Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 13: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fan-1967 (talk | contribs)
21,751 edits
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 163: Line 163:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Lakshmi Tobacco Company}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Lakshmi Tobacco Company}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Wayne Owens}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Wayne Owens}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jud Lounsbury}}

Revision as of 21:12, 13 June 2006

< June 12 >

Purge server cache

June 13

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a nonsense page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53.2

  • Delete Provides absolutly no information at all, not important enough to have an article Lorty 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even have the little information it has right

Chipka 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy lumpkins

Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to speedily keep. This should be taken to WP:RFD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdyruff

Delete. No one will ever type this into the Wikipedia search engine. They should know the full name. Marcus 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Morgan Wick 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhong(UK)

This seems to be someones joke page. ScottNestle 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 10:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Bartosh

I hate to AfD an article right after the subject's died, but this page seems to be a memorial. It was created just after the death, and is the only page the author has edited. I don't think the subject is notable, but I'm hoping some people who know more about computers than me will have some more informed opinions. I'll abstain, for now. djrobgordon 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Keep* Computer authors and experts are notable enough, at least as notable as cricket players. It mainly needs more information about his achievements.Williamb 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination, article is featured on main page as todays featured article. --

Banana04131 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Actually the bad faith nomination of Phil Collins (todays featured article) actually just links hear. Disregard my previous vote. Banana04131 00:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. -- Kicking222 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An IP vandal put AfD notices on a bunch of pages, including the aforementioned Phil Collins article, but the "this article's entry" link points here. I'm fixing them as I find them. GentlemanGhost 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This was a person who was a well regarded technical expert in the Mac community. He co-wrote the authoritative technical book for Mac OS X Server. At the time of his death he was employed by Apple as a consultant in Japan. He was a former Apple employee who Apple regarded high enough to actually hire as a consultant (something Apple rarely does). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.58.160 (talk • contribs)

It is quite the norm that people are recognized for what they did when they die because of the amount of media attention reporting the death. — Wackymacs 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:Bio.Englishrose 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Wencer 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable24.27.202.53 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have a guideline for this: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Those voting "delete, non-notable", please explain why you believe he does not qualify for this. Those who want the article kept, providing sources that show he passes this guideline would be helpful. — Haeleth Talk 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is obviously sufficiently notable according to WP:BIO guidelines. Silensor 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well within the confines of Wikipedia's policies. Kthejoker 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bartosh was a very well known and respected author, consultant, and trainer. The AFP548.com posting about his death received over 14,000 viewings in less than 24 hours.Macshome 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that this article passes WP:BIO. I found no evidence of multiple non-trivial publications written about him. For those who contend that he does meet WP:BIO, please explain why. Adambiswanger1 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Adambiswanger1 - the above arguments for the article passing WP:BIO are based on the 'Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work' section, not the 'The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)' section.--Briantemple 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True. That's actually the criterion I meant to use. I did spend about 10 minutes searching Google earlier, and I could not find any independent reviews other than those buyer feedbacks on Amazon.com. Wakemp has provided a review though, which is helpful to your case. In any event, I don't feel strongly about the delete, so I'm not going to pointlessly push my case. Thanks Adambiswanger1 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the books that are being used as the reason for 'notability' are widely regarded as definitive in their subject, which is common for O'Reilly titles. reviewed at Slashdot In Addition, Michael was a speaker at major conferences for O'Reilly and Apple over a the last 7 years. Archive presentation at Macenterprise.org Wakemp 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published author, noted computer expert, sounds like enough to stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.250.26 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep AFP548.com has a review of his book as well. [1]. Multiple reviews - here are some more [2][3] - try this google search if you need more [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.188.173.253 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • *Keep* Why? From the guidelines; The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field: Within his field of Macintosh support and development, this is absolutely the case - his book 'Essential Mac OS X Panther Server Administration', published by O'Reilly (O'Reilly Media of course being considered the quintessential and ultimate source for technical resources) was considered the "bible" and last word on the subject. While it's difficult to provide sources that verify with certainty that he was respected within the community (unless you join the lists he frequented and contributed to), he regularly assisted fellow Macintosh support and development professionals with technical issues and his contribution is vast, articulate, accurate and on the whole, unquestionable. His articles, posts to lists and multiple presentations, seminars and training sessions are most certainly widely recognized within his field and in many cases archived for future reference by the community.
    Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work: Reviews: [5] [6] [7] [8]
    Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? Absolutely. Though there are more hits that are obituary-related now, even before his death, the subject had tens of pages full of unique hits. This is only a man "not notable" to those outside his profession, just as Marc Okrand is not notable to those neither nerd nor linguist. 216.254.21.13 05:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Strong Keep*, his contributions to the OS X community are very notable, along with the reasons to keep listed by other members. --Aika 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

He seems to be notable enough to have an effect on society through computer software, if not than might as well get rid of people like Charles O'Hea who ever he is. Enlil Ninlil 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh McFarland

Vanity entry, entirely non-notable: googling "josh mcfarland" poker turns up one college link 2005 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agile work

this doesnt look like itll ever be encyclopedic even with a lot of work. just a list of instructions at the moment. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tier Ethics

Searching for "Mark Ballard" "tier ethics" is a google wack, only shows the wikipedia page; searching for "tier ethics" with google gives 53 hits, most of which use the concept in a different way that use in the article. -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for CosMedic Rejuvenation and Wellness

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP. mtz206 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertisement, is non-notable. Ted 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is an advertisement. - Richardcavell 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first article so please let me know how to ammend it. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awennar (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless it is of particular historical or other significance, it doesn't merit its own page. I would also recommend to the nominator a similar page, Paradise Day Spa and Bath House, which is essentially an ad despite its opening by the Mayor and assertions of historical importance. The problem is that there is simply nothing notable about this particular center which would merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia - see WP:NOT and WP:CORP if you are not quite familiar with policies. Maybe it will be significant one day, or maybe it is and needs to be rewritten to assert what it is that makes it so. But for now, it doesn't belong here. Jammo (SM247) 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand and thank-you to everyone for their guidance. It turns out that this business is notable as it will shortly be the first medical spa in the United Stated to become professionally accredited...I'll add this information and hopefully it will be helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awennar (talk • contribs)

Here's the scoop They will be the first accredited spa in the US within the next month or so...which they believe will start a trend that will revolutionize the spa industry...that's all I got folks. Thanks again for the input. Awennar 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited by IMAPC (see article...there is a link). Apparently they are "the" accreditation organization for legal mail-order pharmacies and medical spas in the USA. They perform extrememly rigorous off- and on-site inspections depending on certain criteria.....Awennar 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hailstone and the Electric Company

Article appears to be a vanity band page and does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Bumm13 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel (song)

Song only appeared on an album, not a single -- Koffieyahoo 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle-time overhead

Protologism. Though defined as a standard by the "International Intangible Management Standards Institute" (which itself doesn't seem very notable [9]), the term doesn't appear to have caught on. Google search returns no hits for this term that correspond with this definition [10]. Article created by User:Kenstandfield whose primary edits lately have been to promote himself, his books, and his institute. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - let's discuss on this AfD's talk page. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related Protologisms:

Please discuss all 4. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scale Expanding Cosmos

A non-notable theory by a non-notable engineer (just tagged that nn-bio); no interest in this theory beyond the publications of the author. Sdedeo (tips) 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Day Spa and Bath House

Delete as advertisement. Fails WP:CORP (despite being "heralded as the first of its kind in Queensland." --mtz206 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Sally

Non-Notable Band Alan 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awcomix

Self-published comics, nonnotable NawlinWiki 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Paly Voice

Originally tagged as a {{prod}} as a non-notable website. Tag removed without explanation by original creator of article. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. Only 5 ghits. Agent 86 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable student journalism venture. Jammo (SM247) 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Look, I am new at this whole wikipedia thing. Do not delete it please. I'd appreciate help, not you guys trying to delete this page. "Non-notable?" Wikipedia is full of non-notable stuff. Seriously guys, I removed the tag without explanation because I didn't know I was supposed to explain myself. There is nothing wrong with the page. Check it out yourself! Before you try to delete it, can you please tell my why it is "non-notable?" --Sro 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
  • Comments Whether the page is well written is not in dispute here. What has been asserted is that the page breaches one or more official policies or conventions for the inclusion and removal of articles from Wikipedia. In some cases, the very premise of the article is in dispute, and no amount of quality improvements will save it. This is the case here, as the article is apparently about a non-notable student journalism group. It has an insufficient profile, fails a number of basic tests e.g. the Google Test and cites no sources other than its own website. Notability depends on who you talk to (I doubt you would find infrequently served Australian railway stations notable, but there are reasons for including them); however, there is a lower threshold for notability that this article has not met. Please don't take it personally, as you seem to be an interested editor who can contribute to other projects. Also, please don't remove prods without explanation. Jammo (SM247) 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn student webpage. Sro -- no offense, but do read WP:WEB. Sdedeo (tips) 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Keep. Woah, hey, whaddaya know but it seems to be a student-made website that does satisfy WP:WEB! Sdedeo (tips) 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (Just to be clear: won a Webby, as well as a non-vanity award from NSPA. Sdedeo (tips) 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep notable per WP:WEB and the webby [12]. blue520 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fair enough. Jammo (SM247) 02:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search provides 154,000 hits. I didn't look past the first 2000 but every single one of those came from http://voice.paly.net. --Danielrocks123 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WEB and get back to us. Sdedeo (tips) 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis added).
allllllmost there... keep reading... to the second possible criterion. Let us know what you find. Sdedeo (tips) 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you to everyone who said keep. To everyone who wanted to delete the page, I am not quite sure I yet understand why you want to delete the page. From what I gather, some of you think that the facts could be faulty. Just click on each of the links I provide under the Awards section to bring you to the "Webby" page and "Pacemaker" page which both tell you that the journalism site in question has indeed won both awards. I've read all of the links that you have provided me above and still do not understand what is wrong with this page. Thanks for the support. Here is more external info that I can put on the page if you want me to: http://voice.paly.net/press.php --Sro 05:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
I striked out your Keep as you voted already above.--Andeh 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. Thank you Mr. Andy :)--Sro 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
Jammo - in the beginning you voted "delete" and later you voted "keep." I certainly hope (and presume) it is the latter, but which will it be?--Sro 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SRO[reply]
Sorry Sro, an oversight on my part. My apologies, my keep is the effective one. Jammo (SM247) 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for standing by me --Sro 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These Afd's usually last 5 days, (maybe a bit longer if there's an admin backlog). BTW these aren't votes there debates. Some people tend to be pretty touchy about referring to these as votes. If there is a consensus to delete it goes if not it stays Ydam 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete not notable at all, unless you only count what the people in The paly voice think. I suspect the majority of keep votes here are coming directly from mmebers of this paly voice group. Trm3 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article and WP:WEB and get back to us. Sdedeo (tips) 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please rememeber to WP:AGF Ydam 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trm3 has good reasoning to suspect that some of the keep votes of this discussion are belonging to people involved with the Paly Voice. A Google search, correlating to Danielrocks123's comment above, will show that the site generates very few relating articles, all of which are directly connected to the operations of the Paly Voice. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

(Record playing.) Please read WP:WEB and the article. Webby == automatic "keep". Sdedeo (tips) 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contary, accusing a majority of the keep voters on here of being directly involved with the Paly Voice is uncivil. Anybody can check the user contributions of these editors and see that they are long time contributers. Attempting to discredit dissenting opinions by throwing around unfounded allegations is uncalled for Ydam 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had you noticed, it wasn't my presumption in the first place, and it's not uncivil to call into question perticular votes when suspicion is aroused. That is all. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
Just so that you all know, no other people who have spoken in this "thread" besides me are from The Paly Voice. As Ydam said, look at the backgrounds of the people saying "keep." Furthermore, the people saying keep have a legitimate reason to keep (the Webby Award). Come on now, no argumentum ad hominems. --Sro 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. Frankly, it's now got to the stage where the creator of this crap is being disruptive (he's done it a lot more than once), which I can consider vandalism, which shall be speedied. Proto||type 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off Puente

Non-notable band, content in article is largely false. (May meet speedy deletion criteria.) -- ChrisB 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse video

Discusses the act of inverting the colors in an image. I don't know as much about computers as some people do, but this sounds unencyclopedic. Hasn't seen a single major edit since it was created a year ago. See also negative (photography). --Smack (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs more work but contains useful material. BlueValour 02:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BlueValour --Danielrocks123 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't this the same as inverting an image?--Andeh 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. crystal-ballism that more work on article will do anything good. Tychocat 09:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef per Tychocat. Also, it's unsourced and I wonder where it all came from. Kimchi.sg 10:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's essentially a dicdef now, but could be more. Essentially a stub. Ace of Sevens 12:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dict def, and WP:NOT a how-to guide. Proto||type 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an editor/filmmaker, I can tell you that this is wicked an inverted image. I couldn't find an article on the topic, so we could just change the title and wording. I'd be more than happy to help. It's a wicked fun and cool thing to use. Yanksox 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Yanksox makes a good point: as a special effect used in many areas of the visual arts, one can imagine a decent article being written on this subject, simply by covering where and why it's been used. While what we have now is not such an article, it's no worse than many small stubs. The "dicdef" principle really applies only where there is no potential for expansion. This should either be kept, or if the subject is already covered in another article, it should be redirected there; but there is no good reason to delete it. — Haeleth Talk 17:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It may be better to discuss this as a section at Image editing. However, if we do keep it, we should probably rename it to Reverse image. --Smack (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, I have to disagree with the interpretations of most editors who have weighed in above here. I don't think the point of the Reverse video article is a TV or movie effect; it's talking about what happens on a computer screen when you highlight text so that, for example, what had been black text on a white background becomes white text in a black box against a white background. (To see what I mean, click and drag with your mouse over just about any text on this page.) This effect has been around in computers for a long time and was even more common back in the days of 8-bit computers, when it wasn't practical to have on-screen effects like italics and underlining, but it was possible to have the effect described in the article stand in for one of them. At the risk of suggesting how old I am, I used to use the AtariWriter word processing software which showed text on the screen in reverse video when that text was going to be underlined on paper. This is not a dicdef; it's a stub. Vadder 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I read your comments and see what you mean. I still think we could change this to an article about inverted video, which seems to be the most proper use of the page. Yanksox 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering one reason not to do that: pages that currently link to this article should expect it to be about computers, so the links will be wrong if the basic subject matter of this article changes to videography. Vadder 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about a disamb? Yanksox 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A disamb would be good, as long as somebody goes to all the pages linking to Reverse video and points them appropriately past the disamb. Vadder 03:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kondremul

This article is basically just one sentence at the beginning, a list of ingredients, and two uses for this medicine, and it all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle —Mets501 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, these names are in roughly alphabetical order. Either the editor is very neat in his medicine cabinet, or this is an experiment! Shenme 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cepestat

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anacin

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

holdthefrontpage

advertisement, POV Luigivampa 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blash

No information given about notability, site has a low Alexa ranking. If his song was chosen this may be notable, but it wasn't. Crystallina 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caldesene

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Olsen

Article does not establish any grounds for notability, seems to fail WP:BIO Yamla 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie role was her only movie role - and it was a bit part, and the film was certainly not a success. The only other credits consisted of a few, low-rated, 30 minute "adventures" shows where she played kid sister to the twin-leads. The salient point here is that she has no career of her own. Rklawton 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castles Society

From time to time, I have come across articles with links to this page, which is written in a vainglorious fashion. Checking the "What links here", I went through the pages where it was listed and investigated whether it would be appropriate to link to a badly written article. The link was something copied and pasted in as it fell out of format with all other links in the "See also" sections of the various pages. Ignoring that aspect, it fell totally out of place when considering the content of the various articles (palaces, new construction, etc) and I thought it appropriate to remove the link case by case. Each case proved to necessitate the removal of the link. The article itself really should be deleted. It is unencyclopedic and even if expanded, it isn't a notable topic. The vague term "castle preservation" redirects to it, created by the creator of the Castles Society page himself. I consider the page to be an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Some of the pages that formerly linked are below:


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathi (2nd nomination)

Last AfD had absolutely no hint of discussion whatsoever and resulted in a soft redirect, which I don't find appropriate. Anyways, the soft redirect was reverted because the transwiki move apparently wasn't done properly. It's since been done. TheProject 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finaghy Primary School

Non-notable primary school with no professed achievements. BlueValour 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "If you aren't interested... don't read" is not a very nice thing to say on wiki. No one can assume that only school students and alumni would read the article. Who's to stop someone that clicks Special:Randompage from landing on the article? Kimchi.sg 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons above. David L Rattigan 10:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Peripitus. Although I don't buy the idea that all schools are notable solely because they exist, a school that is 72 years old surely has a history long enough to be encyclopedic - it couldn't have been quietly collecting dust in that time. Delete the claim of the school being founded in 1934 is unsourced. Not even their website mentions it. [16] This erases my argument for keeping the article. Kimchi.sg 11:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Belfast Education and Library Board say it was founded in 1934 [www.belb.org.uk/publications/354.pdf ]. No particular reason for the schools own site to mention it - they don't have a History section. Dlyons493 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, their web site does mention it. --Rob 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Finaghy, as per the consensus reached on WP:SCH, which everyone promptly seemed to ignore. Wah wah, delete, delete, keep, keep, and every school, no matter how good an article, or how shitty, ends up as no consensus, and yet people still vote. What a waste of time. The article on the location the school is in needs WAY more work on it than the school article, and it's way more important, but people would rather edit the one on the school to prove some kind of stupid point. Proto||type 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, the article on Finaghy is so stubby and short, I've just merged the school article into it, as common sense and WP:SCH dictated. No doubt some fool will revert because it 'hadn't been discussed on the talk page', but I do not care. Proto||type 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try actually clicking on WP:SCH, and see what's at the link you gave. Your unilateral action has been undone. Please read what the {{AFD}} notice says. Given that you haven't read WP:SCH in a long time, have no idea it 's tagged as rejected, you may wish to be cautious about use of the words "stupid" and "fool". --Rob 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, considering you yourself said - on Wikipedia_talk:Schools#Time_to_retire_this - I think changing the redirect may be a bad idea, as it retroactively changes the meaning/context of somebody's archived comments, such as "Do something per WP:SCH, that's a fairly astonishing bit of doublethink. Good work. Shortcuts should be immutable for that very reason, and whoever changed it shouldn't have. No matter. I stand by my vote - merge this unencyclopaedic yellow pages garbage on a school for under-10s into the article on the locality, as god knows it needs expanding. Proto||type 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the "doublethink". I see somebody who made an entirely understandable mistake, which would have been ignored, and sympathized with, if not for the use of insulting terms. --Rob 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I shouldn't get involved with school 'articles'. They just make me cross, as people seem passionately unable to compromise, in either direction. Bah, I'm going back to not having anything to do with them. Proto||type 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article had a prior AFD in June 2005 which resulted in a keep. --Rob 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per well and long established precedent. Jcuk 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndale Primary School

