Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Replace KAXM
Zospped (talk | contribs)
5 edits
No edit summary
Line 70: Line 70:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korben}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korben}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KAXM (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KAXM (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Shakugan no Shana}}

Revision as of 09:57, 22 September 2006

< September 21 September 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneering over four epochs

This looks like someone's attempt to get their own work published on Wikipedia, like if WP was a hosting service. Scobell302 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoMoFunk

No sources per WP:RS, fails Google test. The choreographer may be notable but I doubt this dance style is. Doesn't seem to be documented well enough, at least. Crystallina 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album-a-Day

spammy, alexa rating of 375,090, limited scope, nn Giant onehead 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is it fails WP:WEB - Yomanganitalk 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeatPick (2nd Nomination)

spammy/advert for website, alexa rating of 768,744, possibly WP is not crystal ball Giant onehead 00:44, 22 September 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 20:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 00:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. Resolute 04:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dont understand why you do not like this beatpick thing. there are many other small record label on wikipedia and most of them are much less worth to be noted. this beatpick guys are doing something OK and truly innovating. many articles can be found on the net. DJMag, creative commons, openbusiness, dogmanet + a number of people have blogged them. they have over 100 artists. it's a new way of doing business in the music industry and should be on wikipedia. i've never written before for wikipedia and I am one of their artists... so..not an impartial opinion but still there are a few facts about beatpick that cannot be said to be untrue. I think you should research better the subject before branding the article as "pure advertising". btw I noticed that last 2 "delete" comes from people that have given very little contribution to wikipedia. take care of yourself. Mark Johanson.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlankTV

nn website, spam, alexa rating of 465,299 Giant onehead 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Sufficient GHits" are not a criteria of WP:WEB. They're also not enough by themselves in WP:N, especially when there's no evidence that it even meets WP:V. All the talk I find on it is on blogs, which don't meet the reliable sources criteria. While the nominator could have expanded upon these points more thoroughly, this doesn't mean it's an automatic keep. ColourBurst 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikons

Reads like an advertisement, seems to fail WP:WEB Khatru2 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Alexa Ranking is 71,423. Khatru2 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincymusic.com

nn/local site, spammy, alexa rating of 1,379,309, not useful here Giant onehead 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Gunfire

nn internet radio station, alexa rating a dismal 2,700,827 Giant onehead 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drum-world

nn message board, alexa rating of 2,706,463 Giant onehead 01:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ElectronicScene

nn website, made-up claims and spammy, the alexa rating is a pitiful 4,769,238, I almost want to speedy it Giant onehead 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Sample Zone

violates WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, and WP:SPAM, article was created by webmaster of site (see user name), alexa rating of 1,345,723 Giant onehead 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigpad

nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa of 2,631,652 Giant onehead 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Dj Broadcast

nn web radio show, alexa 4,180,466 Giant onehead 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitz-Musik

website based on local scene of a mexican city, no alexa rating, nn, violates WP:WEB] Giant onehead 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Article was created by user with history of (re)creating delete-able articles. Since there seems to be a massive concensus on this, I will apply WP:SNOW and speedily close this as a delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated science-fiction/fantasy movies that failed to attract an audience

The article looks horrid, but even if it didn't, there's simply no way this can pass WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fromage programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOTO++

