and half of modern day Sandzak to the Lipa and Lab.

With Montenegro in particular, not even the De Administrando Imperio mentions the Serbs there prior to 1198.

The first is incorrect and WP:POV - and both are irrelevant to subject. Again - not dealing with the subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over "Red Croatia"

Croat historians argue that the De Administrando Imperio gives direct contradictions. Many other historians also agree that the settlements described in chapter 32 of the Serbs seem like a copy of an earlier written chapter 31 of the Croats. Croat historians also accuse the De Administrando Imperio of having a Byzantine and pro-Serb bias in the later chapters 33 and 34 where it designates Hum and Travunia as Serb lands. They also argue that there are no historical documents prior to the 11th century that designate Duklja (large part of Montenegro) as a Serb territory. Croatian historians believe that Montenegro was forcefully conquered by the Serbs in the 12th century and Orthodox religion was forced on the populace. Croat nationalists believe most of the Orthodox Montenegrins and Herzegovians to be descendants of Red Croats and therefore "Orthodox Croats".

Ehm - what does this have to do with Red Croatia - it deals with De Administrando Imperio - and should not be present here (not the subject). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serb nationalists declare Montenegrin separatism as a direct product of Greater Croatian ideology. In the later half of the 20th century, a prominant Serb historian Dr. Slavenko Terzic had extreme criticism against his enemies whom he considered "Red Croats" particularly against the work of a Montenegrin Croat named Savic Markovic Stedimlija. Stedimlija between 1941 and 1944 in the pro fascist Independent State of Croatia published several books and articles promoting pro-Croat Montenegrin nationalism as well as several articles on the promotion of the "Croatian Orthodox Church." Stedimlija is accused of the systematic sabotage of Serbian history in Montenegro by Terzic due to Stedimlija's publishing of Red Croatian history which Terzic alleged was made only for the purpose of negating the Serb roots of Montenegrins.

Today, Montenegrin separatism is less based on Croatian nationalism and more due to economic problems facing the union between Serbia and Montenegro. There are still many Montenegrins today who declare themselves Serbs and very few that declare themselves Croats.

Today, Montenegrin... - what does this have to do with Red Croatia? Anyway - the third paragraph to the up mentions that Hum and Travunia were Serb lands (again) - when DAI (De Administrando Imperio) actually says that Pagania and Zahumlje were Serbian lands (like I explained before). Travunia is the area of Serbian rule. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Maguey y La Tuna

Article about a non-notable resturant, filled with adspeak. Eivind 14:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin_Booth

Delete. Was prod but dispute has arisen on day 5 so I am submitting it here. Non-notable bio, written by company publicist. Contents not-verifiable. Does not meet criteria for notability: people still alive. At this time there is no indication it will pass the 10 test for verifiability or 100 year test notability. A nice-looking page but not of broad interest. Nimby 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages. They are (respectively) the company page and the publicist's page:

delete. non-encyclopedic. or non-notable.


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

The result of the debate was redirected to Nuclear weapon. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bomb

Dictionary definition. Snowball Earth Hypothesis 14:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until today, it was redirected there already, so I've changed it back (which I would have done with or without AfD, so I don't think it's out of order to so now).--ragesoss 14:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV's and Counter POV's on India

Reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia. Much of it seems to be original research. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember kids, the correct title is POVs and Counter-POVs on India, NO APOSTROPHES! ;P -- infinity0 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Parekh

Probable vanity lacking neutral point of view and notability Cool3 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darksoft

Per the original prod: "non-notable company; no products, no notable press coverage AFAICT; fails WP:CORP". I didn't find anything either, but for a company established a month ago, I didn't really expect to. ā€”Cryptic (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm very glad that you do not think DarkSoft Technologies is real. I wonder if you will say that in ten years when your computer will be running DarkSoft-manufactured products. Anyway, Check out website. This is actually only our temperary website because we are literally in the process of buying our new domain www.DarkSoftTech.com from GoDaddy right now. We will be live in a few weeks. If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me at Andrew.DarkSoft@gmail.com.