Non-notable primary school with no listed achievements. BlueValour 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. Frankchn 02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Hooperbloob 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a school and that is notable. --Kev62nesl 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable, no real content either. I'd say high schools are notable, but not primary schools. --Rory096 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rory096. --Coredesat 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Schools are not automatically notable. Tychocat 09:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can someone please explain the logic behind the argument 'high/secondary schools are notable, but primary/elementary are not'? Bear in mind that for many communities around the world, only 'elementary' education is available. Markb 09:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose to me at least it's the maturity level of the students. High Schools are often a place where strong memories are formed; where the beginnings of a trade are learned, and they are typically larger institutions than primary/elementary schools—often graduating tens of thousands of students while they are in service. So I think there's a weak case for High Schools being called notable. I don't see one for primary/elementary schools, unless they're unique in some respect. — RJH (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't buy the notion that any schools, high schools included, have automatic, inherited "notability" or worthiness for an article. One could make a reasonably logical argument though for the cultural importance of high schools in American/Canadian culture as pointed out by RJH. 30 years from now, people will still be attending High School Reunions... nobody formally gets together with the people they attended middle/jr high with. Also consider that HS is the first level of schooling that gives students some sort of usable certification of learning (i.e. a diploma). Of course IMO, having a hard cutoff for HS leads into the possibility of systemic/cultural bias as pointed out by Markb above. Of course to me, it is preferable to judge each article on it's actual merits rather than blanket "school = keep" or "school = delete".--Isotope23 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potential for expansion, and Wikipedia isn't paper. David L Rattigan 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although it has been around since 1956 (according to the school's website [17] it appears to be devoid of notable past events or interesting features. In other words, non-notable. Kimchi.sg 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while precedent has established that high schools are inherantly notable the same is not true of primary schools. Ydam 10:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable has been asserted or found about this primary school. Re: Ydam's comment, I'd like to know where a precedent has been set that high schools are inherently notable. - Motor (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents. I don't necessarily agree that high schools are inherently notable but nearly every one that comes to AFD gets kept. I would call that a precedent. Ydam 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the school AFDs resulting in "no consenus" is hardly what I'd call setting a precedent for being inherently notable. But this isn't the place to discuss it so... - Motor (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a consensus and a precedent though, for instance legal rulings don't have to be unanimous by judges/juries to set a precedent, but anyway we digress... Ydam 13:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary schools in the UK cover reception and years 1 - 6, that's up to age 11. A pupil spends more time in primary school than in secondary schools, with a leaving age of 16. Markb 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Police Cadet Corps/Dragon & Lion Dance Troupe

Two extracurricular activities at a school (apparently in Hong Kong); school clubs are nonnotable in themselves NawlinWiki 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Yoshi's Story. JPD (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's Story tech demo

Second nomination, but first under new title. I argue that even if tech demos were applicable to be articles, consider this - it may be that this is a notable tech demo, but it is also another thing - a port. It is known that it is Yoshi's Story, and thusly, like any other port, should not be included as its own page. If the Breath of Fire Game Boy Advance port does not warrant its own page, then even if a tech demo was deserving of being its own article, it's the same as Yoshi's Story, but on a different system. The article should be deleted, as it is an obscure title that people will likely not visit. It does not need any more mention than on Yoshi's Story's page. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Self Determination

Seems like original thought &/or opinion. It is *not* one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points as stated in the article. I can't think of how to edit this into something usable. NawlinWiki 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Timmins

Non-notable individual/possible vanity Alan 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deviant Realms

Leads to a small set of private servers of no great significance; vanity article -- DarkLordSeth 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EightStar

Delete This is clearly an advertisment. information written and sourced entirely by company. Librarianofages 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity - what search string are you using ? this search brings back about 10k results. Are you excluding similar results ? Megapixie 05:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That search give 225 distinct Ghits by my count - just go to the last one. The seach I did myself was just for EightStar. Dlyons493 Talk 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, to be fair searching for DeBeers only brings back 770 unique ghits. DeBeers and Diamond brings back 713. Admittedly it brings back 398,000 non-unique hits. So I don't think the uniqueness criteria is that great an idea - since are we saying that this company is 1/4 as notable as DeBeers ? That's still pretty notable. Megapixie 13:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G4, already deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Streets in London

Too trivial Geopgeop 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with witty Family Guy reference. DS 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vodka stinger with a whiskey back

Delete. Mentioned only once on an episode of Family Guy; doesn't warrant its own article —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice One

This page has been on WP:PNT for two weeks, and only the first couple of lines are in English (added by someone other than the author, apparently.) From what I can read in the article, this person is a DJ, and is notable if the claims in the article are true (but they're unsourced.) Unless someone is willing to translate this and elevate it above the vanity it looks like right now, I think this should be deleted, without prejudice towards recreation (in English.) Grandmasterka 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's way more in there than that though. Not a db-bio, but needs to be verified, cleaned up and have the vanity taken out if translated. (Which doesn't look like it will happen.) Grandmasterka 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Newton

not notable; one of the least notable Duke basketball players in recent memory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedog423 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegularity

This article is a barely anthing more than an elaborate dictionary entry. To make matters worse, it was created by Ray Crowther, the same person who invented the word just two years ago. A google search for the term turns up only 167 results, and the article also seems to be doing some advertising for http://pegularity.org.uk/ which isn't even worthy of an Alexa rank. --Hetar 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A8) – Gurch 11:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Left to Lose

Lack of notability Article is the summary of one band's history. See WP:MUSIC for policies on bands. Interlingua talk 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic_anti-Semitism

This article seems to have been created for the sole purpose of creating a "counter" to the New anti-Semitism article. It consists entirely of OR (such as the false claim that 'Classic anti-Semitism refers to the the political right's attempts to ..." as well as "Examples" which are irrelevant to "Classical anti-Semitism Isarig 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was boldly redirected by User:Kevin1243 to sex organ. Proto||type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peepee

Unencyclopedic article on a slang term. History shows that it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, and I can't see how it can be made into a useful encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 04:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected, so this just needs to be closed. Kevin 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Oaks Co-op, Vancouver

Article is minutiae about some multiple-unit housing complex, is in no way encyclopedic. Bumm13 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily kept after the article has been rewritten to be about the actual person. Any debate about whether he is encyclopaedic would go through a seperate AFD (and I don't think it will, though) Proto||type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Ruff

Delete. This page is about Edgar Winter, not Chuck Ruff. There is no need to move the article, however, because the page Edgar Winter is identical. --Danielrocks123 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about a totally different person. A redirect would be inappropriate because someone searching for Chuck Ruff probably does not want a page about a different person. --Danielrocks123 05:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was other consensus to delete, but as this has been merged to Shorewood, Wisconsin apparently, we need to preserve the article history so I'm redirecting there. W.marsh 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek's Pharmacy

Yes, we've gotten to the point where we need a vote to decide whether the neighbourhood pharmacy is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Harro5 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that in the history. Am I looking in the wrong place? Kevin 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Rename and Keep Eluchil404 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gated Reverb

Delete original research. --Danielrocks123 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have no idea about sound editing, but this appears to be a bona fide notable technique (see the 21,700 Google hits). Needs cleanup and sourcing, though. Sandstein 04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (But I would say that wouldn't I!) I added this because there was a poorly written paragraph on the Genesis page referring to "reverse Noise Gate" which I changed to the correct term "Gated Reverb" wikified & then found out there wasn't a page for it. Created the page because it's one of the all time classic drum recording techniques, added a couple of categories, wandered off rationalising the categories on a number of other webpages related to sound recording techniques & when I returned to Gated Reverb I found it was marked for deletion. Well, 10/10 for speed, 0/10 for actually GOOGLING, finding out it IS a legit technique & then helping me by making some changes so it does meet quality standards. I've added a few links to other internet articles on the subject hopefully to pacify the "original research" nazi. I agree with Sandstein that it needs a cleanup but it's a really trivial matter to verify that this is not original research so let's untag it. In future, DanielRocks123, there's this way cool website called Google that can stop you looking stupid ;) Megamanic 04:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I first marked this page for deletion I had done a google search that produced a lot of hits that seemed to be advertisements. If this technique is actually a legitimate technique then I stand corrected, although I would suggest citing some sources. In addition, please refrain from calling people Nazis as somebody could get quite offended. Thanks. --Danielrocks123 05:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, no offense intended. Didn't see any advertisments myself on Google. Lots of references to things like "I am trying to create the gated reverb effect - used on many productions like Genesis and ..." The first article listed is to a reputable recording magazine (Sound On Sound) with the following Quote:- Probably the simplest form of change you can add to reverb is to call up a gated setting. This has no natural counterpart, so the abrupt cessation of reverb at the end of the gate period attracts attention. Getting a gated reverb sound is usually just a matter of calling up a suitable preset or creating your own patch using the editing parameters in your effects, but it can help to keep in mind how the effect was originally engineered.
The gated effect was first applied to drums, and involved putting up ambience mics in a very live room to capture the reverb sound. These mics were then fed through a conventional stereo gate, which was externally keyed from the close mics on the drum kit. Setting a hold time of half a second or so, followed by a fast release time, causes the gate to allow only the first half second of reverb to pass though after each drum hit, before closing again. Figure 1 shows how gated drums can be created using the traditional method. A compressor was often used to maintain the level of the reverb, and this is shown in the illustration. The result is the gated drum sound that has become something of a cliché, though the effect doesn't have to become stale if you use it sparingly.
Which is pretty much what I put in the article. My point is that you went off half cocked. I'm happy to admit the article needs work, I'm a computer programmer/Musician not a copywriter Jim. I contributed it with the intention of seeing it evolve & hopefully improve with the contributions of others. I'm delighted to accept the suggested name change to lose the Camel Caps (and I note this for any articles I may add in the future) but I want you to be a little more discerning when it comes to tagging articles for deletion - especially in areas that you aren't knowledgable. The fact that it was tagged within 2 minutes of creation puts an absolute limit on how long you could have spent researching before making the decision... Megamanic 09:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...to err is human: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs)


I've "Moved" Gated Reverb to Gated reverb as that's the concensus of just about everybody & it makes sense. I've done a little bit more cleanup but I'm not best qualified to do this so it's over to the community. I'm new to this stuff, how long before we lose the deletion tag? Megamanic 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for the discussion but although Flanging is an exemplary article it would be very hard to do the same thing with Gated reverb as it's what I would call a "derived" effect (the result of chaining two effects one after the other) whereas Flanging is a particular type of delay effect. If you examine anything you're going to do to a sound it drops into one of two camps - alteration (probably not the right term) or delay. A distortion pedal basically hard clips the signal which is an easy example of altering the timbre whereas a 1 second digital delay is a clear example of the latter. Flanging is the result of a very short delay and the way I remember from my copy of "The Digital Delay Handbook" it goes 1-3ms = Phasing, 4-10ms = Flanging, then in through Chorusing & ADT to slapback echo so maybe we need an article on the theory of signal processing that brings all of these primary & secondary effects together & more importantly is linked to by all of these articles. Megamanic 08:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 SEC Tournament Championship Game

Are there very many articles about individual games? I'm a big college sports fan, but I have a little problem with recaps of individual games other than maybe national title games. Even then, if we're talking basketball, there's an article on each year's tournament itself, so you don't really need a separate article about the game. (Also, please note that this article is about the women's basketball championship game, so it should probably be renamed if it is kept.) I will not oppose a speedy keep if there is otherwise overwhelming consensus for a keep ... I just think that individual game articles set a dangerous crufty precedent (as much as I hate that word). BigDT 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as apparent hoax. DS 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Age of the Feathered Serpent

There is no such 'golden age' known or recognised by Mayanist scholarship- 1st C. AD would place this in the preclassic era, and there's nowhere near enough known about the details of this period to support any such claim. If not an actual hoax or piece of fiction, it is possible that this is some poor distillation of some LDS account somewhere speculating about this period/region. Even if so, it is better covered somewhere like Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, but I really don't see anything salvagable or sensible here. Delete, as unverified, not useful, and wrong. cjllw | TALK 04:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. That's right, I'm being bold. It's a hoax, it's A7, and if there is a claim to notability, it's a hoaxy one, and I chose to ignore any such claims for the greater good. Proto||type 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyran Million

This article about a musician included various faked references (for example, a link to an article in Rolling Stone which turned out to be about a completely different band), which have since been removed from the article. This leaves the rest of the article as unverifiable, vanity, and/or a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this person satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off Puente, where his band's article has been submitted for deletion too. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Morrison

Procedural nomination. I noticed the redlinked AFD and that an IP user User:213.122.69.118 had added it to the list and tagged the article with a prod (rather than an AFD). I switched it to an AFD and created this page. As for looking at the article itself, it certainly appears to be more than a vanity page ... can someone familiar with British politics comment on whether this is a real/notable individual or just someone's wishful thinking? No vote. BigDT 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is clearly a vanity entry with no credible references. Where is Morrison mentioned in any detail any printed books, for instance, that deal with the Far Right in the UK? True, he has one passing reference in one book, and that is all. Does that merit an entry, here, though? (If I am in error, somene correct me.) He is a very minor figure on the Far Right, famous for the amount of times he has created or been part of some organization, which then splits because of him or which he re-names or which he disbands. Are we going to include every minor figure in politics who gets one reference in one book? 213.122.78.162 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just called him 'famous' ... Dogville 07:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is regularly covered in Searchlight Magazine, although given that their website is pretty poor most of the articles are not on there. I've left my copies at home but I'll sort out referencing in the near future if that is the problem. His propensity for starting and stopping movements is, to an extent, indicative of the fractured nature of the far right in Britain rather than his own lack of notability. The fact that he is covered in books as far apart chronologically as that of Ray Hill and Nick Ryan's Homeland indicates his longevity on the far right, another important aspect of his notability. Therefore he is definitely notable enough for an article. Keresaspa 12:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intangible accounting

I was unable to find prominent news reports or academic papers not associated with Ken Standfield, who is credited with creating the term(and who wrote the article). Therefore, I judge it to be a neologism which has failed to catch on in the wider world of economics, and it's inclusion in Wikipedia to be an attempt at self-promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Intangible accounting is real, but not strongly associated with Ken Standfield. See, for example, International Accounting Standard 38 - Intangible assets. This is a hot issue in the accounting community, covering issues such as how to value development costs of computer software, but the article here seems to be about something else entirely. Standfield is trying to figure out how to deal with accounting for non-financial items. This is a real subject. See, for example, Attention economy; you can run out of attention separately from money, because you can't buy time. But Standfield's take on this seems to be off in another direction. I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems to be a reuse of a known term for a new idea. There could be an article on this subject, but it will need a neutral party with accounting expertise to write it. --John Nagle 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation matches my very foggy understanding of accounting. It says, for example, that assets can be valued only if "it is probable that the future economic benefits that are attributable to the asset will flow to the enterprise; and the cost of the asset can be measured reliably." In other words, it is very clearly concerned with the dollar value of intangible assets, and their role in financial transactions, just like everything else in accounting. The article we're discussing talks about "non-financial transactions" and is, as you say, something completely different. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are numerous articles and books on intangible assets such as brands, but the direction here is purely self-serving. I do agree with above comment that an independant article with wider references would be welcome. Nelson50 09:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite per Nelson50. --Coredesat 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've removed the Standfield stuff and what remains seems valid enough to me (I am not an accountant). Accounting for intangibles is a valid field - hopefully someone will add to this article in a factual way. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Nagle's comment above, and mine. I don't think this article is a valid description of how intangibles are treated in standard accounting. That is, what is being called "intangible accounting" is not "standard accounting practices for intangibles." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right - why not just make the appropriate changes? If you get it roughly right now it can improve over time. The topic seems worth an article. Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless provided with good, verifiable source citations, prior to expiration of AfD discussion showing that this is a currently accepted discipline. I know very little of accounting, but it bothers me that what the article says seems to conflict with what little I do know. I believed that in standard accounting intangibles were valued by the amount actually paid to acquire them; that is, they are treated as part of ordinary financial transactions. I worry that this article is using words like "capital" with private meanings that do not correspond to their dictionary definitions or their accepted usage in accounting or economics, and that perhaps one of Standfield's purposes in creating the article to promote novel meanings for these words. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Accounting may be concerned with intangible assets, but could someone point me to a non-KS use of the term "intangible accounting"? Right now it sort of seems like creating an article called "squishy physics". Sure physics deals with squishy things... but.... Sdedeo (tips) 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worse than that, because there is AFAIK no existing meaning for the phrase "squishy physics." A better analogy would be someone writing an article on the ratiocination processes of police detectives under the title "fuzzy logic." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article contains one potentially interesting sentence about "effective time", whatever that is. It appears to me that including that in intangible asset, if there is a notable theory, might be the best choice. RandomP 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - already at bs:Riblja čorba. - Mike Rosoft 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riblja corba

This page has been on WP:PNT for the required two weeks. It is about a band. I believe it's in Bosnian. Unless this wall of text is translated and the band is notable, this should be deleted. Grandmasterka 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a repost. It was largely similar, though this version was longer; the last sentence was the same in both, "the band's future is unknown." Well, duh. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Terrorism

I don't see how this band meets any of the notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music), also no listing on allmusic.com.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Looking back a the old AfD (this one is the second AfD), is this a repost?--blue520 06:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, see the reference to "Nokturnal Mortum" in the old AfD. --Rory096 07:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tom harrison as {{db-repost}} material.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape scams

It was deprodded, then tagged for speedy with the justification that it violated WP:BEANS and had been deleted before, though I can find no evidence of the latter in the deletion log, so I'm bringin it here. I think the original prod tag is good: Wikipedia is not a game guide. This appears to be original research, which violates official policy. Chaser T 07:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit as Revealed in Acts through Revelation

The title itself is POV - "revealed" is a theological term. The article appears to be entirely original research with no sources given, and only one POV represented throughout. From the layout it appears to be a college essay. There are already several related articles, eg Holy Spirit, Acts etc. I suggest anyone with an interest in the article merge any material they feel is important into other articles; then it can be deleted. David L Rattigan 07:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rude on Rails

This is a poorly-written article which serves little purpose and is plagued with violations of the NPOV. It also uses made-up words and has little reason for existance, as it does not provide a lot of factual information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickv111 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 June 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boring Business Systems

Previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boring Business Systems) close dno consensus, but all five "keep" voters were later found to be probable sockpuppets of a single editor (now indef-blocked), no editor in good standing with a real edit history voted keep, and several advocated deletion. This article seems to exist solely to allow a small group of people to poke fun at the domain name (the company was founded by a Mr. Boring, incidentally, in case you were wondering). Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that fails to address WP:CORP which sets out very clearly notability criteria for companines. This company meets none of them, hence by the accepted definition on Wikipedia it is non-notable. --Wisden17 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TigerShark 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian supremacy

Got the {{unreferenced}} tag weeks ago, but no reliable source were given. Note that the linked article from the Time Magazine doesn't use the term "Asian supremacy". A careful web search turns up Wikipedia and mirrors, some forum postings and places where the words are used in another meaning (most often supremacy within Asia, like "India's South Asian supremacy remains intact.")