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iota and Jot

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per my vote opinion in the AfD debate for esoteric programming languages that they should mostly be kept. This is one of the few that is turing complete I have found on the 'pedia. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I don't think these languages are notable. JIP | Talk 09:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelBillington. The fact that it is even more minimal then brainfuck but is still turing complete, gives it interest to computer science from a theoretical standpoint. Jumbo Snails 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't think that most esoteric languages have the notability that's needed to belong in wikipedia, however the simplicity combined with the Turing completeness of this one makes it interesting enough that it could make the cut. --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, As a student of computer science, I believe that although these languages may not be practical for actual use, the knowledge obtained from the study of such languages can highly beneficial to anyone who needs to understand language theory. The loss of any programming language, algorithm, or proof, even if esoteric, is (in my opinion) a horrible thing. Indeed, a case could be made that any piece of information, product, or idea is useless, and we could choose to include only 'widely accepted' and ubiquitous items in wp (of course, useful, widely accepted, and such criteria would have to be defined by someone, and likely their definition would be different from many others'). This information *is* information, and I see no reason to suppress it, unless it can be demonstrated harmful, and also demonstrated to be in no way beneficial. --Adam Choate (RareJuliet 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • As a student of computer science I agree with the first sentence of your rationale. A requirement for inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia is wheter or not secondary sources have previously been published about it. To my knowledge there have not been any on Iota and Jot. This language should be preserved for future generations on the author's webpage (or a copy of it at archive.com), not in Wikipedia. —Ruud 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article has been a tiny stub for two years now. DanielCristofani 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable esoteric language, the merit of it is irrelevant. Equendil Talk 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Turing tarpit. Notable enough to be mentioned there, but not enough for its own article. — Tobias Bergemann 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being "interesting" and "not harmful" are not criteria for article inclusion; notability and good-quality verifiability are. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronto

Article was deleted via WP:PROD in July and recreated today. Subject is still a non-notable website, per the article's own admission (still in beta). Delete for lack of notability and measured importance per the WP:WEB criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java2K

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kipple programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, see final comment. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siblings (Transformers)

From WP:CRUFT: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative. Please find more objective way to describe any reason you may have for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nebulous concept in Transformers fiction. This very, very minor aspect doesn't deserve an article. Interrobamf 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's a great article. I've used it as a reference a half dozen times on Transformers message boards when the subject comes up. user:mathewignash
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Despite the final comment on this AfD, this really appears to be original research, and consensus here is as such. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wow theory

Appears to be original research, 10 unique Google hits. Accurizer 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It may be that there was little to go on, except for Zizzi's paper itself, but I did read that more than once and have compared with other formulations of LQG. The reasoning seems sound, especially if the reader has also read her "Minimal Model" paper. Zizzi's work was cited in an article in November 2004 Scientific American entitled Black Hole computers by Seth Lloyd and Jack Ng. The Emergent Consciousness paper was published in the journal of NeuroQuantology in 2003, and supports the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness. The Big Wow article was written to fill a blank space, as the link in the Orch-OR entry had remained red for too long, and this author is familiar with Zizzi's work. I am trying to be as objective as possible, but the only other reviewer to the author's knowledge is Joy, in her Telic Thoughts blog, which can be accessed at http://telicthoughts.com/?p=473 (JonathanD 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Black Hole Computers was the Cover Article of the November '04 Scientific American, so the authors of that publication must consider this work important! (JonathanD 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I actually like LQG; it's a bit of a maverick theory (which is part of what I like about it), but it is respectable. There is a difference, though, between "maverick" and "fringe". Zizzi's work is interesting, but I do not believe that it is a correct or even particularly rigorous interpretation of LQG: it's ad hoc and seems to set out to prove something by assuming aspects of it to be true to start with (which is not a reason to delete the article: I could be wrong, after all). The arXiv paper linked to in the article also doesn't talk about consciousness at all...it offers us a "minimal model of quantum gravity": using quantum computers and black hole entropy to address issues of the Immirzi parameter in LQG. On the other hand, this paper does talk about Penrose Orch-OR stuff (and barely touches on LQG except for spin network blab, which could come from anywhere), but it is bollocks, as far as I am concerned. It is based on a most tenuous analogy (which is not strictly formal), and the argument is unconvincing. But again, that isn't a reason to delete the article: it just needs a lot of help to come straight, because the article is only barely talking about what the papers are saying. And this is help I am not sure is merited, because...