I love how Wikipedia people think that just because we need a little bit of time to complete our articles means that we are fake. We actually have lives...--Zooobala 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that the company wasn't real. Please read what people post. The concern is that the company isn't notable. Because there are so many companies out there that are not of general interest, Wikipedia has guidelines to help determine which companies are notable enough to have an article. Please read WP:CORP for the notability guidelines for companies. NickelShoe 16:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore public gay parties (second nomination)

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable biased original research, and indiscriminate list. The article represents one contributor's viewpoint on the subject in question. If, somehow, the information can be verified, shown to be notable and trimmed of POV, I would support moving to Nation (party). But realistically, that article should probably be written from scratch. --Ā KrashĀ (Talk) 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay literature

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable biased original research and indiscriminate list. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific literature; if any of those redlinks are notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the writeups on them are little more than book reviews. --Ā KrashĀ (Talk) 15:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay art

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable biased original research, and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". If these artists are notable, they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the present article is nothing more than one contributor's review of Singapore gay art. --Ā KrashĀ (Talk) 15:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay theatre

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific plays; if they're notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the article is little more than one contributor's review of gay theatre in Singapore. --Ā KrashĀ (Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay films

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific films; if they're notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research. --Ā KrashĀ (Talk) 15:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for now; then Keep if relisted after a proper month wait. Notable, verifiable, and properly cited. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It could certainly have a more grammatical title. Perhaps "LGBT-related films of Singapore" (taking my lead from "Category:LGBT-related films") or Singaporean LGBT-themed films. Beyond the fact that "Singapore gay films" is ungrammatical, it's also inaccurate. "Gay" referes specifically to male-male relationships, while the listed films also deal with lesbians and transvestites.
I'd also suggest distinguishing cutting films from other countries that were banned in Singapore, but have no production ties to the country. --djrobgordon 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheophobia

I first prodded this page and it was speedied, possibly by {{db-author}} After recreate, I prodded again which was shortly removed. My prod rationale was Dictionary/neologism definition; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In the recreation history message author proposed that page be merged with article on atheism, but as I stated on the discussion page, that makes no sense. If the term is to be incorporated into atheism, make the change (be bold); dicdef not candidate for merge with article. Now, new, similar rationale is given in edit history for removing prod. Fuhghettaboutit 15:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Theophobia appears to be a valid word, unlike Atheophobia - the former having 19,800 Google hits, including dictionaries (e.g., [29]). Mdwh 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... if "theophobia" is a fear or hatred of god, would "atheophobia" be a fear or hatred of no god, or (in its broadest sense) an "absence of fear or hatred of god"? <grin> - MFNickster 05:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I give up. I don't want to be the only one preventing this from being deleted. dbtfztalk 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. I'm sure we'll all kick ourselves when this becomes a notable topic. Fagstein 08:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or merge and redirect to atheism. While we may kick ourselves if it does become notable, it isn't now. My delete is only weak because a) it is a term that I have seen used on a few occasions and b) it would be useful when dealing with some of the religious extremist editors who call everyone who disagrees with them atheists a page to point them to other than WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 15:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus tending to keep. bainer (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Cinema

Closer's notes

There was a majority of keep comments in this debate, however the variety of options led to the comments being split, with no consensus for a particular action. The strongest trends were:

  • to keep Debbie Rochon (the decision for that article will be recorded as keep)
  • to relist one or more of these articles separately.

I suggest to those involved that merging these articles may be a good option; merging does not require an AfD debate.

Films are non-notable. Actors are non-notable. Company is non-notable. Grocer 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because: they are expansion biographies from the main article.:

.

Update: An extensive portion of Sideshow Cinema consists of biographies, including subjects of previously deleted articles: John Shanahan / Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Shanahan and Robin Gabrielli / Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Gabrielli.


The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to one or more living persons. A record of the deletion debate can be found in this page's history.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ź• 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF? Records

Delete - NN record company Aksi great 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for a consensus. JIP | Talk 16:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley book shop

This was prodded three times. Moving here as a contested deletion. It's a bookstore in Perth, Ontario. NickelShoe 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayski's Silly Season Site

and it's REDIRECT Jayski added by xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC) (addition does not imply endorsement of deletion)[reply]

Fails to establish notability of this website, which as far as I can determine does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines ā”” UkPaolo/talkā” 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC) nomination withdrawn (see below) ā”” UkPaolo/talkā” 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Keeping this article will open the door to more spamming articles by NASCAR news related websites being added to the encyclpedia. I am not an authority at Wikipedia, but surely it is not the intention of the founder to have spam advertising running rampant throughout this site. There are a lot of notable NASCAR news sites that have reporters actually at the events covering the sport. Jayski's is not one of them. Thunderroad 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The site is a notable resource of all types of Nascar information. The site is notable in that it provides news on almost everything happening in the Nascar world, not to mention resources such as pictures of nearly every paint scheme being run, media news, team news, and more. Many Nascar fans rely on this site for their Nascar information, and it's not like a site like this is commonplace, and no other site seems to have the vast resources that Jayski's site does, nor are any such sites as popular by a long shot. It deserves its own article. --Spring Rubber 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WEB. Kappa 10:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


SonicAD posted this on my talk page:

  • Having created the article on Jayski's, and being unsure whether you've checked the deletion discussion since then, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your nomination. I do believe that, contrary to your nomination, it meets two criteria of WP:WEB: Part 1 (see [31] and [32]), and Part 3 (being hosted by ESPN.com, noted on Jayski's home page [33] and linked to in the racing section of ESPN.com. [34] Thanks! -- SonicAD (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this information, I am happy to reconsider my opinion. It seems I was wrong and that the website does indeed meet WP:WEB, per these arguments, and I thus withdraw my deletion nomination and vote to Keep the article. ā”” UkPaolo/talkā” 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The severe problem with reliability of any of the sources is grounds enough to delete this and recommend its removal from other articles. I note that the other AfD saw this term for what it was. -Splashtalk 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Goggles

This was prodded, but this is the second or third time this article has been created after being speedily deleted. So uncontroversial it is not. On the other hand, I wouldn't speedy it, because this version is much better than the last one I saw. We do have other articles on sex positions, but I don't know if this merits its own article. I'd be inclined to merge with List of sex positions. NickelShoe 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Fraser

The article is on a local councillor (and failed parliamentary candidate in the 2005 general election). It demonstrates no further notability or significance. There is no evidence that she is a major local figure who has had significant press coverage. I proposed the article for deletion but this was removed. The article has not been improved since, hence the AfD. Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Sliggy 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(note, in particular, that the Guardian link in the article is to an automatic database that included the votes gathered by every candidate in the last election, whether the candidate got 1 vote or won the consituency). Sliggy 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage Coming second in an election and failing to become an MP is not sufficient grounds for notability, even if Ms Fraser took 11% of the vote from Frank Dobson. Ā (aeropagitica)Ā  17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: There are currently *many* articles on people who have been candidates in various elections aronud the world, and this person is but one. Whilst I see no especially reason to retain this one more than the other similar people I likewise see no reason to delete this one whilst retaining all the others. For that matter, I do not see any urgent need to delete such type of articles generally as these people had a moment of 'fame' that will remain of interest to people interested in politics in the future, no matter that they did not succeed in the election in which they stood. Wikipedia is not paper is relevant here as it does us no harm to retain such reference material and, imho, does us great good. We cannot presume that other data sources (such as the Guardian one listed) will remain free to users. On the one thing There is no evidence that she is a major local figure who has had significant press coverage btw, she had very significant press coverage as she took the seat she took from Labour (the party in power) in a bye-election victory which overturned a safe seat for that other party, indeed the seat of the Leader of the council. Whilst we would not write an article on these people this far after the event there is no clear reason to delete it after the event/
Could I separately suggest that consideration for any deletions for people who hold council seats in London and the metropolitans (who are up for re-election in May) are held over until that happens as they may sibstantially change what is written in those articles. --Vamp:Willow 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost culture

neologism? (Requested by User:Adrift* on my talk page, may also break three pillars) Sceptre (Talk) 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please cite examples. I have no problem with the article if there truly is a commonly applied membership. And I especially have no problem with a merger with the Goth scene. But as far as I can see, it's simply a neologism for group that does not truly exist. In fact, outside of the Chinese Ghost Culture (which maybe should have it's own article on Wikipedia) I can hardly find any articles on Google that point to a "Ghost Culture" in general.--Adrift* 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the term and have known a number of people who used it, but of course that's not an encyclopedically verifiable source. Google doesn't bring much up which surprises me a bit, so I'll have to change my stance to Weak delete. Rob T Firefly 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splash conception

This page was nominated for deletion on July 2005. Most of the keep votes were based on the fact that this page had potential to be larger article. It is now March 06 and it is still nothing more then a dictionaty definition which should be moved to Wiktionary. Gerard Foley 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google search doesn't show this term appearing on too many "authoritative" (i.e. medical/health) sites, from what I can tell. Non-notable neologism. --CrypticBacon 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Goolging it brings up a ton of information relateing to this, seems plausable. Mike (T C) 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For what it's worth, I strongly dispute that a Google search turns up a "ton" of information. Many of the articles listed are talking about a band somewhere named "Splash conception", the Wikipedia article is 1st or 2nd (depending on if you search w/ or w/o quotation marks), and there are several Wikipedia mirrors. I fail to see any reputable web sites in the mix showing that this is something more than simply a non-notable neologism. However, if you (or anyone else) disagree please respond. --CrypticBacon 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the first page, the top 7 hits for this on goolge are related to this. 1 is wikipedia, and 2-3 are for a band. Mike (T C) 05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morrowind Man

Delete. A game get-rich-quick guide is not encyclopedic, and the title "Morrowind Man" is useless as a redirect. Vslashg (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Battlefield 2. -Splashtalk 01:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codename EagleĀ : Legends

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avengex

db tag removed, prod tag removed, so here goes. Link to non-notable website, does not conform to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, advertising. Accurizer 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anf

Delete this involved apparent hoax. A Google search of [monopoly anf "Anthony Nguyen"] returns no hits substantiating the Monopoly records. No such player appears in the top 250 poker players]. Perusal of the season 3 and 4 shows no record of Anthony Nguyen (and indeed, nobody does this well on the tournament).