Delete as original research and neologism.

Pjacobi 09:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Tychocat 10:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DS 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maulik baxi

Non-notable person, page was created simply for self-promotion, text is taken almost entirely from http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/maulikbaxi Travelbird 10:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Unsourced, no verification. Profile at website is where this should be. WP is not a free web-host. Tychocat 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Default action is merge to Wellington High School Deathphoenix ʕ 00:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livewire (Wellington)

Non notable and uneeded for such a small thing so delete. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. Cute, but nn. Tychocat 10:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article mentions that it is Wellington, New Zealand. Jammo (SM247) 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill Bill Show

Non-notable, do we need an article about a baby?. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TigerShark 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caldecort

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allerest

This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. —Mets501 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites

Unmaintanble spam magnet.There are millions of websites, and tens of thousands that could be described as notable. Category:Websites is quite adequate. Previous nomination (here) was closed as no consensus, with some reservations. Ezeu 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Non-notable websites shouldn't have a category, let alone be on wikipedia. --Arnzy (whats up?) 12:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saryn Hooks

Third place finisher in the National Spelling Bee? NawlinWiki 11:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PriceHot.com

Advertisement. Fails WP:CORP. mtz206 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity (science)

This article repeats objectivity (philosophy), which itself states that it is "concerned by epistemic and metaphysical discussions of objectivity", the possibility and the various ways (according to different domains - objectivity in physics is not the same as that in history) according to which objectivity can be achieved. It is a pure artificial distinction to radically separate the philosophical discussion of objectivity to other general objectivity articles, since philosophers discuss about this general sense of objectivity. The nature of an objective reality, Kant's distinction between noumenons and phenomenons, the Hegelian dialectic about the spirit and history, marxist materialist conception about reality (necessarily historic reality), is an ontological discussion, which could maybe be better carried on at the being article. If it is decided to be kept to the "objectivity (philosophy)" article, as well as the "propositions" subsection, this doesn't mean that it is necessary to create again ten thousands articles about objectivity in specific fields. The "objectivity (philosophy)" article should be used for a general discussion of objectivity in all fields. Philosophy is not, by definition, radically distinguished from "non-philosophical" topics, such as history, journalism, etc. Henceforth, to avoid noise and multiplication of articles, it would be wise to delete this one, and find a solution for the repeat of a general discussion on objectivity on the objectivity article and the objectivity (philosophy) article. Lapaz 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was objectively incomplete. Listing now. - Liberatore(T) 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. I'm not sure if there's a joke here, or who's it on. Tychocat 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beg your pardon? I am not sure that I am mentally equipped to follow the reasoning of the nomination. As far as I'm aware, the concept of objectivity in science can be discussed without delving into Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena; in fact, science is only about the world as we experience it and has no business in distinguishing it from a metaphysical concept of a presumed world as it truly is. The article is not quite a dictionary definition either, or else I should advise you to acquire another dictionary. If the nominator's recommendation is to merge this into Objectivity (philosophy), well, we don't need to do that through the mechanism of a deletion debate. But I'm not sure what the intention of the recommendation is. Perhaps it is to deny that there are other concepts of objectivity than the philosophical one, and that all traces should be erased of articles that attempt to bypass an ontological discussion using Hegelian dialectic. --LambiamTalk 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It won't, not from me, in any case. I can see how this could go. Tychocat 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dicdef, not a specifically scientific use of the word. Tevildo 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I think it was me who created the article. To follow Lambiam I feel there is significant difference to how the term objectivity is used in Science with its strict philosophical usage. In science it has a more pragmatic usage, perhaps more equivilent to objectivity (journalism). It is more a thing to be aimed for rather than an absolute measure. Whilst I feel there is ample scope to expand this article to give a good treatment of how the word objective is used in science, alas I do not have time to devote to it. Further Objectivity (philosophy) is too full of philosophical jargon to make it an accessable article for the average scientist. Further still quantum physics with its paradoxes related to observers has useful contribution to the whole notion of objectivity. --Salix alba (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mark as stub, and expand. Gillespie's Edge of Objectivity is specifically on this subject (rather than philosophy), and I'm sure there are others; I read it too long ago to edit the article today. In any case, this nomination is a merge request; there's no case to delete. Septentrionalis 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lambiam has done a significant expansion (it was already and still is marked as a stub). The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. The article is not a dictionary definition anymore, it is far too long for that and doesn't read that way. A merge could be done if the editors of the two pages want to, but that should be discussed on those two pages. If a merge happens, and if the resultant redirect isn't necessary, though I suspect it would be, then that can be brought up at RFD. GRBerry 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim_(insult)

Not encylopaedic - seems more suited to urbandictionary.com Gordonross 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabeworks

I'm not sure if this website is important enough to have an article -- Snailwalker | talk 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomeo and Juliet

The whole article seems as if it were written by a studio executive. It also represents crystallballism. Ohyeahmormons 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No different than many other future film articles. Qutezuce 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment. About "it seems as if it were written by a studio executive", just summarize the reactions from the people involved instead of quoting them in full, and the problem is solved. Other than those quotes, I don't see anything objectionable with the article. As Qutezuce said, it is just an article about a future film (one that's been talked about in the press quite a bit) like any other. This one's pretty high-profile, so while of course it could get cancelled (ANY future film could), there are plenty of sources verifying its existence. I think it would be more usefull for Wikipedia to have an article about it than to not ackowledge its existence because there's a slight chance that it won't be released (a chance which is always there with any future film). See: Wikipedia is not paper. Unless you're advocating that ALL future film articles on Wikipedia be deleted, I don't see any reason to single this one out. If you ARE advocating that, this is not the place to do it. Esn 13:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: One more thing, the article needs more references or external links than just one from IMDB which requires an IMDBPro membership. I'll see what I can do (but please help if you know a good article about the film). Esn 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC
      • If it "has been talked about in the press quite a bit" then those press references should be cited in the article. If mainstream news sources are cited to show that the preparations for this film are already notable in 2006 I'll consider changing my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would use that Toronto Sun article as a reason not to consider this film reliable. Elton John and his partner are going to create a studio to produce this movie. Not only does the movie not exist yet, the studio that's supposed to make it doesn't even exist yet. Fan1967 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If and when the company actually exists, and production ever actually begins, an article may be appropriate. Too many things up in the air right now. What's the financing plan for the company? Who's going to run it? When is it going to start up? Until those things happen, too many things can fall apart. Fan1967 14:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are absolutely relevant. Until those things are answered, none of this planned production can even be remotely regarded as "almost certain". Fan1967 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of sourcing about people talking about planning a movie. That's a very different thing from sourcing about people actually making a movie. This kind of talk happens all the time in Hollywood for movies that never actually get made. Fan1967 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how you can believe that. When the company actually exists, and production is actually scheduled, you might say that. Until then, it's a plan, and those fall apart in Hollywood allthe time. Fan1967 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, a movie is not an event, it is a movie, so that section does not apply. This article is not about the date of the release of the movie, or the premiere party -- it is about the movie itself. And the movie currently exists, it does not exist as a series of 80000+ individual frames with accompanying audio, but it exists in the press, it exists in a early pre-production stage. Whether or not it actually comes out is a not relevent. If you want to argue that this be deleted you should be arguing that this film in its current state does not warrant inclusion because it is not notable enough. My counter-argument to that is that future films are acceptable fodder for articles (the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section specifically mentions articles about future films when it says that those articles must be careful not to be advertising, hence it makes them acceptable articles as long as they are written in an NPOV manner), and this film in particular has merited mention in the press. Qutezuce 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Qutezuce just said. Even IF the film doesn't come out, it's been talked about in the press enough to warrant an article. There are films which have never been released that have articles about them (see: Category:Unfinished films). If it is never released, the article could be changed to say that very fact in the opening line; that it was an animation project for which Elton John was to do the soundtrack that was never released. Wikipedia is not paper, so I see nothing wrong with having an article on an unreleased film. Esn 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Greenside, Gauteng. JPD (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenside, South Africa

Subject too trivial. Xhin 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge with Greenside, Gauteng. It is a town, and it already has a Wikipedia entry. I had no trouble expanding this article after a search on Google with "Greenside, South Africa", during which I also discovered the existing Wikipedia article on this suburb. -- Mareklug talk 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Closed as this is a copyright violation and as such should not appear on AfD. Copyvio tagged as material lifted from [23].  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Black

Delete Unstable use of article. Please write something without copyright violations. LILVOKA.

Keep Than use the "Re-write tag" or "copyvio" or "clean-up". He IS notable. Lajbi 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV, advertisement, possibly vanity page. Tychocat 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only with a COMPLETE rewrite The person is notable- not just am I using the "I've heard of him, so he's probably notable" criteria, but he's worked with many well-known musicians, and "Guerilla Black" gets an astounding 173,000 Google hits, including a very strong 690 unique hits (and, of course, every top entry refers to the rapper). But, in all obviousness, the article in its current state is nothing short of terrible. I think the entire article should be thrown out, and a stub should be created along with an {{expand}} tag. -- Kicking222 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article should had went through the copyvio process instead of afd. I would suggest closing this debate and have someone stick a {{copyvio}} in there. hateless 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HanuRamaKwanzMas

Borderline violation of WP:NOR and non-notable. Google brings up a very small 110 results. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 09:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also add Jewmas to the list of deletion-worthy Christmas-type neologistic festivals. This term only gets 920 Google hits, compared to 158,000 for Chrismukkah Bwithh 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD G1) – Gurch 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels, Restaurents, and Cafe's


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IDA (drug store)

This is basically an advert and I don't see any other purpose unless it has an important history. Delete Palexandridis 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Young Park

The reason this article should be deleted is because this article is written regarding someone who has a specific talent and achievement that does not yet merit a page on Wikipedia. There are other students who gain a high caliber of achievement locally, nationally, and internationally, and Wikipedia's policies do not allow a page about them to be published. Danielb087 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Elections in India. TigerShark 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian election process

This article was originally marked for merging with Elections in India. However, not all the information was notably related to Elections in India. I've moved the significant information into the main article (Elections in India) and have marked this page for deletion. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internation Anarchy

This page is vain and not necessary on wikipedia


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TigerShark 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Camps Association

Delete Subject is non-notable. Produces only three google hits on "Jewish Camps Association" [24], including the site itself. Jens Nielsen 13:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject is wholly notable, as a not-for-profit organization just getting off the ground dedicated to advancing the cause of 100's of Jewish Days and Overnight Camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.146.224 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. feydey 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason King (journalist)

Prodded as Yet another minor music journalist. Greil Marcus he's not. Deprodded on grounds Greil Marcus isn't the cutoff point for journalists, and article asserts regular appearances in major media. This latter point is true as this google search confirms (~600 hits) [25], but is simply organising a symposium (and hence enjoying the brief spotlight of media exposure) actually synonymous with notability? He is an Assistant Professor of Recorded Music. Eusebeus 23:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable in principle; "notability" sucks. David L Rattigan 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TigerShark 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MentorshipART

the article itself says that the term is not used much. Google agrees, giving it 38 unique hits. delete Where (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article was requested for over two years. It was placed at the top of the Recent Changes, prominently, as a requested article. I fulfil the request, and it is instantly slapped with a Deletion. WikiPolice = morons. If you don't want articles written, don't f*cking ask for them to be written. 20:06, 17 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewPages (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, neologism not in general use. The article creation queue is only a suggestions list, not a list of pre-approved topics. -- The Anome 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who chips in quite a bit at WP:AR2, I'd still say delete this. There's a reason a lot of long-requested articles don't get created. Proto||type 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. It looks like Learncasting was already deleted per this AfD, but Podagogy was not. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learncasting

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is nothing but a dictionary definition (and a made-up, neologistic one at that), plus a barrage of spammy podcasting links. Delete the damned thing, as this is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary or a linkfarm. Proto||type 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finola Hackett

Second place finisher at national spelling bee -- notable? See above discussion of Saryn Hooks. NawlinWiki 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7, as with Saryn Hooks. Tagged. PJM 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Winner of Canadian Bee, #2 at the American Bee, certainly notable - why not? This really is a famous "athlete" that competed and won at the highest level on live TV - and we're not paper - so why do we need to delete it? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not a speedy by any means, but it is notable for being in the top two in a large event. It doesn't hurt to alter the status quo of the spelling bee competition bios. Notablity, is there according to WP:BIO, "(people) who have played in a competition of equivalent standing (to) a league sport." Yanksox 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is clearly isn't a speedy delete, as there is a claim. She may qualify under WP:BIO if sufficient media coverage is shown in the article (beyond one day's news). I'll wait to see if there's improvement. --Rob 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check this[26] out for a quick google slice of how spread out the news is. Yanksox 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CrazyRussian. An athlete of notability sufficient for an encyclopedia with LOTS of space. Interlingua talk 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep I'm going to basically paraphrase the argument I made on the talk page for this article: It is my opinion that every National Spelling Bee winner is quite notable. To win an extremely well-known and well-regarded competition, one which millions of people enter and has been nationally televised for a decade, is as strong a claim of notability as being a famous Go or poker player (and I'm a huge poker fan, so I don't want my Marcel Luske article deleted!). Coming in second in this competition is definitely a claim of notability which may, in and of itself, help the person pass WP:BIO. But, for the sake of disagreement, let's say it's not. The CanSpell National Spelling Bee is a nationally-held tournament in Canada, and both years it has been held, Finola has won it. WP:BIO asserts notability for "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," and Finola has been involved in three different newsworthy events (albeit all regarding spelling). Just look at Yanksox's Google News link to see how widespread coverage of national spelling bees (American and Canadian) is. Or just search "Finola Hackett" on regular Google and check out the 20,100 total and 277 unique hits. -- Kicking222 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crzrussian and Kicking222. If she were merely a second, possibly not, but she was a first, twice. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kicking222 - she's the two-time Canadian champion, that's pretty darn impressive, and then placing second in the U.S. just adds to it. Tony Fox 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, she won the Candian one twice which is pretty notable in itself. -- DrunkenSmurf 17:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep to counter the bogus speedy delete. ;-) Obviously notable as a two-time champion of CanSpell National Spelling Bee. Silensor 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Delete per nom. Winning a spelling be is not notable. Ardenn 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; national spelling bees are, amazingly, major "sporting" events. — brighterorange (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per other users. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Same for Saryn Hooks. "Wikipedia has lots of space" arguments miss the point of an encyclopedia. Bwithh 22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these things are televised and international, so the second place finisher is notable IMO. --Eivindt@c 00:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable for being a Canadian in a US-based competition called the National Spelling Bee. Because of her, commentators noted a feature of the Bee that I (and I'm sure most other Americans watching) were not aware of: the contest is open to qualifying children in all English-speaking countries. As an example of one such child who placed in the Bee, she is notable. -Fsotrain09 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The memory of this event is still quite strong in the minds of everyone and this is swaying there opinion toward keeping the article. I predict that if we wait a year and try this AfD again, no one will remember who she is and then the article will no doubt be voted off. --Atrian 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I live in the same province as her and she is famous now!!! Thankyoubaby 05:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The National Spelling Bee is a highly relevant event, and the runner-up certainly deserves recognition for her hard work and dedication. Additionally, Finola Hackett has become famous because of the primetime broadcast of the National Spelling Bee. She is also the Canadian national champion, and she should have an article for that reason alone. Keep her article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.187.155.89 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong keep per Kicking222 above, among others. Even if we don't automatically consider spelling-bee winners notable, Finola is easily the most famous spelling champion/competitor Canada has known to date, and has enjoyed extensive media coverage as a result. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Two-time winner of CanSpell. Only one other speller (Jody-Anne Maxwell - Jamaica and Scripps 1998) has won two national bees in a lifetime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.202 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freecast Shoutcasting

Non-notable hosting service. Haakon 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (userfied to User:Cole8865). TigerShark 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Stefan

Not sure if it qualifies as a speedy (says he's a famous architect), so I decided to revert my own deletion and bring it here. Highly unlikely to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip_Cacayorin

Vanity, non-notability, resume. Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Battams

Well-written and interesting article; unforunately, it's also probably false. Google turns up nada when on both him and Emily Dean (also submitted for deletion) when "-wikipedia" is added. The submitter, ShahXerxes, submitted both of them at once. His main other notable contribution was to defend another article that may have been written by him or a compatriot: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Robertson

Seems like we have one intelligent ringleader, and his (school?) friends. The topic in both is Australian. It's probably of the same variety.