This theory is not sufficiently notable at the moment, and nor is this particular research program yet developed and prominent enough, to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia: it seems to largely be limited to Zizzi. Citebase mentions 10 cites of the LQG paper, 4 of which are papers with Zizzi as author [2], and 6 cites of the consciousness paper, with 3 of those by Zizzi [3]. NeuroQuantology publishes more bunk than reasonable content. Articles on subjects like this shouldn't be listed under their "colloquial names", either. Scientific American is also a popular science publication, and qualified to judge neither the accuracy nor the importance of developments in quantum gravity/cosmology and so forth: we are already having a huge problem with New Scientist "legitimising" dodgy articles on Wikipedia (see this thread).

Why not just do an article on Penrose's stuff, if that's what the original idea was? Byrgenwulf 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain I believe Byrgenwulf's assessment of the ad-hoc nature of Zizzi's line of reasoning is a legitimate claim. It is somewhat tenuous, if taken as a proof of validity, but if the paper is viewed as attempting to show the feasibility of the universe having the capacity for reaching the computational threshold for conscousness, during the inflationary period, it does this fairly well. I do agree that the "Emergent Consciousness.." (Big Wow) paper is not a particularly satisfying formulation of LQG, but it does highlight some interesting possiblities about how consciousness might first arise, and her later "Minimal Model" paper does the LQG thing more justice. It's possible the focus on this topic should center on Penrose's work, as this subject does evolve from his "The Emperor's New Mind" book, which I particularly enjoyed. I jumped in with something, when I noticed a RED link on the Orch-OR page for this topic.

For the record, I believe a complete unifying theory will reveal 'Stringy' aspects to reality, and a real value to the LQG approach. It may well be that Noncommutative Geometry may leapfrog both, in addition to being a part of the underpinnings for both String Theory and LQG. I don't claim to have those answers yet, but I know the various contenders well enough. No unique Calabi-Yau space has been found, and a hundred thousand answers that work (from M-theory) is no answer at all, or no usable one. I do acknowledge that Strings are still considered a 'safer' bet and are considerabley more mainstream than LQG, at this point. Insofar as Zizzi's paper draws several of its conclusions from work of Whitehead and Chalmers that is not widely regarded as factual, I feel it could suffer deletion, for being tenuous.

If the test is whether this idea has captured the popular imagination, and is a jumping off point for more legitimate work on the possible quantum origins of consciousness, it may pass that test. This is not to say that the quantum mechanical nature of consciousness has been proven, but it has not been disproved either, at least not in a satisfying way. In this regard; Zizzi's paper may be a significant landmark for consciousness researchers. JonathanD 04:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I brought up the issue of LQG because my own research interests are tangentially linked to the LQG program, and I would dearly like to see more balanced reporting of it on Wikipedia. Just properly done. Although I don't think that this "big wow" stuff has very much of any worth to offer at the moment (and have my doubts that it ever will). I read the "minimal model" paper, and I don't think it does LQG very much "justice" at all. I also brought up LQG to try to illustrate the difference between a "non-mainstream" but respectable theory, and something that is so obscure and "fringe" as not to merit inclusion.
This is also not the place for baseless, armchair speculations on "quantum consciousness" and unified field theories. It doesn't matter what anyone's personal opinions on string theory are, as informed (or not) as they may be. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and this is an editorial discussion to do with whether or not a given article should be included, not a sophistic agora.
Penrose's views on "quantum conciousness" are notable: he has written widely-read books on them (arguably to avoid peer-review - but that's another matter), and people are aware of them. I understand that you "jumped in with something" to fill a red link. That is commendable. The problem is that the article as it stands doesn't say very much of anything, and certainly is not a viable reflection of the contents of Zizzi's papers. It is also obscure enough that it doesn't warrant fixing. Do an article on Penrose, name it something decent, and I'm sure everyone will be happy. No, strike that. This link should be exactly what you are looking for. Put this link into the article where the red link was, and your problem is solved. Byrgenwulf 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or modify and change name. I am the framer of the original posting here, and I'm glad the article has sparked some debate, if not a lot of support as it stands. I agree with some of Byrgenwulf's most recent comments, though perhaps not his conclusions about what to do. I would agree that Penrose certainly deserves a lot more attention than Zizzi, and should perhaps be the main focus of any writing on this subject. I had prepared some material offline which I pasted into the article before reading his most recent post. It was my attempt to address some of his earlier comments, to allow for possible inclusion under the current name. I would be happy to expand, edit and/or re-direct the content that has been originated here, given a clearer idea of what is called for. I did receive an e-mail confirmation from Paola Zizzi that the earlier posting (first paragraph) accurately reflects her intended meanings of the "Emergent Consciousness" (Big Wow) paper, and I added the second paragraph just today, with conciliatory remarks about the relative acceptance, and an explanaton of why it is called by that colloquial name. Please remember that the Big Bang was also just a fanciful way of descibing something that didn't have a name before.