Note that three user accounts, Hong.mac, Johnaustin, and Ikuztan, appear to be involved.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be part of the same hoax:

And the following redirects to this article:

Vslashg (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was lol, delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's Wonderful Life

Article is about a non-existent "fan film;" basically, fancruft Paul 17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Organization of Manuscript Preservation

Hoax. An organization dating back from 1700 and aimed at preserving "ancient digital documents". Was tagged prod. - Liberatore(T) 18:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep; WP:SNOW and no valid cause for deletion given. ā€” User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Page has become completely scurrilous, has POV too embedded to fix. Subject probably doesn't warrant Wiki entry at all, or maybe a 10-line entry. Now there are TWO entries on Marsden/Donnelly controversy, a 10-year-old harassment case. Artticle is now loaded with unsubstantiated/unproven allegations of criminal behavior. Article appears to be a hatchet job by Canadians against a local pundit. Article is also libelous by innuendo under Canadian law. Attempts to make this article NPOV have been rejected by administrator and two or three writer/editors. See (long) discussion page. Delete -- Ceraurus 18:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep, subject is obviously notable as published columnist alone; this is just another content dispute, not a valid AfD nomination. Monicasdude 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep clearly notable, per Monicasdude. Fagstein 19:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I have been involved with the editing of this article and can confirm that this nomination for deletion is the result of a content dispute. The subject is clearly notable--a lexis nexis search produces over 200 articles over 10 years. (Why has the proposer of this deletion, Mark Bourrie, signed himself "Ceraurus" above rather than his wiki-handle?) Bucketsofg 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWHL

Previously prodded but contested. This article is about a website, it reads like an advert, and shows no evidence of meeting any of the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. Delete. JeremyA 18:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low Down Deeper

This article has been around long, but the band does not meet WP:MUSIC. They have released 1 EP thus far, and get 486 Google hits which indicate no substantial following. Punkmorten 18:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled JĆørgen Sharling Rasmussen with this Afd as well.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 RESULT. Having read the material in the final comment, I am too worried about both the option to redirect and the option to delete. I'd prefer this AfD had no result whatever and was carried out in a more open, neutral manner. -Splashtalk 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Chess Association

This organization does not exist. It is completely bogus and non-existent. It was incorporated in Nevada in 1996, but the corporation expired only two years later in 1998. Sam Sloan 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mmm, I see a number of references to an American Chess Association founded in 1874, then changed to National Chess Association. That merged with the American Chess Federation to form the United States Chess Federation.[36] So I'm not sure what to believe here. Maybe it should be redirected to United States Chess Federation? ā€” RJH 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cite an interesting page at http://aotw.org/officers.php?officer_id=237 I had not seen that before.

If you want to redirect "Amertican Chess Association" to "United States Chess Federation" I have no objection.

Mention of the "National Chess Association" first appeared in the "American Chess Bulletin" in 1927. I believe that it had been newly formed at that time. It merged with the larger Western Chess Accociation to become the United States Chess Federation on December 27, 1939 (note the date).

There were probably other chess asociations prior to that time, but very little is known about them.

I am 100% sure that no "American Chess Association" exists today. Sam Sloan 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is an American Chess Association currently incorporated in Nevada. However, it's not much of an organization. Billbrock 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Note that its "champion" is also its president...so the puffery of the original is a counterargument for deletion. Billbrock 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vive le Canada

Site is not relevant to Wikiā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk ā€¢ contribs)

First delete voteā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk ā€¢ contribs)

--The man with one red shoe 16:24, 4 March 2006 (PST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JKF PREP/SDS

Much of this is nonsense. A former school/building, apparently. Doesn't seem notable to me. Fagstein 19:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just slander. If you want to level something against the religious order (which was incorrectly named as a school) I suggest you back it up. I could dig up some old documents in my room about the order. But the founder was never accused of anything demonic or pervertive. He was only ever accused of misspending money and that allegation turned out to be false after an independant third party was told to investigate. His accuser was being spiteful.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, although there is clearly laundry lying around this AfD. -Splashtalk 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabble

Not appropriate for the wikiā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorMay (talk ā€¢ 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_4&oldid=42227061"