Note that if these two are deleted, the Cainites Category will also be empty. SnowFire 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cester

NN-Bio; spam. Userfy or delete. Lupo 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi guys, Sorry I am going to get my agent to do this properly and cite references etc I rushed in a little too eager. Will be sorted within next couple of days - Thomas Cester

Hi, Thomas. Per my earlier private message, I don't think getting your agent to rewrite the article is going to solve the issue. David L Rattigan 07:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HI David, Thanks for your time offline. Certainly didn't intent to be a nuissance but have a good understanding as to the issues raised by the creation if this article and am happy for it to be deleted. Thanks for your time David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.83 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 14 June 2006


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hester_Pharmaceuticals

No notability, advert. Uses (crystal ball) to talk about future notablity, which it clearly lacks now.Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany 1 England 5 (2001)

Listing here because it has an AfD template on it. I gather that there is a notability concern, but I don't have an opinion on the matter. iMeowbot~Meow 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was going to include the word "weak" before the word "delete" because there is so much info on the game, but no matter how long the article is, the game is still pretty non-notable. It was a World Cup qualifier (not even an actual World Cup game) that did not directly lead to England qualifying; even if qualification had been the direct result of this game, England didn't even make the semifinals for this World Cup, much less win it. The game had no particularly spectacular qualities- hell, it wasn't even close. The article is also highly POV, written entirely from the British perspective. Thus, the game doesn't really have any notability, and thus, shouldn't really have a WP article. -- Kicking222 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Well I'm a football/soccer fan, but I have a difficult time seeing the notability of individual matches except in a few cases. I can see a case for World Cup final games and European Cup final matches (e.g. 2006 UEFA Champions League Final), but qualifier games? It's a bit much, regardless of the result. Perhaps a summary paragraph could be added to Football World Cup 2002 (qualification UEFA). — RJH (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a remarkable result that impacted on both the German and English football cultures. It cannot be included in the articles of the national teams bcause it would unbalance them. BlueValour 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this result really did impact both cultures, the article makes absolutely no claim of such (aside from a slight amount of POV material). The article itself claims that England had beaten Germany at Euro 2000, less than 14 months prior, so this couldn't be such a spectacular upset. Germany's team was obviously not particularly demoralized, as they were the World Cup runners-up. Meanwhile, England's team couldn't have been particularly boosted, as they still only reached the quarterfinals. In hindsight, it's rather obvious that much more was made of this match than it should have been. As far as "unbalancing" the national teams' articles... well, this article is already quite unbalanced. -- Kicking222 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was a spectacular upset. If you don't know that beating Germany 5-1 in Germany is spectacular, you can't know anything much about real football. CalJW 05:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment Judging by his/her edit summary, this user is also British, which could easily skew his/her view on this article. (Note that I'm not claiming that it does, but that it could.) -- Kicking222 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're American, and that may skew your view on anything to do with foobtall. Should we start ignoring the views of all Americans on the significance of any baseball topic? CalJW 05:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as part of the England and Germany football rivalry, where its context and importance are explained better. Kusma (討論) 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's here because England doesn't win against Germany all that frequently. I would say merge into England and Germany football rivalry, but it's really far too wordy too merge. A footnote to history that gives England fans the warm fuzzy, but really not that notable and deep in POV territory. ~ trialsanderrors 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Notability" sucks. It's historical information that someone's gotta find interesting. It's verifiable in principle, but needs a few sources. David L Rattigan 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to England and Germany football rivalry. This match is not important or legendary enough to have its own entry, but the content can be useful. Punkmorten 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but rewrite per punkmorten, important game but you can say that about most WC qualifying matches. --Eivindt@c 00:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Name one other World Cup qualifying match that England played that's half as famous as this one. There simply isn't one, not even those which did lead immediately to qualification. CalJW 05:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number of people who can remember this game is probably in the tens of millions. It is probably the second most famous victory in the history of the England national team after the 1966 World Cup final. CalJW 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A legendary game. Bits of commentary from it are played regularly on BBC Radio 5 Live. Landolitan 06:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, known but not legendary. MaxSem 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This match is remembered by a nation years after the event, which is more than can be said of many Wikipedia article topics. Olborne 09:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to ask all the Americans who are voting delete to try to understand that this match is far more important in the history of English sport than each individual Superbowl is in the history of American sport, and every single one of them has an article. If this is deleted, I would ask the administrator who deletes it to delete all the articles about individual Superbowls at the same time. Piccadilly 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced regularly by English commentators and fans even five-years later Robert Mercer 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete This is a silly article that will not attract much interest from anyone except English football fans but it is an important event for some and perhaps the section at the England-Germany football rivalry can be expanded. If the article stays then the name needs to be changed as the score is not enough to identify when or at what level of competition this happened and isn't a decent name for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps World Cup Qualifier (England, Germany 2001) --Westee 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we deleted all the articles which appeal to smaller constituencies than "English football fans" how many would that be what? 1 million articles? 1.1 million? And that's ignoring the Germans. Twittenham 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a silly article IN MY OPINION, not exactly something an encyclopedia can do without is it. But I leaned more to the merge option than anything else. The lack of a decent title alone makes me sceptical about this being some pivotal moment in pop or sports history. As far as I am concerned it should be merged into the section on the England-Germany football rivalry. Despite it significance for some English people I really don't see much for a single article, there are literally thousands of football games at the national, club, or amateur level that have great sentimental value for some group somewhere and this is just one of them and nothing else. This article should go to England-Germany football rivaly or maybe even a brief mention in world cup 2002 article.Sorry, but really if you take away feelings of national pride there isn't much to make to discuss here except for one normal qualifying match to a championship --Westee 13:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form Can't decide between a merge or straight keep, although would probably lean towards a merge. Certainly this game had a significant impact on English sport, culturally and psychologically. I wouldn't be against a rename and certainly a general tidy up of the article is warranted. Badgerpatrol 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion it it's the nomination that is "silly" Westee, when Wikipedia is full of pop culture fancruft. This wouldn't be found in EB, but it is way above the level of notability that Wikipedia usually accepts. Twittenham 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a very important match in English footballing history, and is still available to buy as an indivual match on DVD. Clothing stores produce t-shirts with a replica of the scoreboard on. I believe a whole book about the match is in the works. It's more 'notable' than around 50% of the stuff on Wikipedia. Tim 16:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was one of the best results in the history of English football and is still talked about to this day as the greatest of the past 40 years. "This was a very important match in English footballing history, and is still available to buy as an indivual match on DVD. Clothing stores produce t-shirts with a replica of the scoreboard on. I believe a whole book about the match is in the works. It's more 'notable' than around 50% of the stuff on Wikipedia." Is my 100% opinion. 195.93.21.3
  • Strong keep This is the only occaision that I can recall where a major football power lost at home by four goals in a competitive match. Not only notable but possibly unique. TerriersFan 23:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable exception to Lineker's Law of England-Germany football matches. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep or Merge to England/Germany football rivalry; I was responsible for the article in its current state, although I only did that becasue someone had put a rather poor article there in the first place. --Robdurbar 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is one of the greatest and most significant matches in soccer history, well worthy of its own article. For those who don't seem to know, the high scoreline for a match between two strong footballing nations is an extremely rare event. I find it an outrage that its worthiness is even being questioned, and the pro-delete comments are preposterous, particularly the description of it being "non-notable". The match is still discussed in the bars of England and Germany to this day. Neither does the article justify the comment of "silly" - it is appropriately titled and well-written. I would question the impartiality and policy of the whole encyclopedia should this unfortunate unreasonable and provocative proposal be carried out. Instead I look forward to the degrading "scheduled for deletion" banner being removed pdq and this amazing soccer encounter being rightfully immortalised without further question. Headshaker, 18:45, 18 June 2006
Whatthe hell?? Why on Earth would this be considered one of the most important matches in football history. Now that claim I have never ever heard before. It was a qualifier last time I checked and neither Germany's worst defeat nor England's highest win and considering Germany went on to be second in the actual tournament it certainly can not be called a turning point in German football or the beginning of a spectacular winning streak for England. This match has been largely forgotten outside of England, mostly because of relative insignificance outside of that country. And beleive me mate this match is not regurlarly discussed in bars in Germany, now that I can guarantee you. One of the greatest matches in football history... uh no. A relatively average qualifying match that is celebrated by some England fans like an actual world cup victory; yes! --Westee 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AiroPeek

Article for non-notable and insignificant product. Reads like advertising copy, and appears to have sole non-minor contributor as developer of product. Steven Fisher 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: See also EtherPeek & OmniPeek, more advertising copy for related products. -- Steven Fisher 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable and insignificant is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years. 2) Please define advertising. As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising. Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template? 3) This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition. Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising copy. -- Steven Fisher 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to AiroPeek. Have I tried to hide my connection? No. I used my real name and e-mail. See my user info for direct e-mail. Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with? (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: [31]) 2) Apologies are in order: I assumed [32] was the same Steven Fisher. Now I see that his first name is not the same. I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher. 3) I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording? Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue? As for being notable, how does one prove notability? Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek - [33], 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek [34]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. No fair use galleries. Period. Utility does not enter into the equation. Most of these images are incorrectly tagged as public domain, under the mistaken assumption that works of state governments are works of the federal government. Go ye back to civics class! Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state driver's licenses

This is nothing but a collection of images and Wikipedia is not an image repository Nv8200p talk 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am troubled that it appears the woman in the Nebraska license, alias "Francesca A. Sample, M.D.", appears to be the same woman in the Nevada license, going under the name "Suzy Driver". If Dr. Sample is using aliases and fleeing the law, perhaps the authorities should be notified. </bad joke> That startling revelation aside, I could see a few choice images being used in driver's license, and if someone were feeling plucky I suppose the article could have Driver's licenses in the United States, a full article talking specifically about the U.S. licensing process and the variations from state to state. As it stands, though, it's merely a photo gallery and should be deleted. JDoorjam Talk 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy this to me please, friendly closer. An image gallery is unencyclopedia; however, I think this is an admirable start to an encyclopedic article subpart, and all of the images are PD, so there is no reason to orphan and delete them after someone took the trouble; I'll try to work something up. BTW, I loved the joke, JDoorjam! Xoloz 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of these images are currently incorrectly tagged as public domain. Should this article be kept, they would have to be tagged as fair use (unless scans of real driver's licenses can be uploaded, but it's doubtful that scanning it is enough to obtain the copyright. Anyway, a fair use assertion would be weak, as this article doesn't even describe the images, it just displays them (and it can't be userfied if the images are fair use). --Rory096 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JDoorj has made an argument that applies to most of wikipedia. However there is an article that is a clear reason why this article should not be deleted. How is it that wikipedia can say that a List_of_U.S._state_license_plates is acceptable and seriously consider deleteing this article? I am making an argument about the article, NOT the images contained therin --Greataff 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons unless encyclopedic text added. MaxSem 06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've made some changes to Nevada (a beautiful state but that not NPOV) and Alaska and included some information on the licenses themselve. I and all of us should fee the changes made to these two states should show a precendent of what should happen to the other states and territories —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greataff (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete The combination of copyright issues, notability consideration, and the poor current state of the article introduces too many problems. Though I feel bad for whoever uploaded all these images.--Chaser T 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a fair number of votes above; however, every single one of them call for a different action. Please help me out here, friendly AfD voters </ Xoloz impression> --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a good reference. That's what wikipedia is for: To help us find out information. - Richardcavell 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article is unorganized and missing states, like mine, the article can provide some usefulness if it cleaned-up and expanded with more information to go with the pictures. The current pictures may need to be clean-up as well. Every state probably has a "sample" photo of what a driver license looks like, such as Michigan, and these anonymous and undoctored licenses are the ones that should be used to add consistency and professionalism. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
  • Strong delete. Violates Wikipedia guidelines (original research), image copyright laws, and very possibly privacy as well. This article is truly a collection of discriminate information, which is what we are not supposed to be doing. --FuriousFreddy 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is undoubtedly an interesting article. However, at the moment, I am not quite sure what the point is. I am also bothered that many of the photographs are marked up as possible copyvios.I think the best solution is for it to be deleted for now and the author can create a new article when he has sorted out the various issues. BlueValour 02:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TOTALLY KEEP whichever is not copyvio. Brjatlick 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per JDoorjam's suggestion for creating an article on [Driver's licenses in the United States]]. There are issues about copyrights, public domain, fair use etc.; I'm not informed enough to comment on these. But an article about licenses in the US and the ways they are de facto identity cards would be verifiable, NPOV and non-OR. Given that the US system is certainly a mystery for many foreigners, and also for many Americans, gives the added benefit of notability. People should be encourage to expand the narrative about each state's ID and also to contribute to the ways the automobile has become of central importance to American identity (literally). Interlingua talk 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A thoughtful suggestion, as always, from Interlingua. I like the concept of the new article. Where I differ, however, is in achieving it by renaming. That leaves a number of the issues unresolved. I still think that a Delete followed by a fresh start is the answer. BlueValour 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyright violations aplenty. --Coredesat 07:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyvio, listcruft, and how do all those people look so good for their DL photos? Tychocat 07:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was for any other country we wouldn't be having this discussion, it would have already gone: compare List of North American area codes and List of Slovak telephone codes for example. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Unfree images can't be considered fair use in a gallery format. But I'd be happy to whoever asked for userfication to take a go at writing Driver's licenses in the United States. If he doesn't do it in a reasonable time period (say 2 weeks), I agree with a delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I find it an interesting and useful article that reflects just one facet of the fact that US states can have a lot of different laws in many areas. Shan246
  • Strongly Keep, I feel this is a very useful contribution to the encyclopedia. -- Drewry 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for the pictures, at least.
    While this may well be a useful resource, that in itself is not a reason for it to be in Wikipedia. There are many types of useful resource which we do not include: telephone directories are useful, but we do not include lists of phone numbers; marriage registers are useful, but we do not list every wedding in the world; dictionaries are very useful, but we do not include mere dictionary definitions. The question is not "is this useful", but "is this an encyclopedia article?" And the answer is, "no, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a collection of pictures". Therefore, we should not keep it in its current form.
    If the pictures were cut down to a representative sample, and the list was replaced with an actual article on the history of state drivers' licenses, the cultural significance of their differences, the controversy surrounding their use as ID, etc etc., then we could keep that. But we cannot keep this. — Haeleth Talk 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of encyclopedic content, but the idea for the new article makes sense and I'm sure many of the images could be used there. -Dawson 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (if)for the reasons listed above. Further, I contend that this list is in fact encyclopedic. A list of items that are encyclopedic on there own is what lists are for, aren't they? And besides, unlike many of our lists, this one can be "finished". However, if those images (or the majority) are not public domain then the list suddenly becomes a liability and should be Deleted. It is possible that each license should get it's own article and a category. (would be easy to justify FU then) Is Split a usable vote? :) ---J.S (t|c) 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is encyclopedic content, or at least has the potential to be. --Alex S 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix, expand. Good basis for an article. Aguerriero (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is useful, unlike all the Pokemon and Star Trek crap we currently have. Erik the Rude 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has its value. I don't think many have ever seen so many different driver licenses. Though the article ought to be expanded. --WinHunter (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found it interesting. It would be interesting to know more information, too, like which licenses have holograms and of what, and what other security features are used in them. Even just looking at the image gallery was interesting. Mangojuicetalk 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a misconception here this list is somehow a useful reference. Point of fact, many states change their D/L designs every few years, and at this point, it looks like listcruft. Tychocat 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I will consider userfying this to User:Lessirkm if Matthew requests it, but only if he becomes at least a semi-active user on Wikipedia. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Krissel

Page fails WP:BIO in regards to, "architects...whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." There is no indication of that, the only notable thing that he did was enter the contest to design the new WTC towers[35]. Also, I have the question the purpose of this article when the creator of the article has this edit, Delete as non-notable. Yanksox 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't notice that! Nice job! Yanksox 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialite list

List of the 'best' socialites. Probably falls under WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV. Deprodded by author with explaination "Real list please do not delete." given in article. Matt Eason 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think Kicking222 was referring to a biographical article belonging to one of the names on the list that has been deleted before, not this article. There's nothing in the deletion log for Socialite list. Matt Eason 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He was referring to the first name on the list, who, based on the few forum postings under her name that turn up in google, is a non-notable Canadian teenager. Fan1967 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Winblad

Subject doesn't seem notable, and it reads like an advertisment. RedRollerskate 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Dominic Kindergarten

Kindergartens are non-notable and this looks a particularly unremarkable one. BlueValour 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PYRO-ENERGEN

This is a non-notable piece of quackery that has no relevant citations and no verifiability to the claims made in the article. Delete as spam. JDoorjam Talk 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, interesting. I looked at the original article, and it contained the information about it being unscientific (including a link to a website about quackery), so I assumed it wasn't created by someone actually promoting the product. However, you are right, this user seemed to be spamming several articles with the link. David L Rattigan 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence is forthcoming that this device is notable in some way. As it stands, there are only 133 unique Google results (2500-odd non-unique), which suggests that it's not just unscientific, but unimportant too. — Haeleth Talk 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was speedied once earlier, then restored after User:Jtakano asked for and received help (by me and others) in trying to rewrite it. However, it turned out to be nearly impossible to write a good article about the device as there doesn't seem to be any (internet based) reliable sources on it. My own view is that it is at best marginally notable, but as User:Jtakano was reasonable about it and willing to listen to suggestions I gave it the benefit of the doubt. Henrik 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If many of you believe that the article is nonsense in Wikipedia, you may delete it, that's fine with me. But if you think the article can be improved in someway, like, merging informations, e.g. rife machines, then so much better. Or any other ideas? Jtakano
    Comment Citing sources is always a good idea. There are three rationales posted above for deletion: 1) "non-notable", 2) "no relevant citations", and 3) "no verifiability". Citing sources would knock out #2 and #3. These should be independent sources. If it was invented, was it patented? If so, cite the patent for the invention. I don't know Japanese patent law, but I suspect there is some equivalent to the U.S. patent office that will have made a decision if an application was made. I know that Henrik said there aren't any internet based reliable sources, but hard copy is still legitimate.
    For notability the way of solving the problem is less clear. Why is this worthy of being in an encyclopedia? What source are you going to cite to verify the answer to that question. It should be a source that is neither from the inventor, manufacturor, distributor nor a copy of a press release by one of those. GRBerry 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not even certain whether there is a claim to notability in the article. GRBerry 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability. Ral315 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and the sole reference is to the product's website. --Auger Martel 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -R. S. Shaw 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought I'd seen this before, and decided that it was a worthy topic for an encyclopedia; but sure, if you think it's spam, get rid of it. [ælfəks] 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grasmere Elementary School