Let it be known that I did a more thorough search for papers inspired by the Big Wow theory concepts using a web seach for Paola Zizzi and paring down to references that pertain to the line of reasoning explored by that paper, and I found a lot more material than I expected, and quite a few more citatons of this work. And the term 'Big Wow' seems to have been a catalyst, as well. Perhaps there is no other single term which sums up this concept so aptly, just as the 'Big Bang' did. Perhaps that was not the most apt despcription either, but the name stuck. I shall include a few more references and citations, if I have time later today. If I am not compelled to recuse myself, I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. JonathanD 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is it because Paola is not having a nice zizi like yours that your are practicing mental masturbation on her ideas? I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. Hervey from Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.64.248 (talk • contribs)

For future reference, making uncivil remarks and personal attacks is not a good way to make people take you seriously. Anville 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please Keep - Important Citation Discovered! Jonathan back again, respectfully requesting that this work's impact be re-assessed. I was about ready to throw in the towl on this item myself, but have discovered a bunch of additional citations and derivative work. Note that her work was cited in Gregory Chaitin's Alan Turing Lecture last year in Sweden, entitled "Epistemology as Information Theory: From Leibniz to Ω". She was listed among the 'real physicists' who are working seriously on researching the view that the universe is made of information. Ergo; I would state that it's becoming more clear that the Big Wow is indeed a seminal landmark, and clearly does not fall in the category of NN, as Wikians like to put it. I'll try to weed out the lower quality external links, once I get time. Again; please reconsider the question of this article's relevance as someone of Chaitin's caliber would not cite her work in this way, if that work was not significant. Perhaps changing the title to Big Wow hypothesis would be more accurate. JonathanD 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midweek Mayhem

nn radio show Giant onehead 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, insufficient arguments to keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prevail Within

A band that doesn't meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC, regarding at least two albums on a major record label or a notable indie record, and no national tours- the closest thing was playing a San Antonio show on the Warped Tour. No reliable third party sources for verification either. Also, there is a redirect from Prevail within. Wafulz 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Half-good article, but a pity notability isn't asserted per WP:MUSIC in this case, so it can't stay. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. Would make a decent aricle if they achieved notability. —dustmite 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i stumbled across this, and im not sure how to edit, but i do know these guys have toured from the west coast to the east coast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.236.250 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Has this been reported non-trivially in multiple independent notable sources? --Wafulz 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment i'd say on the venue calendars, or you could ask the record label
        • Comment Has any of the coverage been independent though? It makes sense that their venues and record labels would have information, but it's really not too difficult for a band to simply tour the country without getting any sort of notable press coverage. --Wafulz 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prevail Within HAS toured both the West Coast, Midwest, and the Eastcoast of the U.S. Their last tour was a month long span This past July/August (2006). They have also played numerous shows with well-known bands including: The Casualties, The Queers, Kids Like Us, and others. So for a band that has done 2 U.S. tours, released 1 full length, and is releasing a split 7" this December, I think they should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkvoterdotcom1 (talk • contribs) User's only contribution
    • Comment Could you elaborate on how they have "played with" them? Were they headlining or something like that? --Wafulz 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Most bands who "play with" larger national acts play in-support of... as in a slot or two before the national package.... example... Prevail Within followed by the Phennomenauts followed by VooDoo Glow Skulls... or Prevail Within plays followed by Righteous Jams...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MotorCityRocks.com

nn localized music blog, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 1,976,724 Giant onehead 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozhiphop

nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 644,265 Giant onehead 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReggaeClash

nn music site, gets a few dozen unique google hits, fails WP:WEB Giant onehead 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 08:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAMAS Corporation