Elementary Schools are not notable. --Danielrocks123 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. --Danielrocks123 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hop Yat Church Chan Pak Wang Memorial Kindergarten

Kindergartens are non-notable and this one professes no achievements. BlueValour 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annieville Elementary School

I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. --Danielrocks123 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. --Danielrocks123 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. School articles like this are the shame of Wikipedia. Our critics point at them, and their endless trivialities about the most utterly banal things, and their endless duplication of "facts" which are the same for every one of millions of identical schools across the world, as evidence that Wikipedia is good only for children. They are essentially wrecking our dreams of gaining some credibility as a serious encyclopedia. Do you see hundreds of articles about individual elementary schools in Britannica or Encarta? Nope. Think there could be a reason for that? Hmmm, I wonder. — Haeleth Talk 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're ashamed of Wikipedia, and prefer those other encyclopedias, you should go buy them. They need the sales. People aren't buying enough, because they get what they need here instead. Why on Earth are you editing an encyclopedia with over a million articles, if you hate the existance of those very articles? --Rob 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't see the need for WP to pander to our detractors. Besides, their main cause of derision is the edit this page link on every page, something which is WP's major distinction and strength. Having articles that neither encyclopedia will touch is a part of WP's charm and a major distinction between them. I don't see a need for WP to turn into a clone of either. hateless 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless an elementary school has a claim to fame it doesn't need an article here. They are often carbon copies of each other with little if anything to set them apart. --Crossmr 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absent a Wikipedia:Schools policy or guideline, schools are generally notable. It doesn't seem appropriate to delete schools on a piecemeal basis when the community has not arrived at consensus on a policy or guideline. A policy discussion seems to be erupting here but this isn't an appropriate place for it to occur. Accurizer 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as per precedent. Antmoney85 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable per precedent. hateless 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per precedent. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. Schools have no inherent notability. No individual notability or importance for any of these schools has been suggested or advanced. That said, I still don't like these mass noms, and I'd be willing to reconsider any individual article where someone can show verifiable proof that any particular school listed here is notable or distinct enough from the average school to merit an article (though I don't suppose that will actually be necessary, nor will it likely influence the eventual outcome).--Isotope23 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless any of these schools have distinguishing characteristics such as teaching methods, notable founder, etc. The local elementary school is about as notable as the local PTA, the local pizza place, that one intersection down the road that doesn't have a stop sign but ought to, etc. Opabinia regalis 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep em all as I am against mass nomination of articles. If you wish to argue for a new policy on elementary schools, do it elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all of these please and argue about policy elsewhere Yuckfoo 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per usual... Rich Farmbrough 23:00 13 June 2006 (GMT).
  • Delete them all as per nom Bwithh 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Weak Delete. My reluctance isn't that I'd be sorry to see these articles go, but because of the broad-block nomination. I'd rather be making a strong statement one way or another. While I believe schools are not inherently notable, and there is no policy on keeping or deleting schools, I also concede that some schools may, for very specific reasons, be notable. Until there is a firm policy, I'd prefer to consider each article on its own merits, notability, or non-notability. That all said, none of these articles appears to be about an encyclopedic or notable school. Agent 86 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canadianshoper 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All these schools are notable. CalJW 05:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge into the appropriate district article (I believe this is School District 37 Delta, but they were starting to blur together) or weak keep and expand. I continue my belief that elementary/middle schools' claim to notability is weaker than that of high schools, but I also prefer more info than just a list entry with no further info. Also, block noms of this type are unhelpful, some of these had more info than others. Please start a policy discussion off AfD if you want to change what seems to be current consensus on these articles. BryanG(talk) 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge all Per near agreement at WP:SCH, keep or merge all. Merges do not require AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CalJW Thankyoubaby 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How do we know that there isn't one that's exceptional in here? Check them all? No thanks. Golfcam 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep as per Golfcam. YUL89YYZ 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say the same thing I say every time schools come up on AFD now: I don't particularly like the established consensus in favour of elementary and high school articles, but the consensus is what it is and there's no particular reason to single Canadian schools out as somehow less notable than schools elsewhere. If you'd like to pitch for a rethink of the whole shebang, start a policy discussion (and good luck trying), but in the absence of that there are no valid reasons to treat these differently than other schools. Keep. Bearcat 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pardon my ignorance, but where can I find the established consensus on elementary and high school articles? As far as I've found, there isn't one, but if there is, I may have to reconsider how I respond to these school nominations. Agent 86 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the lot and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all. Well established precedent has elementary schools being given their own pages. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. - pm_shef 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's simple, a merge gets counded as a keep so it is the right vote that results in a wrong action. WP:SCH resulted in no consensus not a justification to keep. Vegaswikian 05:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong precedent to include schools, notable subject.--Auger Martel 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Schools are considered notable, elementary or not. Jgamekeeper 11:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are all important. We need more school stubs, not less. --JJay 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree that it doesn't seem appropriate to delete schools on a piecemeal basis when the community has not arrived at consensus on a policy or guideline. I further agree that this is not the place for said policy discussion. The merge or keep and expand comment has good merit however again, this is not the place for policy discussion whether that policy is pro- or anti-deletion. BigNate37 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If students' interest in knowledge is increased slightly because they can find their school here, then let Wikipedia err to their benefit. Deet 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Richardcavell 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Campbell

A DRV consensus found that the previous AfD on this subject was improperly closed. The article is resubmitted to AfD for evaluation of verifiability and notability. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I voted "delete" the first time around because the article was unsourced and unverified, so now the sourcing consists of... a letter to an editor and an article by Joseph D. Campbell himself? Uh, no. In fact, you can read the letter to the editor here, and in all four pages, Campbell is mentioned twice, and only in passing. -- Kicking222 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and the WP:BIO guideline. It has been established that he published one article? That sure doesn't pass the professor test... — Haeleth Talk 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep he seems to have a published biography (ISBN 1412068835). The "keep" is weak because it has no Amazon sales rank, suggesting a very very very obscure book. But in general I'd say anyone with a published book biography is probably worth a couple K of space on Wikipedia's servers as well, so keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Anyone can publish a biography on themselves, claiming how they are the great pioneers of a new scientific field. Thing is, besides what he's said about himself, nothing else collaborates his story. The one article he published was NOT in a peer-reviewed publication. Medical Hypotheses is a publication that really fits the name. It's for the publishing of hypotheses and possibly radical thoughts, often in order to try to get support from others in investigating the ideas. The website even says that it's a gateway to mainstream science, but is not meant to be a mainstream scientific publication itself. The other source is a Letter to the Editor, which doesn't come close to meeting reputable source criteria. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yeah, I may have been slightly crazy to suggest not proceeding with deletion in the first AfD because of the late introduction of sources (which may have caused the admin to do just that, despite super majority consensus to delete). These sources are pretty weak. Still, it's often better to give editors the benefit of the doubt. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would avoid statements like "nothing else collaborates his story" where Dr. Lemke's publication has collaborated at least a part of it. There is verification, using independent resources, that it is not a hoax, the issue now is whether or not he is notable. Bejnar 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the prof test. Kafziel 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails "average professor" test. A vanity-press autobiography doesn't help his case any. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per above. Makgraf 02:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xoloz. I know this is the medical doctor, not the author Joseph Campbell. --Starionwolf 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep, but since I haven't received the list of scientific publications that Dr. Lemke indicated that she was sending me, I am willing to have it deleted, pending full verification of notablility. What is the procedure for that after a successful delete? Do I just post the revised article? It may be a week or three since the American Library Association meetings will be taking up my time. Not the original editor. Bejnar 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Army installations in Germany

Seems to be just a list with no other context Pat Payne 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by request of creator; left talk page. — brighterorange (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion/First paragraph

This appears to be an attempt at getting consensus on the first paragraph of the Abortion article, with plenty of discussion on the talk page. While the discussion should probably be preserved somewhere, I don't think this belongs in the main article namespace. I suggest moving this somewhere under the talk page for the main abortion article. Hirudo 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. I am the creator of this page and was not aware that this sort of convention was not appropriate. I figured since we had a subpage just for first paragraph discussion, it would be helpful to have a place to edit and try out new ideas that wasn't the main article (which would lead to edit warring). I'm not opposed to deleting this seeing how it doesn't serve much of a purpose and goes against convetion. --Andrew c 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move to talk space. - RoyBoy 800 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move - note that the Talk page of this "article" should not be deleted. It's been a useful fork of the Abortion talk page so far and should be archived at some point. AvB ÷ talk 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- 9cds(talk) 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hunter

I don't actually feel this article should be deleted - I'm the editor who created it. However, Sunholm first listed it as a speedy candidate (which was rejected by Kungfuadam) and has now prodded it. I outlined on its talk page the reasons why I feel the article establishes the subject's notability - most markedly by being a lead character in two notable TV series and being in a band that had four top twenty UK hit singles. I don't feel a simple prod is fair, since the rationale I outlined has been ignored, so I've brought it to AfD to establish consensus. Seb Patrick 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you don't trust IMDb, then what's your resource of choice for checking up on TV appearances? I'm aware there are inaccuracies on IMDb, but what else is there? If you Google "StarStreet" you'll find info on the pop group, Rebecca's involvement and the accompanying TV series; and I already pointed to everyhit.com for evidence of their chart success. BBC Comedy Guide (surely verifiable as all its content is from a published book) covers Microsoap. There's also a wealth of information on Family Affairs online (sadly its official site is down as it's no longer being produced), including its own WP entry which actually lists Rebecca by name! I've given you verifiable sources... what more do you want? Seb Patrick 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassavetes

Group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, not notable group. feydey 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean names for its surrounding seas

No real point to this article. If someone wants to know the korean names for those seas, all they have to do is go to those seas' artilces. Each of those three seas lists the korean names. I can't see the purpose to this page. Masterhatch 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magutavent

Nonsense neologism, only 29 Ghits and only relevant ones are for this page and its mirrors NawlinWiki 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 no notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Of Lyrics

Appears to be non-notable (fails WP:MUSIC). Page contributor removed PROD tag from article. -- Chet nc (talk)(contrib) 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, default action is to merge the list back to List of Portable Software. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portable Computer Games

Article is a list of non-notable games, full of spam links to game sites, these games are not portable. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be lost, it's still in the page history for the main article, and I found this page while on new pages patrol.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 23:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was not even funny. DS 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carboclayzer

Seems like a pretty blatant hoax to me Irongargoyle 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. I confess, however, that in the past I've read this article myself and enjoyed it, although this temporal cold war business serves as an object lesson to any writer who thinks time travel is a substitute for creativity. Memory Alpha has made it clear that they don't want it, as has Wikipedia. I suspect, however, that this article, or one very much like it, could have a long and fruitful history on someone's personal website or wiki. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems

There is additional discussion of this AFD on the Talk page. Please visit it for more indepth discussion of various issues regarding this AFD.

This article is severe fancruft and full of opinion. While the fact that there were continuity problems with the series may be encyclopedic, the nature and discussion of those problems on wikipedia are not necessary. During the last AFD it was proposed that the article be moved to the Star Trek wiki [37]. It would be prudent to do so and simply mention in the original Enterprise article there were continuity issues and let people goto the Star Trek wiki and read about it if they so wish. This article contains a lot of original research, referencing many alleged fan opinions that would be impossible to source properly here. Not to mention the title of the article is "alleged" problems, which conveys a clear message that this article is opinion. Crossmr 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Star Trek wiki. That's what it's there for. RedRollerskate 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Transwiki if anyone can be bothered. — Haeleth Talk 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Usefull, and what the hell are you going on about star trek wiki? i assume you mean memory-alpha? Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it useful? I asked on the talk to provide any evidence this was encyclopedic and all you did was resort to insults. How do you justify the opinions expressed in the article? You also don't need to assume anything. I provided the link to the site in question that I recommended it be moved to. --Crossmr 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is now the third time this has been AfDed, and it survived both previous times. No convincing reason given to overturn those results. "Cruft" is always a weak reason for deletion, and an oft-misunderstood one at that. Isn't original research either, as it does cite sources. Slap a cleanup tag on it if there are problems, but I see no reason to overturn two previous AfDs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is original research when just about every paragraph contains sentences like "Some fans..." There is no citing for that. The last AFD wasn't a keep either, it was a no concensus. Cruft isn't weak when you consider that no one outside trek fans care about continuity issues in enterprise like vulcan eating habits, and even then not every fan cares about it. --Crossmr 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, not every fan cares about it. Just like not every Simpsons fan cares about the List of vehicles in The Simpsons. I guess we should be deleting this one too? Or any other page where not everyone interested in the topic cares about the specific information given? -- Ritchy 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated below, we're here to discuss this article. If you can't keep your comments to the article at hand you might want to withdraw from the discussion as arguing the validity of one article based on another adds nothing to the discussion. --Crossmr 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Original research. Wish I could hand this one to the Trekkies, but OR is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, and this article seems largely to be unverified OR. David L Rattigan 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Words like alleged and weasel words such as some fans make this problematic. The article reads as original research and does border on cruftiness. It would be better off cleaned up, substantiated - i.e. nothing alleged about it - and placed on Memory Alpha, where it would have a greater audience.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It reads like original research. Very few notes. In a real article of a topic like this, there would be dozens of specific citations. Ted 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Very few notes"? There are 49 different ST episodes referenced in there! How many more do you want? -- Ritchy 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As has been noted, this is the third time someone tried to have it deleted, and both previous times the VfD failed. This is starting to look less and less like a serious request, and more like a "Star Trek doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" campaign.
    The article is not original research. People keep saying that it is nothing but fan stuff, hoping perhaps that people won't read the article itself to check? Because, in reality, the article cites no less that 49 different Star Trek episodes and 3 books. This article has more sources than roughly half the articles on Wikipedia -- if this gets deleted for being unverifiable, then so should most of Wikipedia.
    The article belongs on Wikipedia. "Star Trek" deserves more than a single page saying "TV series aired from 1966 to 2005, see MemoryAlpha for more details", which is what it will be reduced to if some people had their way. But more than that, this page provides useful and relevant information on the last Star Trek series, and how it fits (or doesn't fit) into the huge and rich Star Trek universe. It is necessary to understand the public reaction to Enterprise, which led to the first cancellation of a Star Trek series since TOS in 1969. Not exactly an event that will go down in History, I'll grant that, but then again, Wikipedia is not Britannica. There are less relevant articles allowed to stay on Wikipedia -- one need only think of Ketchup on hot dogs or List of neologisms on The Simpsons, for example. -- Ritchy 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hot dogs article is in the process of being merged. Neologisms from the Simpsons have had more cultural impact that fan discussions of Star Trek continuity errors . Bwithh 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If its okay with you two (Ritchy and David) I'm going to move the discussion stemming from Ritchy's point to the talk page where specific examples can be discussed and I'll leave this comment and put a note at the top mentioning that additional information can be found on the talk page? Just to keep it a little cleaner and more maneagable for people to vote. I'm not sure if there is policy against that, but I don't want to have some unwieldy discussion going on why people are trying to express their delete or keep opinions.

Yep, please do. David L Rattigan 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you dont want people to read it so you can get what you want, hmm. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted that, I wouldn't be linking at the top and leaving this comment in place. --Crossmr 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has just made two points, can you not read? Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, can we dispense with the personal attacks already? David L Rattigan 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your talk page full of several mentions of WP:CIVIL. It seems you still haven't gotten around to reading it. The fact that this article isn't solid has already been address several times. If you have something to add to this discussion I welcome it. If you're just here to continue the behaviour you've displayed elsewhere I'm going to kindly ask you to leave. --Crossmr 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, this is something people want to read about though, no one wants to read about you toe (bad comparison), so your childishness is totally inappropriate on here, let's try to debate this like adults. Thankyoubaby 05:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am debating it like an adult. I was illustrating the point that hard work doesn't justify the keeping of an article if it has problems that make it inappropriate for wikipedia. If you'd like to debate like an adult, why don't you provide some adult reasons on why it should be kept? As its been pointed out by endless people it violates WP:OR and WP:V and no amount of "hard work" justifies keeping it with those problems --Crossmr 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transport send to Memory Alpha. Fancruft AND Original research. Not quite a hat trick, but bad enough. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant transwiki to Memory Alpha. The amount of weasel words and OR in this article is just too much for me. May consider keeping it if someone gets rid of the OR problems. BryanG(talk) 06:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately there is so much OR in there, I think it is going to be very hard for someone to get it up to Wikipedia standards, as it's going to have to include references to verifiable sources for every one of the claims. My best suggestion is that someone take it into their userspace where they can work on building up the references, and then repost the article when it is in shape. It is such a mammoth task, it would be unfair to leave it in the namespace while people try to build up some sources. David L Rattigan 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, no matter what. The subject and overdetailed writing into apparent continuity flubs in a television series is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Of interest to Star Trek fans and those who wonder why it was considered a 'controversial' Star Trek show. Magic Pickle 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
which is exactly what cruft addresses. Things that are of interest only to those within a small group aren't appropriate for wikipedia. --Crossmr 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A general reader who reads that the show was considered controversial in a canonical sense may be interested to know what the issues were. Without this article they will not know what those issues were.Magic Pickle 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is the only source of that information and you believe that, you should change your opinion to delete. That would imply this article is the sole location of this information and thus original research as defined by the policies of wikipedia. Thank you for making the case for us. --Crossmr 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This information is available at other sources. Magic Pickle 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then they would have access to this information without this article then? If the opinions and justifications and drawn conclusions are available in another credible form please source them. That is the crux of the problem with this article. --Crossmr 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your definition of credible source - for which Wikipedia has guidelines, but not policies. But on a more positive note, if the article is deleted does anyone have a web site where we can host it? Cheers. Magic Pickle 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 The guideline Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_online_sources points to this as the governing policy. Since none of these fans have likely had their opinions published by a credible 3rd party, they can't be used in the article to support the conclusions drawn as they are a tertiary source. As for keeping the material. I believe Ritchy mentioned he'd kept the material and you could contact him for a copy if you wish. David also mentioned you could take it to your user space (paste it in your userpage if you want with comment tags around it, or keep it in a subpage to work on if you like)--Crossmr 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia guidelines the information in various licensed Trek reference works would count as a verifiable/credible source, yet as all good Trekkies know, they are not considered canon. Magic Pickle 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the article isn't quoting licensed trek reference works. Its citing fan opinions, likely derived from posts on message boards. Its also drawing conclusions which aren't sourced at all.--Crossmr 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. well I could dig out my encyclopaedias and whatnot and reference the conflicts with Enterprise, using those sources, I suppose. Magic Pickle 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem. No one will. They just leave it and it looks like unsourced OR and unsourced opinion. If there IS a credible publication that actually details this information it would be good. The alternative is to trim it down and if its more than a stub, rename it to something like "Star Trek: Conflicting Canon" and just list some of the encyclopedias that cover it as further reading. --Crossmr 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning? --Crossmr 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, I'm not sure on the normal wait time between listing and relisting, but as this is the 3rd AFD I'd like to reach an actual concensus which means giving those who don't read previous AFDs a chance to weigh in. --Crossmr 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I acknowledge and commend the hard work that went into this article, but, alas, the content is not suitable for an encyclopaedia, even though Wikipedia is not paper. The original research is nearly inextricable from any other content. Perhaps Memory Alpha can house this, but it's just not for Wikipedia. GassyGuy 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, quite blatantly original research and WP:NOT. The fact that it is reasonably well-written and is formatted properly, and has obviously had a lot of work put into it, does not change the fact that it is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. This won't stop mass voting by Trekkers stalemating it into a no consensus... as usual. (oops, no-one's supposed to admit that AFD is actually still a vote tally done by the closing admin are they? It is officially a 'discussion' now, isn't it). - Motor (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the sole basis that it has survived several previous AFD attempts. I no longer contribute to this article (which originated as a breakaway article to reduce the length of the main article), and I do feel it can be argued that it might no longer be needed. But the fact previous AFD's passed in favor of the article being kept means IMO enough people still feel it has a place, so I vote to keep. 23skidoo 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it on the sole basis it survived previous AFDs? that makes absolutely no sense, especially when you consider it actually failed the last attempt 9 deletes to 7 keeps. It only passed on the generosity of an admin as far as I'm concerned.--Crossmr 17:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's an issue you have to take up with the admin in question. The record still shows it survived AFD. 23skidoo 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well done, but pure WP:OR. Beam up to Trekkie Wiki if so inclined. ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft, send it Memory Alpha if they want it. It's original research, or at best unsourced, and contains a lot of statements like "theories put forward by fans", etc. But I don't buy this argument that putting two contradictory statements next to each other and stating that they contradict constitutes original research. Opabinia regalis 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's said that, Opabinia. Problem with the article is that it doesn't stop at putting statements next to each other and declaring them contradictory. The article goes on to propose harmonisations and interpretations of the data - that's OR. David L Rattigan 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, what I mean is that the expansion on fan-originated theories is the original research, not the list of contradictions in itself. That's just fancruft. Opabinia regalis 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure WP:OR fancruft, sorry. Sandstein 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki. As other commentors have noted, the WP:OR content and use of weasel words ("alleged", "some fans") can't easily be removed from this article. That said, I'm sure it'll find a happy home over on the Star Trek wiki. -- Docether 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's OR. It's as simple as that. The nature of the article invites OR. There have been cleanup tags present for over six months and they haven't helped. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and for what it's worth it doesn't belong on Memory Alpha either because they don't endorse OR. It belongs on fan forums. I tried to clean this up months ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, but even my edit left opinions in (partially my own). This article can't exist without them, and verification of lines such as "many fans suspect..." cannot occur without linking to biased forum discussions. Star Trek should be on Wikipedia. This shouldn't. - Hayter 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. I think this is an excellent article for Memory Alpha, and I'm glad people wrote it, because I've felt the same as the article's authors. But it violates Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy, despite the references. I also think it has a case to make, and thus leans towards one side of the issue (ENT being non-canon). — Mike • 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optional Transwiki. Five references for 35K of text? This is original research. If it has been through two prior AFDs and remains in this shabby state, there is no reason to believe that it will be cleaned up. Finally, this is about fiction, and at least in my opinion the only portion of the article that has any hope of being encyclopedic is the introduction, but without the body the intro isn't article worthy. We already have a summary at Star_Trek:_Enterprise#Continuity, that might be able to use one paragraph (tops) about specific continuity issues. GRBerry 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is pure cruft and OR. After two AFDs, it still hasn't been cleaned up, which seems to imply that it cannot, or at least will not, ever be cleaned up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR - BigDT 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwookie trekkie port to Memory Alpha, if they'll have it, and then delete. Too much original research. In order to be listed here, each point must be noted in a secondary reference. (tv.com and imdb.com might also be interested, if there's a way to preserve the GFDL in so moving.) Make it so! — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. —Ruud 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems quite a bit of effort went into this article. Frankchn 11:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, effort does not mean an article should stay that violates policies or guidelines--Crossmr 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not very encyclopedic, and draws so many conclusions that I'm ready to call this OR. Can be gladly transwikied too if you somehow figure out how to deal with the licensing (Last I checked Memory Alpha isn't GFDL), so it probably needs to be rewritten in that case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tough call, but with cleanup the article can be salvaged. Some of the more egregious speculation needs to be trimmed, though. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, This is the last bump as this will be closed tommorrow. Remember to visit the talk page of this AFD for further discussion --Crossmr 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (transwiki if anyone cares to, natch): don't be fooled; though there are 5 references, they don't back up conclusions of discontinuity, just basic facts about the Star Trek universe. This is original research; it's a new analysis of published work (namely the show), unless the conclusions the article tries to reach can be backed up. Mangojuicetalk 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it you haven't read the article? Because there are a lot more than 5 references. Counting all the episodes referenced in the text, there are over 50 references. -- Ritchy 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the article and I enjoy reading wikipedia for precisely this kind of information. - Richardcavell 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you like the article is immaterial to the discussion. No one here is saying its not a good read. Its the fact that it contains original research and opinion that is the problem. That type of article isn't appropriate for wikipedia. I find it interesting that two admins have left comments that are entirely inappropriate to the discussion and process, one with no comment at all, and the other who justifies keeping an article with no real basis.--Crossmr 05:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
crossmr, do you have to leave a counter-point to every person who votes for keep? let them have their say. Thanks. Magic Pickle 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion not a vote. If someone raises a point, I'm free to discuss that point, especially when the point that is raised has nothing to do with the question at hand. --Crossmr 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 08:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optional Transwiki. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangojuice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I too concur with Mangojuice.--Isotope23 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's original research. It doesn't matter if you reference a few basic Star Trek facts, the gross majority of it is OR, and removing the OR will leave us with nothing about continuity errors. Therefore the article is pointless. I don't care if you 'like reading the article' - many people like reading fiction, but that doesn't mean people should post short stories on Wikipedia, and I hope the closing admin takes into account the abjectness of many of the 'reasons' to keep ('it passed the last AFD'? Irrelevant. 'it's fun to read'? Irrelevant. 'effort had been put into the article?' Irrelevant.) If I were to close this, based on the strength of the above arguments, I would delete it into the ground based on both the conensus and the quality of the arguments, and that is, therefore, my vote. And do not transwiki - what right do we have to treat Memory Alpha as our dumping ground? Proto||type 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even remotely perfect, its completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia, and whether or not you were looking for this information has no bearing on whether or not its kept. When an article is full of original research, opinion, improper sources and can't be verified, no matter how well its written or how interesting it is, there is no justification for keeping it. They've had a year to clean it up, and it didn't happen. There is no evidence anymore time is going to change that. --Crossmr 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"whether or not you were looking for this information has no bearing on whether or not its kept" That right people, the fact it's information people want to read about shouldn't influence the decision on whether or not it deserves an entry in Wikipedia! And am I the only one appreciating Crossmr's hypocrisy? He spends most of the VfD arguing that almost no one cares about this topic, and when people reply that they do care, it’s suddenly not a relevant argument anymore. -- Ritchy 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to read short stories, it doesn't mean they have a place on wikipedia. The fact that it appeals to only a part of a fan community is again only part of the problem with the issue. You're also bordering on the line of personal attacks. If you can't keep it civil, I suggest you stay out of any further discussion--Crossmr 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it appeals only to part of the fan community isn't a problem. Every single article can be said to appeal only to part of the community interested in the overall topic. Oh that's right, I forgot, we're not allowed to consider other articles here, or how your arguments are so broad and aimless that they would allow us to delete most of Wikipedia. And pointing out that your arguments are self-contradicting is a "personal attack", too. So basically, our options here are to agree with you, or "stay out of any further discussion". Well, that certainly sounds fair in a VfD. -- Ritchy 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every single article isn't based on fiction. But even if it wasn't fiction, the original research, opinion and unsourced conclusions wouldn't be permitted in the article. If you want to discuss the article you're free to do so, if you feel the need to discuss me you can stop. Doing that only continues to show the weakness of the article and the need to muddy the waters by trying to make the discussion about something its not. --Crossmr 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolute fancruft and original research as pointed out before. Prior AfD discussions can only guide deliberations and be use as an intepretive aid, they are not precedents. They need to be restricted to their facts because a) they are relevant to an article at a point in time (usually) and b) they are not determinations, but collections of opinions and hopefully consensus. Jammo (SM247) 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important problem involving important show. Also too many renoms and extensions to this discussion. --JJay 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    it was renomed for a reason. To reach a proper concensus rather than have it muddled into the ground. Generating input by relisting doesn't invalidate an AFD. No one here questioned whether the problem wasn't important. The problem is how the article is written and the fact that its had a year to change and hasn't done so. --Crossmr 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one way of looking at it. Another explanation might be that no consensus = no consensus. If the subject is important, as you have claimed, but the problem is the writing, then the article should be edited. It should not be debated endlessly through excessive renominations...and debates should not be left open on AfD indefinitely. --JJay 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No..its the nature of AFDs. When opened, they're left open for 5 days, but the AFD is so busy people often do not go back 3 or 4 days to see what was nominated then. After the first day or two the only people who generally see the AFD are people going to the article who may have a biased opinion and not represent wikipedia as a whole. Renominating the AFD, especially on a controversial subject ensures that you get a more general concensues of what wikipedians feel on the issue rather than it being lopsided. Not relisting the AFD leads to situations where you have fan groups muddle the process and hurt wikipedia because they're able to just show up in a force of a few and muddle the discussion. If admins closed properly and actually considered the arguments on both sides like they were supposed to instead of just tallying it up like a vote (which they'll claim its not) this wouldn't be a problem for many controversial issues. If you read the talk page you'll see that the artcle can't be edited. Its been tried and the nature of this article is that its opinion. There is no cleaning it up. Once you take out all the unsourced opinion, conclusions, etc. you don't really have anything worth being an article. --Crossmr 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion and the informative lesson on AfD history and procedure. Incidentally, I see nothing particularly controversial about this article, nor do I think there is any potential to "hurt" wikipedia, whether it is kept or deleted. I don't think those type of scare tactics are necessary, nor do I think you score any points by attacking admins. The article has been here far longer than you have, and during that time wikimedia has gotten much stronger. I also think your logic is badly flawed concerning relisting, since if everyone relisted on a daily basis, following your lead, it would make a total mess of the process. You further claim you want participation in the discussion, but not from "fan groups" (whatever that means). People interested in a given topic, if that's what you mean by "fan groups", are responsible for contributing almost every article on the site. They should be allowed to speak. Their contribution shoulld not be belittled. In fact, you only want participation from people who agree with your opinion, and you feel entitled to argue with everyone who disagrees. Returning to the article, the talk page gave me no indication at all that this "can't be edited". If the topic is viable (and in this case "important"), the article can be edited. --JJay 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it is and has been for the last year consists mainly of original research and unsourced opinion. That hurts wikipedia, which is why there is a policy against it. My logic isn't flawed. If the article is listed once and forgotten about, on the first day you may get a general idea of what wikipedians feel. I never said I didn't want input from the fan groups, I said that if you leave the AFD that is all you get and it becomes lopsided. Relisting helps balance the AFD and ensure a proper concensus on a controversial issue. It doesn't allow a fan group to stack the discussion by posting to their project page or any other method they may use to keep inappropriate articles on the site. They're free to speak, but this IS a discussion. Any point they make I'm free to counter as that is how a discussion works. To this point as myself and others have poitned out, there hasn't been a single comment made to counter the claim of original research and unsourced opinion. The bulk of the responses have been "keep it because its been worked on hard" or "I like it". These are not valid reasons to ignore WP:OR. As to the talk page, not the talk page of the article, the talk page of this project page. I'm not the only one who has expressed the feeling that this article is beyond saving. There is lots of talk about cleaning it up when its nominated for AFD, but it hasn't been done. --Crossmr 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to repeat your views on the "controversial" nature of the article, or how fan groups are distorting the process, or "hurting" wikipedia. Essentially, it looks to me like you are trying to engage in some type of vote stacking deal by flagging an article you nominated on a daily basis on the AfD page. It is unfortunate that noms feel they have to seek new ways to game the system. Other than that, regarding this article, your opinion has been quite clear. I thank you for restating it. I would encourage you now to continue the "discussion" with some of the delete "voters".--JJay 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm free to continue the discussion with whoever I choose. If I have nothing to say about someone's opinion I won't and if I do, I will. When you are dealing with groups who can sometimes contain over zealous members, sometimes you have to be diligent to ensure a process is fair. For even mentioning that I felt the article wasn't encyclopedic I was attacked on the talk page. I'm also not gaming the system, I'm ensuring a balance to prevent gaming from the other side. I'm also not the only one who feels that fan groups will post in force to muddle debates. I might be gaming the system if I was out actively posting on people's talk pages and speaking with people outside wikipedia encouraging them to come here and vote against this article but I am not. I'm simply using the system laid out to ensure a proper concensus. Maybe you look down on that because with a proper concensus the article will be removed? If you think it has merit, I might suggest you go about editing the article to remove all of the original research, conclusions and unsourced opinion. However at that point the article would likely be too small to be an article on its own and would likely be required to be merged with the Enterprise article. --Crossmr 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, regarding over-zealousness, you have shown me that AfD noms and glazed-eyed Kirk lovers have much in common. I hope you live long and prosper on AfD. --JJay 03:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd question the "original research" point, since the inconsistencies ARE present within the sources. Wikipedia is not a conventional, paper encyclopedia, and has room to appeal to all. Ace of Risk 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inconsistencies are not the OR - it's the conclusions being drawn to explain the inconsistencies that are OR. It's fine to say, X happens and Y happens, but then to start proposing explanations is original analysis. The OR policy is quite clear that new synthesis or analysis is original research. David L Rattigan 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Star Trek continuity problems should have place on this encyclopedia. // Duccio (write me) 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
any particular reason? Wikipedia is no an indiscriminate collection of information. But thats not really the problem with the article. Its the original research and unsourced opinion. I'd be interested to see someone say they want it kept and to actually address the problem with the article --Crossmr 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is not the relevancy of the topic but the lack of sources, I'd like to point out that many ST episodes are cited, like others have already said in this page (see Ritchy's comment, point 8 from top) // Duccio (write me) 15:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the lack of citation on the actual continuity errors its all the conclusions, and unsourced opinions it presents to try and rationalize those. That is the original research and the problem with the article --Crossmr 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's edit the article removing them. But to do so, we have to keep it. // Duccio (write me) 09:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be edited while the AFD is ongoing. In fact its often encouraged. The article has had a year to clean up since the first AFD and hasn't done so. While its been written neater a little more professional, the bulk and purpose of the article is still OR. To remove all of the opinion, conclusions and unsourced information you would end up with likely a very short list. Have a look at the TOC. Thats essentially the length of information that would exist, which would be an unexpandable stub and should be merged with something anyway.--Crossmr 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it. Even the trekkies don't see its value as encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested it be merged with star trek cannon so I'm not sure how that is relevant. And has been pointed out several times, previous AFDs have no bearing on this one. The problem is original research and unsourced opinion which violate wikipedia policy. --Crossmr 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this is a sub-catergory of Star Trek Continuity, which is a valid topic. If there's suspected OR, it needs to be sourced or removed, but this is a legit topic, so delete isn't justified. Ace of Sevens 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an article built from speculation and original research... the nature of the article guarantees it. It is not a legit topic for an encylopedia and should be deleted. - Motor (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Memory alpha has come in to let us know that they don't want it either. To me that should be a big heads up to the closing admin. --Crossmr 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, after spending a week telling us that referencing other Wikipedia articles is not relevant in this VfD, you will not ask us to consider a completely different website, will you? Is there no depth of hypocrisy and doublespeak you will not sink to in your quest to delete pages from Wikipedia? And before you retort "personal attack!", it's not. Personal attack is what you've been doing to every person who voted "keep" on this page. What I'm doing is pointing out that your arguments are so weak that you can't even stand by them yourself. -- Ritchy 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments and those of the others who have argued for deletion have stood on their own. And not one single person has managed to address the issue of unsourced opinion and original research in the article. Countering a person's irrelevant argument isn't a personal attack. That is called discussion. There hasn't been a single good reason to ignore the WP:OR and WP:V issues in this article. What happened at memory alpha only illustrates that this article isn't the important piece of information to the Trek community that some claim it is. Even though its completely irrelevant to the discussion if the people insisting on keep feel the need to bring it up, then something equally irrelevant can be brought up to counter that point. In 5 days all we've gotten from the keep side is "Just because" and "I like its" and "I worked really hard on it". These points thrown against WP:OR and WP:V are as relevant as saying "We should keep this article because I'm wearing blue shorts today". So if you want to continue to put forth irrelevant points and pretend they have some meaning in this context, well I don't think you get to have a monopoly on that. You were given an opportunity on the talk page to continue the discussion on the points of OR and V, and when the picture was drawn very clearly for you, you stopped talking. So I commend you for at least making the effort to actually try and defend the article and the point you tried to make, but no one has come up with a good reason for keep in the face of that, nor have they gone ahead and improved the article by removing that content even though a couple have claimed its salvageable. --Crossmr 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page has now been deleted from Memory Alpha. Their discussion can be seen here. -- MemoryAlpha:User:Jaz, Josh a z 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sow with salt; we don't need OR, unverifiable TrekCruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks this article is going to go the way of the dodo. I would advise anyone who is seriously interested in cleaning it up (ie finding verifiable citations to all the original claims it makes) to save it to their userspace before it disappears. Whether someone does that and makes the necessary (drastic) changes will be the true test of whether those who have argued it should stay and merely be cleaned up are really serious about bringing it up to Wiki standards. David L Rattigan 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So is it OR or copyvio? If it's copyvio, then the article needs to be deleted/rebooted regardless, but I haven't seen the proof of such as claimed on Star Trek Wiki and (lately) here. If it's OR, then perhaps elements of it can be re-integrated into the Enterprise article. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio was only pertaining to the discussion on memory-alpha. He was just pointing out that they weren't interested in it even before it was discovered that it was a copy of the work from here, and considered a copyvio by them. The problem here is just the OR. If someone wanted to make a very basic and sourced list of the opposing items and include it as a section of the enterprise article (As it shouldn't be very long) that would be fine as long as it didn't turn into another bit of justifications and opinions, etc. --Crossmr 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the way forward. So we would have: TOS Episode says A, notably Enterprise episode says B, without further comment. I do believe that this neutral approach can be more than a stub. As an example I will do a rewrite here of the Cloaking section:

Cloaking In the episode "Balance of Terror" (TOS) Spock states that such technology had been, until then, only a theoretical possibility: "Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain — selectively bending light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that. " Yet previous to this, the NX-01 encountered several races with cloaking technology, and even took possession of and used a cloaking pod from the Suliban. In the episode "Minefield" (ENT), the crew of the NX-01 encounters a Romulan ship with cloaking abilities as well as a cloaked Romulan mine field.