See User:Vilerage/Iamas for the backstory on this article. There are at least three different separate organizations called IAMAS. Previous edits by User:Iamascorp have falsely claimed a connection between a non-notable country music manager based out of a PO Box in North Carolina and this "IAMAS Corporation", a non-notable "academy of arts and sciences". Neither organization passes WP:CORP nor a Google test: most hits are for IAMAS (International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences). wikipediatrix 15:02, 14 September 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, --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage wildlife forum (2nd nomination)

I know the first nomination reached a no conensus, but this is cruft at it's absolute worst. It's a page about a message board to a site that only has an alexa rating of 212,784. The site it is hosted on is barely notable, if at all, so why would a forum be? Giant onehead 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First AFD here - Yomanganitalk 10:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Concept lodges

This organization is nn. The available reliable information on this topic indicates that only 22 lodges of this type exist in North America, which is easily less than one-tenth the number of Masonic lodges in any given state in the US or province in Canada. Only three exist in Australia. The relevant RS hits on Google are a paper on the concept, a list on a webpage, and this article. Therefore it is not yet at the point of being notable, and the article is serving as an advertising vehicle to increase visibility rather than being due to already established notability. MSJapan 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen High School (Allen, Texas)

  • Delete Irrevelant information about a non-notable school that often gets edits that make the topic even more irrevelant and are often inappropiate. Also has information that is not verifiable. DanielES15 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean Allen High School (Allen, Texas)? In which case, the article is a mess and needs that "metal detectors" section removed, but if any of the rest of the text is actually true, then it might just be the first known example of an actually notable school brought to AfD. Opabinia regalis 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xiando

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grammercy riffs

I'd do a long discussion on this, but really I don't need to. Instead, here's their website: [5] That's about all the Google they get. The North Shore Outlook is a small community newspaper (I live in Vancouver and haven't heard of it before now, which gives an indication of its coverage). EP coming soon. Fails WP:MUSIC. They removed a CSD tag, twice, so I'm doing the long way. Delete, probably speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User created hype

Not-quite-neoligism which falls short of actually being a 'term' and is actually more of a phrase with a self evident meaning. Artw 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialised Internet

Combination neologism (with few gHits) and essay article. Artw 04:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.0 Meme

NN Neologism. Artw 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web versioning

Sillier joke version of 2.0 Meme Artw 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown Anthem

Marked as A7 speedy, but the claim that they have been lauded as one of the 13 best unsigned bands negates that. Brought here for a wider audience, without opinion myself (I'm crap with new bands). -- nae'blis 04:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order 3 groups are cyclic proof

Wikipedia is not a collection of mathematical proofs (per WP:MSM). The theorem is true for any prime number (not just 3) and represents a very "simple" fact that is already covered by the cyclic group page. grubber 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetfox

Non-notable website with absolutely no signs of satisfying WP:WEB. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, so kept. - Yomanganitalk 10:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tucker (musician) and Tetrapod Spools

proposed deletion of small walled garden of this artist and his defunct indie/underground record label, whose best-known release was the subject's own Batstew (200 copies released). The artist has released the album commercially on CD in 1996 on destijl records, but there is no evidenc he passes WP:MUS (no sign of any awards, gold discs, tours, or reviews) Ohconfucius 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support of deletion and comment... Why didn't you WP:PROD this? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on the musician cites 5 sources and states that xe has released 3 albums, on a record label that the discography linked from the article on the record label indicates isn't just a vanity label for that artist alone. The linked-to site also tells us that the musician has been the subjects of articles in the San Diego Reader. This appears to satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria. Keep. Uncle G 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a CD was released 10 years ago by a company that still has its web site and thus clearly survived, and that CD was a re-release of a much earlier album which is not done without good reason by a company that likes to survive. Should one here risk-free pretend to be a better expert? It also indicates that the music was not all too contemporary. — SomeHuman 3 Oct2006 19:57 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Arguments for keeping this article are insufficient given the weight of the deletion arguments. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orato: True Stories From Real People