-Would we agree that there is no OR in the above passage? If so can we not do a similar job on the other sections? Thanks Magic Pickle 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clean up the usage of "several" its ambiguous it could be 3 it could be 10. The quote doesn't add anything to the paragraph it just serves to lengthen it, its already been stated what Spock said and it what episode. I'm also not sure I like the "Yet previous to this" transition. It gives the wrong tone to me. I'll think about that. --Crossmr 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - How about this:

'In the episode "Balance of Terror" (TOS) Spock states that such technology had been, until then, only a theoretical possibility. Previous to this, the NX-01 encountered races with cloaking technology, and even took possession of and used a cloaking pod from the Suliban. In the episode "Minefield" (ENT), the crew of the NX-01 encounters a Romulan ship with cloaking abilities as well as a cloaked Romulan mine field. '

Any good? I'm happy to remove the quote from Spock - but I know you want it all referenced and that. Magic Pickle 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is better. You can quote how many races Enterprise encountered if you wish, thats factual. I think thought it was just the Romulans and the Suliban? --Crossmr 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the new-cut down version of Cloaking (above) to the article. I respectfully submit that it contains no OR, and that if the rest of the sections were rewritten in a similar way, they would be more than a stub. If no-one else volunteers I guess I could do it - but I would need a few days. Magic Pickle 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably do have that time. THere is currently a major backlog on the AFDs, and the relisting I did actually extends the AFD. It isn't scheduled to close for another 24 hours or so, but there is a 3 or 4 day backlog beyond that. We should also consider a new name for the article, because alleged is a loaded word, and like someone mentioned perhaps this could be made into a broader article to cite all Canon contradictions between all series. Continuity Contradictions is a neutral term, it could be spiced up a little if needed as long as the tone and meaning aren't changed. --Crossmr 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Here's another attempt which I will add to the article. If others want to revert they can.

Weapon technology According to "Balance of Terror" (TOS), the Earth-Romulan War which took place around the time of ENT was fought using atomic weapons. However, the NX-01 is armed with futuristic 'phase cannons' and 'photonic torpedoes', and the Romulan ships seen in ENT have a similar armament.

-No OR in that, I think... (I hope) Magic Pickle 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might take out "According to" it makes it sound authoritative or correct. When writing try to make it so that you could transpose the two contradictions in the paragraph without changing how one might interpret it. Using "In" there or some derivative of that would be more appropriate. Its also unneccessary to put attention on phase cannons or photonic torpedos like that. Perhaps refer to them as energy-based weapons, everything about the series is futuristic. Something like this:

Weapon Technology In "Balance of Terror" (TOS), reference is made to an Earth-Romulan War which took place around the time of ENT, it was reported to have been fought using atomic weapons. Through-out the series the NX-01 is armed with phase cannons and photonic torpedos both energy-based weapons. The romulan vessels are also similarly armed. --Crossmr 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete or Merge: Most of the subtopics in this article have their own entries (c.f. Borg and Ferengi). If you strip out the POV, unsourced hypotheses, and debatable conclustions, portions of this article could make sense as subsections of those more specific articles. Wikipedia shouldn't be defending away Star Trek's writers' mistakes (which parts of this article seem determined to do), but describing them seems legitimate, as long as it doesn't turn into crazy fan-nitpicking. Michael Bauser 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. If you think it tries to explain away the writers mistakes now, you should have seen it when Hayter was editing it. :-) Magic Pickle 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. I guess it won't end up on Memory Alpha, but that might be a precedent that is wirth following. Eluchil404 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to stand on its own merits. You can't justify keeping it just because we some other equally pointless article.--Crossmr 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INCL for an explanation some of us have been working on with regard to this salient point. Jammo (SM247) 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to imitate crossmr for one second: could you explain your reasoning? Magic Pickle 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have asked that same question in a much different manner. Make sure you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Crossmr 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not intended as a personal attack, crossmr, merely a homage. Magic Pickle 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're on the other side of the debate, you'll forgive me if I don't view it as that. --Crossmr 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you. Magic Pickle 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kraus Boelte

Not notable enough to figure in main WP Kindergarten article - if she is notable then so am I :-) BlueValour 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) BlueValour 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Creator has had plenty of time to cite importance of said individual and has yet failed to provide evidence of notability. -- DrunkenSmurf 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Article is now in great shape, I change my vote to keep, thank you HJMG, great job. DrunkenSmurf 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No non-Wikipedia google hits for New York Seminary for Kindergartners. At best, Merge her into Friedrich Wilhelm August Fröbel. Her book, The Kindergarten Guide, Volumes 1 and 2, would be a decent reference there. Ted 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Why merge there, that doesn't look like her husband? He was German, she supposedly started an organization that was American. GRBerry 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This stub would not appear to do much or any justice to Boelte. I say that after perusing EB's long article on this disciple of Frobel, early educator, author and important figure in the kindergarten movement [38]. The nom may or may not be notable. But that, in my view, is completely irrelevant when judging Boelte. Instead, I would appreciate a serious nomination and valid explanation of why we should be less inclusive than Encyclopedia Britannica, or why her book was recently republished after 130 years [39]. --JJay 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is the sparcity of information in the article. While editors who are considering AfDs do carry out their own research the onus must be on the creator to justify that the article has sufficient importance to be kept. In this instance the 'Importance' tag has been on the article for 6 months but neither the creator nor anyone else has seen fit to address the issue. TerriersFan 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per JJay. Just because you don't know the importance of something doesn't mean it's not important. [ælfəks] 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't be serious with that comment [ælfəks]. Every article must try to establish notability and include links to sources so that readers can easily see why the person is important and not have to figure it out for themselves. I have no idea who this person is and my searches on Google did not come up with enough information for me to see how this person is notable. In addition, the article is one sentence and provides me with zero information on the person. But I guess since you know the person is important I should just vote to keep the article.
If you have evidence of notability for the person, or have more information on her than just one sentance, add it to the article and help it grow so we can include this person in Wikipedia. I will be more than happy to change my vote if the article is expanded to include such information. DrunkenSmurf 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent contribution but can you source it, please? BlueValour 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of it comes from page 229 of the first book listed under "References" which you can find on Google Books. Other bits from the second book, from library catalogues and possibly some scraps picked up by scanning through other search results.--HJMG 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-flat minor

  • Strong delete. Having played both pieces, I'm quite certain that Chopin's Schzero Op. 31 is in B-flat minor (alternatively, in D-flat major, the key in which it ends), and his Prelude Op. 28 No. 15 in D-flat major, and I've never seen anything suggest otherwise. The Prelude has a section in C-sharp minor, which would be equivalent to the supposed D-flat minor. I've never seen this section written in flats, however, and I don't think the fact that there's one section of the Prelude that goes into a key, that, if written in flats, would constitute D-flat minor, is enough of a reason for saying that the Prelude is in D-flat minor. Furthermore, I can't see any place where the Scherzo goes into anything remotely approaching D-flat minor. The closest thing one can find is a section in E major, equivalent to F-flat minor, the relative key to D-flat minor. Unless there's an actual manuscript edition somewhere that suggests that these pieces were originally written in an eight-flat key signature, I'm inclined to dismiss this as a hoax. (I can't speak for the Rachmaninoff or Schubert pieces.) TheProject 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am changing my vote also. I did the same search and found a surprising number of pieces in this key. Although I am skeptical whether anyone editing the article will find actual references to people writing about the key and its qualities, in theory it could be expanded. David L Rattigan 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Rachmaninov, Schubert, Chopin! — brighterorange (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. We also have articles on A major, A minor, A-flat major, A-flat minor, A-sharp minor, B major, B minor, B-flat major, B-flat minor, C major, C minor, C-flat major, C-sharp major, C-sharp minor, D major, D minor, D-flat major, D-sharp minor, E major, E minor, E-flat major, E-flat minor, F major, F minor, F-sharp major, F-sharp minor, G major, G minor, G-flat major, and G-sharp minor. Either all should stay, or all should go. On behalf of the Action Committee for Equal Opportunity for all Musical Keys, While all keys are equal, some are more equal than others. Sincerely, LambiamTalk 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (modified 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment: those keys all technically "exist" (i.e. can be written in standard sharps and flats notation) within the circle of fifths. D-flat minor, however, is a non-existent key that involves being written using double-flats. See circle of fifths -- it will explain it better than I can. TheProject 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no clue why this is being nominated. I'm completely puzzled by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nominated because the key doesn't exist. TheProject 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here, let me explain. In music, major keys start from C major and either add sharps or add flats, up to a maximum of seven (there are seven named white keys in an octave with which to make sharp or flat). Minor keys are related to major keys in a one-to-one correspondence and are arrived at by taking the major key, going down three steps (not three letters) on a keyboard, and changing the "major" to "minor.
        • Starting from C major and adding sharps and going up a fifth every time one adds another sharp, one arrives at the key of G major, which has one sharp (F sharp), then the key of D major, which has two (F and C sharps), then A major (FCG), E major (FCGD), B major (FCGDA), F-sharp major (FCGDAE), and C-sharp major (FCGDABB). After this, there are no more keys going up, as all named white keys ABCDEFG have already had a sharp applied to them. Therefore, there is no key that is a fifth above C-sharp major, which would technically be G-sharp major.
        • The minor key corresponding to C major is A minor, and the minor keys corresponding to the major keys I've just listed by adding sharps are E minor, B minor, F-sharp minor, C-sharp minor, G-sharp minor, D-sharp minor, and A-sharp minor. Again, there is no minor key that is a fifth above A-sharp minor, as this would involve an eighth sharp, and there are only seven notes to sharp.
        • Adding flats brings a key down by a fifth every time another flat is added. Starting from C major and going down, one arrives at the key of F major, which has one flat (B flat), then the key of B-flat major (B and E flats), E-flat major (BEA), A-flat major (BEAD), D-flat major (BEADG), G-flat major (BEADGC), and C-flat major (BEADGCF). Again, after this, all named white keys ABCDEFG have already had a flat applied to them. Therefore, there is no key with an eighth flat that is a fifth below C-flat major (which would be F-flat major).
        • The minor keys corresponding to these keys are, respectively, D minor, G minor, C minor, F minor, B-flat minor, E-flat minor, and A-flat minor. The key that would theoretically follow next is a fifth down from A-flat minor, which is D-flat minor -- the subject of the article in question. The issue is that D-flat minor would involve an eighth flat.
        • Basically, the imaginary keys that have eighth or more flats -- in this case D-flat minor -- are nothing more than that: imaginary. Hence why this key is not the same as the other keys listed by Lambiam. Hope that all made sense. TheProject 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was a music minor in college. I'm aware of how the typical scale structure works, and I'm still not at all bothered by this article. My puzzlement is why people are looking to delete this, as it's otherwise legitimate, albeit obscure and little-used, as well as not entirely technically sound. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, you looked a bit confused. :-) I still don't see the basis of your opposition. It's not a legitimate key. TheProject 23:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • TheProject, my understanding is that what you are saying is only true for equal-temperament scales. In other temperaments, you can sharp or flat anything as many times as you want. B-double-flat is not exactly the same as A. D-flat minor has to exist, because, for example, you might want to modulate up a fourth from A-flat minor. If you announced that you were then in C-sharp minor, you'd be theoretically wrong, and in a non-equal-temperament scale, you'd be tonally wrong as well. I'm not a music major, so I admit I could be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is. --Allen 04:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Very true -- it does apply strictly to equal-temperament, and I hadn't quite thought about that. But unless there's a notable work written before equal temperament in D-flat minor, I think this should be a non-issue. If we included D-flat minor based on equal temperament alone, we'd also have to include A-sharp major, which seems absurd to me. Also, as I've said already, I can't find any works in this supposed key, probably because equal-temperament occurred soon after notation was developed. :-) TheProject 06:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some more research on the four pieces supposedly in D-flat minor listed in the article. The two Chopin works I've covered in my comment already, and looking through Amazon's collections of recordings of either work should verify that the Scherzo is in B-flat minor/D-flat major and the Prelude is in D-flat major. The Rachmaninoff work doesn't exist -- his Op. 8 is a trio elegante, and the work on the CD in the link I believe refers to Scriabin's Op. 8 No. 10, which is in D-flat major, according to B&N[41] and Amazon[42], and I suspect it's similar to the two Chopin works with modulation in key. As for the Schubert quartet, look at the cover image carefully: the title card says "String Quartets in E flat and D minor". A look at List of compositions by Schubert verifies indeed that the Death and the Maiden Quartet is indeed in D minor. So we're again left without any piece in the supposed key of D-flat minor, and quite frankly, I'd change "little-used" to "never-used". :-) TheProject 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost everything about "D-flat minor" is covered in minor scale, by the way. TheProject 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I appreciate the level of research and knowledge being brought to bear here. I should stress that I have no technical knowledge of music, I'm merely looking for examples of D-flat minor music referenced out on the web. If there are none and the experts here concur that this key is a minor technical oddity then I'm happy for the article to be deleted.
    However I am still able to find several pieces of music that claim to be in D-flat minor. Could someone with the appropriate technical knowledge take a look at the following and render an opinion?
  • this references a Rachmaninov etude that apparently has a movement in D Flat minor
  • (towards the bottom) references a Skrjabin etude
  • this references a Chopin nocturne
  • this has a prelude and fugue by Shostakovich
  • this has a Dvorák waltz
  • this article talks about Elgar's use of the key
    • Not having heard or seen the score for this piece, I can't really speak for it, but the article mentions that the key is modulated into (i.e. the piece moves to the key temporarily) for a two bar-phrase. This isn't really writing in the key -- for example, moving to a key a fifth above the key that the piece is written for, temporarily, is standard in classical pieces, and sometimes, if a piece is written in C-sharp major, the music will move temporarily into the imaginary key of G-sharp major. However, the piece won't actually change keys to G-sharp major; the temporary key change is simulated, rather than written in. Also, given that the key of the piece is B minor (two sharps), I'm wondering if perhaps it's simulated in C-sharp minor (four sharps), rather than D-flat major (eight flats), as it would be very unusual to simulate a key written in flats (and especially with so many flats) using a base key written in sharps. TheProject 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From quick searches going in the other direction (find the work and the keys normally used):
  • Chopin Op 9/1: B flat minor
  • Rachmaninov Op 33/5 E flat minor
  • Scriabin Op 8/12 D sharp minor
  • Shostakovich Prelude and Fugue no. 15, D flat major
  • Dvorák waltz, Op 54/2 (B 105/2) D flat major
  • The Elger article is not really talking about a scale there. Also, I don't trust that write-up as a whole, because it lists the title as "Quartet for Strings in B minor, Op. 83" but the recording itself is E minor.[43] [44]--iMeowbot~Meow 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are a lot more. Are they all incorrect?
    Genuine thanks for the effort to improve Wikipedia whatever "side" you come down on. This is a very constructive debate. Gwernol 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first five all appear to be "bloopers", so to speak. The sixth one I consider dubious, at best. Hope that moves this discussion forward. TheProject 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the wisest thing to do here is to Redirect to C# minor, and add a note about the non-existence or rarity of Db minor. Perhaps in some methods or other pieces of music Db is seen as a learning exercise? Also in Jazz keys change often, and a tonal center may conveniently be writte as Db minor, as opposed to C# minor--This is done becuase the key signature need not be changed and no confusion occurs. Adambiswanger1 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Nonsense, but clever nonsense :) --iMeowbot~Meow 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after moving it to BJAODN per iMeowbot. It fooled me too. lol --Starionwolf 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect and Merge as a music student, I can appreciate this article. It may not be the most popular key, but it isn't far enough from reality to warrant deletion. It is a legit key, but can probably be safely deprecated as a variety of C#minor, so long as some mention is made of D-flat as an enharmonic spelling. At least in the world of even-temperment, this should be sufficient. --Godwhacker 05:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With the vast number of possible DNA combinations, it's just about plausible that talking wolves with purple feathers could exist. Still, we don't have an article on such a species because that combination hasn't actually occurred. A good example of why an article on nonexistent beasts (other than those labeled as fiction) aren't good article subjects appears right in this thread: the article currently contains copied erroneous examples of the key's usage. --iMeowbot~Meow 16:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really worth changing my vote, since it seems the article is destined for the garbage can anyway, but this has been a most illuminating discussion! David L Rattigan 18:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St bridget of sweden school

The article is about a small K-8 school in Van Nuys, CA, which seems completely un-notable —Ryan McDaniel 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead soldier

Neologism, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Accurizer 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Iranian origin

Wikipedia is not (yet) an etymological dictionary. Does not appear that there's enough info to make a move to Wiktionary useful either. Hirudo 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the above and 95% of articles that start with "List of" BigDT 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OmniPeek

Advertising copy for non-notable product. Steven Fisher 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: See also EtherPeek & AiroPeek, more advertising copy for related products. -- Steven Fisher 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as marketing bull#&%! - Richardcavell 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years. 2) Please define advertising. As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising and "marketing bull...". Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template? In fact, you could pretty much replace Wireshark with OmniPeek in that entry -- would that be better? 3) This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition. Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Reads simply as a pure advertisement. Hardly notable.--Auger Martel 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising copy. -- Steven Fisher 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to OmniPeek. Have I tried to hide my connection? No. I used my real name and e-mail. See my user info for direct e-mail. Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with? (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: [48]) 2) Apologies are in order: I assumed [49] was the same Steven Fisher. Now I see that his first name is not the same. I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher. 3) I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording? Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue? As for being notable, how does one prove notability? Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek - [50], 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek [51]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep I have to agree strongly that this is inline with Wireshark's entry. I also do not consider a developer attempting to document the history and evolution of its products, which it appears is the intent of Wireshark as well, to be considered advertising. Does anyone recall Wireshark's entry when it first appeared? I am sure it is similar to OmniPeek's, which given the chance to evolve, would be supplemented by end-users and take on the community feel I believe was intended. Perhaps adapting to a format inline with Wiresharks would be more acceptable.Josh Gluck 11:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EtherPeek

Advertising copy for non-notable product. See also: OmniPeek & AiroPeek, additional advertising copy by same author for related products. Listed separately. Steven Fisher 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1) Calling it non-notable is rather subjective. These products have been around for 16 years. 2) Please define advertising. As mentioned before, Wireshark is much more akin of traditional and typical advertising. Would it make a difference if we used Wireshark's entry as a template? In fact, you could pretty much replace Wireshark with OmniPeek in that entry -- would that be better? 3) This seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle competition. Steven Fisher is a contributor to Wireshark, which makes him biased. --mahboud 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Advertising, not notable and no references.--Auger Martel 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1) Yes, I am strongly connected to OmniPeek. Have I tried to hide my connection? No. I used my real name and e-mail. See my user info for direct e-mail. Is there a policy regarding developers contributing about projects they are involved with? (I see many Ethereal/Wireshark developers in this list: [53]) 2) Apologies are in order: I assumed [54] was the same Steven Fisher. Now I see that his first name is not the same. I apologize to sdfisher|Steven Fisher. 3) I still don't understand, is this considered advertising due to it not being "notable", or due to the wording? Again, would following the format of Wireshark's entry resolve this issue? As for being notable, how does one prove notability? Would the product be notable if it influenced the development of Wireshark? (422 English pages from ethereal.com for EtherPeek - [55], 246 English pages from ethereal.com for AiroPeek [56]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahboud (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne class starhip

Not notable enough. Delete or merge into List of Starfleet ship classes. Also, there is a spelling error in the title. Philip Stevens 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ferguson (Missouri)

Not notable vanity entry RedRollerskate 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (if we were vote counting, it's 4-3 delete, so no consensus, leaning towards delete, but AFD is not a vote). The three links provided - the sole justification for keeping - are sixth form reviews (ie, twelfth grade). Calton provides the best argument. Proto///type 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Silence

No assertion of notability for this play other than it was performed in Paraguay; author is redlinked NawlinWiki 18:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Richardcavell 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Duff

nn, child of two celebrities. Has one acting credit, in a movie with her parents. Google search mostly turns up their bios. Ckessler 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NiceWare

Adcruft about a non-notable product RedRollerskate 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A8 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoorgan

Neologism - 3 Google hits. The only English-language hit does not relate to the term as defined in the article. Perhaps there exists some published work on this that isn't on the Internet..? Rklawton 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Center School (Connecticut)

Non-notable Kindergarten to 1st grade with no obvious redeeming features. BlueValour 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to segregated cycle facilities. Two contributors (TedE and SPUI) have hinted that something here might be worth adding to that article. In case that is true, and because redirects are cheap, I will preserve the history. The last version of the article may be viewed here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bike lane debate

This is not an article; it is a collection of disembodied arguments and rebuttals not attributed to any people. Thus, they are not facts and cannot be verifiable. Maybe an article can be made for this topic, but the current contents are unsalvageable. — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Wald (onomastics) wasn't included formally in this afd so it stays, I suggest WP:PROD-ing it if anything. W.marsh 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roth (onomastics)

Per talk page, extreme form of listcruft - irrelevant, obscure subject, without hope of rescuing page into anything suitably encyclopaedic DWaterson 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete My delete vote is only a "weak" one because I can't figure out what the hell this page is actually trying to tell me (and yes, I read its talk page, too). Per nom, it is just to be an indiscriminate list of names. -- Kicking222 21:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222, also note large portions in what appears to be a combination of German and east European languages, possibly Polish and Hungarian. Jammo (SM247) 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added the confusing clean-up tag to the Roth article. I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether it should stay or go, but I found this page; Wald (onomastics), which is very similar, with all the same problems as the Roth article, and is by the same author. If one goes, so should the other, and if one stays, so should the other. I've not listed it for deletion or done anything with it though. ONUnicorn 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... :) DWaterson 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only assume that this article was meant to be a combination etymology and disambiguation for anything that begins with the Roth prefix. There are many English articles that start with the same prefix but we don't have a page for "pre" or "con". --Freyr 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nominator has voted keep and there have been no other delete votes. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dicknail

Not notable, and name is obscene. george 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took 10 minutes and the magic of Google to find some background info and an image, and I'm not even a Hole fan. An editor who liked Hole would be able to expand this article much further. -Big Smooth 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Expansion by Big Smooth has drastically improved the article contents. I've changed my vote to Strong Keep. -- Scientizzle 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe OK perhaps keep You have to throw an article into the deletion pile and then pound on it with both fists to get anyone to put even the basic information down. I'm totally opposed to one sentence articles, and a lot of them are given a free pass. george 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless there's some sort of specific Wikipedia policy you can point us to that forbids one-sentence articles, I don't see what your beef is. Aplomado talk 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because one sentence articles aren't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ever see a one sentence article in Britannica? Also, it is just plain lazy. If you care enough to start an article, then at least trouble yourself to write a couple paragraphs. Sheesh. george 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Single by a very notable band. Can't we just close these AfD discussions already? -- Kicking222 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not notable, its just a waste of space. Whether or not Courtney Love wrote proto-feminist anger songs about men's reproductive organs has and will have ZERO effect on history. Wikipedia is not a teen chat room or MySpace! george 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense, but you should be temporarily blocked from editing WP. You're trying to prove multiple points at the same time (that we should remove one-line stubs; that we should remove everything related to Hole; that we should removed articles with filthy titles), and all of your points are incredibly stupid. Guess what? I don't like Hole, either! And I hate Nirvana! But you know what else? Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I think we should eliminate their presence on WP. In my opinion, Nirvana is the most overrated band of all-time, but you won't see me AfD'ing Blew. No matter what you think, Hole is notable. Things with curses in them can be notable. And single-sentence articles can be notable. So get off your high horse and live with the fact that, in your mind, WP isn't perfect. Nothing is. -- Kicking222 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as the nominator has voted "keep." Aplomado talk 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. DarthVader 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstrade Securities

Prod contested. {{notability}} & {{expand}} tags removed (several times). Author has yet to address concerns about meeting WP:CORP, either by maintenance tag in the article or messages to user talk page. Latest addition, "Firstrade advertises that both market orders and limit orders can be traded for a flat $6.95 commission fee" reads like a blatant advertisement. "Firstrade Securities" seems like it might be notable, but I don't know enough to expand the article and the article creator seems to reject any notion of meeting Wikipedia guidelines. Scientizzle 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. We've made the content less "advertisement-like". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstrade (talk • contribs)

Thanks. -- Scientizzle 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retard Girl

Each album could be listed on the Hole page. This is not notable. george 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the classic Wikipedia argument - why don't you expand it. The reason I don't is there's nothing to say. Its so unnotable that even one sentence is too much said. george 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't argue with you. As User:Gwernol has aptly put it on your talk page: We are not here to build "the Encyclopedia of things that George finds inoffensive" nor "the Encyclopedia of stuff George has heard of". Aplomado talk 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparantly we are building the encyclopedia of topics that nobody bothered to write anything about, even the person who created the article! george 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Non-notable albums by notable bands should be merged into the band article. It betters serves the information. Ted 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete nobody has anything to say about it. Its a Wikipedia sentence, not an article. george 21:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It's the first single by a highly notable band- that's all that needs to be said. I don't care what the single's name is, and I'd like to politely refer User:Georgeccampbell to WP is not censored. In addition, his idea that an article should be deleted because it's only a sentence is equal to the statement that every single stub should be deleted, which is ludicrous. -- Kicking222 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge the content with Hole (band) and redirect to there. Juneappal 21:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There its expanded and has a picture. This should not be deleted or merged. Should pages for singles by other artists also be deleted or merged? No. It deserves its own page. It is a major part in the history of "Hole". Its their very first single and very important.User:Caladonia
Template:Infobox Single is used in nearly 4,000 articles, so I think the consensus is that singles are notable on their own, as I believe they should be. Singles often make or break the careers of contemporary artists, and with some work they can make for good stand-alone articles. -Big Smooth 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deoete. W.marsh 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Lux


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution (book)

Speedy Deletedb empty, no sign of expansion,merge would be good too.--AeomMai 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Video Group

Delete vanity spam. probably WP:CORP. Also attempted to do an end-run around the NP patrol by abandoning the originally created New Video Group Inc. and recreating it here. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothy (eunuch)

Previously PROD'd, but the source is slightly off. If it is to exist, then at least merge; it will remain nothing more than a stub. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Danielrocks123 05:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Coredesat 07:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Otherwise, if there is a dictionary for slangs, then transwiki it there. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, no merge, no redirect. This is more bizarre sexcruft, and it's a dicdef that can't be expanded even if it were worth expanding. So what if there are crazy perverts out there who cut off their dicks, balls, and nipples and call themselves a "smoothy." I call them fucking crazy. Erik the Rude 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. Tychocat 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Erik the Rude. This doesn't enter into the decision, but the eunuch fetishists are more disturbing to me than any other paraphilia, including pedophilia, as their fantasies usually include children getting their penis, testicles, labia, clitoris or breasts cut off, almost always against their will. They are often tortured and/or killed as well. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has many links to a site with tons of stories like that and a few pictures and videos of baby circumcision, female genital mutilation and mutilated adult genitals (the pictures and videos are usually hosted offsite on members' websites and such, but they are linked to and sometimes loaded on the website). -- Kjkolb 09:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uneasy Delete There is no possibility for expansion, and it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea that it should be removed because you don't like the fetish. There are many things on Wikipedia that are not to my liking, but I don't advocate for their removal. Ckessler 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Poe

This is Mary Cheney's partner; no assertion that she has done anything notable other than being Mary Cheney's partner NawlinWiki 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Pharmaceuticals

Delete as advertisement, WP:SPAM. See other contributions by creator: [61]. mtz206 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova the Hedgehog

There's absolutely no source for this; one's [63] given in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game), but it's a GameFAQs topic which seems to go by the reasoning "This is real, trust me! :O"; such a source is fleeting anyway (no GameFAQs topic stays around forever), but that's just unreliable. I don't believe it, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... maybe when there's a better source. Shadow Hog 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadbus

Advertising for non-notable company. Haakon 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues etc.

Weekly local talk show on Christian radio station; nonnotable NawlinWiki 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This station (KFUO-AM) would be considered non-notable. It's a 5,000 watt AM station with hardly any ratings at all. It's only notable through its sister FM station, which has been the premier classical music station in St. Louis forever. Fan1967 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There you go, then. I'd say that it's sufficient but not necessary for the station to be nonnotable in order for the program itself to be ruled nonnotable. -- Docether 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qtd

This article can never be more than a dictionary definition and thus should be deleted as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RicDod 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Aspen

Not notable pornographic actress, doesn't meet WP:PORN_BIO. feydey 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy lumpkins

Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Galaxies:Roleplay - Immersion War

This looks very unencyclopedic to me and almost seems like an online discussion. It is written in the first person and often talks about personal computer game experiences from the author. --CapitalR 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -CapitalR 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Looks like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere. -- Docether 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete -Damn guys, it is cut and paste from a Roleplaying community, we are working at refining our use of different roleplay mechanics within Star Wars Galaxies, is there a better place for this? I have seen other Star Wars Galaxies references like this, we just set this up today and are cutting and pasting to get started then we will reform it to look "encyclopedic"--Dewbacca 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, there are better places than this. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a how-to. Wikipedia is not a fan forum. If you want to have a wikipedia-style interface and database, you can create your own wiki on your own server Bwithh 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Follow You Into The Dark

not notable. george 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This information could easily be placed on Death Cab for Cutie. george 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Let me expand on this. If people deem it important enough to call out an artist or band's song to its own page, then they should have something to say about it. This page could barely justify four lonely words. I think that when it was decided that individual songs or albums could get their own articles, it was intended that there be some interesting or notable reason. Basically, notable is the watchword that trumps all others. This just isn't worth the nanometers of magentic disk space it is consuming. george 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So expand it. it's the next single, it has a video by a guy who did one of the best videos of the 1990s, Radiohead's "Just," it'll have a retail single release, etc. No need to rush, and a couple seconds of research would have borne this out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So expand it it is the old Wikipedia Canard. I say that if the person who initiated the article couldn't come up with a sentence or two about the topic, then why would you expect anyone else to. The truth is that this dreck would have sat there in that condition for months or years. The only reason anyone even attempted to Wikify it or add to it is because it got marked for deletion. george 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have expanded as opposed to AfDing it, too, you know. Besides, this time, I put my money where my mouth was and I at least made it into a viable stub. Took ten seconds to plug the song name into Google News and snag a press release announcing the single with the video information. Took another thirty to make the viable stub. How long did it take to do the AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its still not notable. Every moping teenager who penned a song in his garage is going to want a Wikipedia page. Maybe if they sell more than 100 CD's then it will deserve a Wiki page. Otherwise it is free advertising for an audienceless musician. george 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nvip netbattle board

Not notable, they admit only having about 100 members and only being a place to chat. Irongargoyle 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also hosted on a free service.--Andeh 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frost Like Ashes

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete, users are welcome to merge - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common township names in Ohio

This information can be gained from List of Ohio townships. Listcruft. Irongargoyle 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So, whats wrong with that? Much of wiki article info is duplicated but presented in a different way. Dont see a problem with that aspect of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick22aku (talk • contribs)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Perry

Non-notable local politician Nv8200p talk 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If membership to the city council is the item that makes this person notable, then the city council should rate an article. This article would include each member's biography. Only when a biography within the council article grows beyond the scope of the council should the person have his or her own biography article. In this case, we seem to have skipped a step by creating a bio for someone who amounts to a one-hit wonder. Rklawton 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has a link but still could be better. Eluchil404 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I can't believe this article has even been nominated for deletion. Her constituency is roughly 245,000 people, which is about a third of that of a member of the House of Representatives. --Asbl 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lakshmi Tobacco Company

nonnotable Indian company NawlinWiki 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kimchi.sg 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. Wayne Owens

C. Wayne Owens shows all the hallmarks of a vanity page. TheNate

  • Userfy and delete per nom. Obvious vanity, along with linkspam, by a non-notable actor/writer/whatever. -- Kicking222 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to defer him being a non-notable actor/writer/whatever. He is quite accomplished in his field. I went in and made some edits to remove some of the external links and made a few edits. -- bellobard

21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. I do not see any real evidence of linkspam nor would term him as "non-notable actor/writer/whatever". As a worker of the Kansas City Renaissance Festival, I know his Seymoure character is well-known and, frankly, talked about with reverence by long-timers. -- jslicer
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jackie, Man with Radio (uncredited), Dry Cleaner Clerk, or Popcorn Vendor. Oops, I meant Delete for NN, VANITY. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable at this time. Accurizer 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting life, but I don't see anything here that meets WP:BIO. I have no idea if originator is C. Wayne Owens, but based on the edit history, offering a userfy would be a nice gesture.--Isotope23 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am separate from the original author of this material, I'm too young to remember C. Wayne Owens' TV shows, and I do not attend Ren Faires, am not a friend with/family member of/acquaintance of the subject, nor am I in any way what you would consider a "fan" of the subject, and yet I've heard of him and been influenced by him. Just because a person's name is not one YOU recognize or one that affects YOU doesn't make the person NN (which seems to be the ONLY reason why this article is recommended for deletion as "NN"); and the lack of a large number of authors is to be expected of any new bio. --Rimbo
    • Comment Rimbo, I have found that most of the folks who participate in AfD perform their own research before voting on a nomination. Personally, I would never vote without doing so. I think your statements do not represent reality. If you can provide references that would corroborate your finding of notability, we would be happy to look at them. Accurizer 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Your suggestion that I had not done research on the subject is false, irrelevant to the point I made and inappropriate for this kind of discussion. --Rimbo 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I did not suggest that you had not done research. In fact I presume you have done research. What I suggested is that you should assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Accurizer 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Ah, my mistake and heartfelt apologies.
  • Delete per nom. I have to say, Rimbo, the contrary to your argument is also true: The fact you may recognize the name does not mean the person is notable to anyone else. And yes, I read the article and checked the references. Tychocat 07:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that merely being notable "to someone" doesn't make someone notable; a co-worker may be notable to me, but that doesn't make him encyclopedia-worthy. C. Wayne Owens has a large cult following within the Ren Faire circuit, which fits WP:BIO. It is difficult to find references on the web, given that the Ren Faire circuit is not what you would call heavily documented on the internet, but one internet reference would be the inclusion of his quotes in several of the Brobdingnagian Bards' newsletters. That he's a significant influence on the Bards' humor is a thing of note in itself.--Rimbo 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jud Lounsbury

Person obscure not well known enough to be included in wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by User0007 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment I suspect he thought if he kept resaving the article (looks like about 70 resaves in 20 minutes) that maybe someone would notice and help him delete it? I guess he didn't know about AfD. Fan1967 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_13&oldid=58460255"