This article is nothing but an advertisement for a website, created by the person/group that maintains the size. Violation of Wikipedia policy. Additionally, the site's notability is very minor; alexa rating is 803,669. Dr. Cash 05:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Support deletion. Links to this article have been added twice to the citizen journalism article by the anonymous user with IP 208.181.145.235 who is supporting the page below. (That IP number resolves to an internet service provider in Vancouver, where Orato is based.) As I stated originally, this article is currently an advertisement, and the publication itself was barely notable enough for me to marginally support its retention. Based on comments that others have made here, combined with circumstantial evidence of linkspamming by the publication itself or its supporters, I've changed my mind and now agree that it should be deleted. --Sheldon Rampton 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. I think they have the right to be here. Let's ask them to clean the article. It's a good example of community building news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.145.235 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Site is just not notable, despite the quality of its content. One non-notable instructor's comments are not enough. hateless 18:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the site doesn't appear to be drumming up much interest at the moment. If it becomes a significant source of journalism (or criticism), then sure, repost it, but right now? No. (And I should note that the iPod story's been around for a while; I saw it on a WoW board.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oppose Deletion." Of course, I'm just the editor of Orato, but I'm not sure I understand the logic. When I do a search for "obscure rock bands", I get a list of 1146. While I'm all for maintaining the entries on all 1146 of 'em, why delete a reference to one of the world's first meaningful citizen journalism sites, with more than 1600 registered correspondents and more than 10,000 visitors in August? I would be more than willing to clean up the article to eliminate marginal passages. Paul Sullivan.

Please make a case with the guidelines at WP:WEB in mind. Let's not bring rock bands into discussion, they have their own set of criteria for notability. hateless 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hogan (poet)

Apparently copyright violation ([6]), and in any case I am not sure that he's notable enough. Delete as written. --Nlu (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, it does seem that the author of the article if MfxHogan, which makes it a vanity article. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no copyright violation and wonder what is gained by deleting the Hogan articles from wikipedia. Hogan´s writings offer a unique perspective from an intellectual who also has extensively experiencesd life and culture in Latin America. All of us will be diminished if the choice is made to delete.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Hogan_%28poet%29" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan (talk • contribs) 17:54, September 25, 2006

No copyright violation. This material is in the public domain. Also, Hogan's books (with the exception of Mexican Mornings) were all published buy university presses and small presses, not vanity presses. He's as notable as Jimmy Santyiago Baca and has won most of the same literary prizes including the NEA. In addition, his credit as historian appears on the Berenger movie and his book is a best seller in Mexico. Do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan (talk • contribs)

How can it be public domain when that Web site has a prominent: "© 2000 Michael Hogan" on it? You can't have it both ways. Either it's you (in which case it's vanity) or it's not you (in which case you have no right to authorize its use). --Nlu (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the copyright notice on the author's page is to protect the images. The other information, date and place of birth, books published, etc. is clearly in the public domain: birth records, books in print, Directory of American Poets, etc. I am not the author but it seems to me that this entry should stay whether it was submitted by him or his wife or daughter, or just some fan. He is a well-recognized writer and certainly appears as author of many books on amazon.com, has several articles in monthly review, alterinfos, and seems to be pretty famous in Latin America.,etc. We wouldn't turn down a page on Clinton just because Chelsea submited it. 200.52.124.151 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Melissa When I google Michael Hogan+Mexico I find about a hundred entries mostly referring to the author's articles on Latin Amnerica, his books on history and poetry. Fairly notable in Latin America, I would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.116.194.50 (talk • contribs) I feel a little responsible for this thread. In my work as a professor at the University of Guadalajara I was browsing through Wikipedia to see how discriminating my students might be in their online research (on various subjects), when I came upon the site listing all the "Michael Hogans". Noting that the "American poet" was listed but there was no biographical info, which seemed both a necessary and an easy blank to fill in, and being short on time but wanting the info to be as accurate as possible, I simply emailed the poet himself and suggested he provide the data -- never imagining that questions would arise as to his "importance". I think the copyright issue has been thoroughly addressed, so will just briefly concentrate on why an entry on this writer is of value. I and my colleagues, in the U.S., Mexico and other countries, have all had students of various ages who very much wanted to research both the work and life of Michael Hogan, poet (and historian, essayist...) He has been a working, regularly-published writer since the 1970's (the majority of his publications by respected U.S. presses, and the few seeming "self-publications" having been sponsored by well-known Latin American educational institutions -- choices of presses having been made in response to requests by educators on both sides of the border, and in other countries, for more immediately-available texts.) He has worked with many other poets who are inarguably part of any "canon" of poetry in English (Baca, Bukowski, Ginsberg, Piercy, Stafford, etc. etc.) and is well-known as a valiant and gifted director of successful programs aimed toward both advanced and under-served communities of writing students. He also maintains strong links with other writers and scholars throughout the U.S. and Mexico, in Ireland, Italy and Germany, etc. -- another reason that his presence on the "world-wide" web makes particular sense. And, if breadth of readership were a criterion, the fact that his work currently appears in important English literature anthologies (by the most established U.S./international publishers) and thus reaches hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, would be motive enough to have his background data available to them. If actual authorship of this wikipedia entry is of concern, there are various of Hogan's colleagues throughout the world who'd compose another version -- as I noted at the beginning, my concern was for accuracy in the entry, and that has been achieved.Lmayo 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Prof. L. Mayo, Univ. de Guadalajara User's third edit. Note also that the article says he is married to a "textile artist and historian Lucinda Mayo".[reply]

He has worked with many other poets who are inarguably part of any "canon" "Worked with" is essentially a meaningless statement that says nothing about the actual work -- or value thereof -- of the actual subject of this discussion.--Calton | Talk 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verification of claims made. Small and university-press poetry books, per se, say nothing about the actual notability, fame, importance, or quality of the poet. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: See among others: History Net http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=32002876521003 and MexConnect at http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/acogan/acbkmexmornings.html Also, Paris Review poetry http://www.theparisreview.com/viewissue.php/prmllD/72 and American Book Review http://www.litline.org/ABR/Issues/volume13/133.html and listing in Poets and Writers at http://www.pw.org 148.244.181.86 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Melissa[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chenard Walcker

nn bio, webmaster of low-traffic website and violates WP:VAIN as said subject created article. Google search is hard to determine, because most entries are for a defunct auto company Giant onehead 06:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies filmed at Carnegie Mellon University

listcruft Giant onehead 06:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is of similar vain to the previous list:

Please be more specific in your reasoning. Listcruft is not a valid reason for deletion, because what constitutes listcruft is highly subjective. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Material doesn't warrant separate article, but I don't see why it can't be included in the main article. Some facts of the second nominated article may be too granular to include (like the current first item on the list), rest can easily be included. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* We made the second article because the original article was getting too long and the 'movies filmed at' section seemed like an obvious candidate to remove. --Matt 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consupport

This article reads like an advertisement. For some reason it has no link to the website being described; for that matter it cites no sources at all. The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added by the same editor). Phil | Talk 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

> This article reads like an advertisement.

My apologies if it reads like an advertisement. Consupport is a free service, like google is a free service. In fact I have used the google entry to try and make the consupport article fit in. If you have any suggestions that would make it look less like an advertisement, I would appreciate them.

> For some reason it has no link to the website being described

There is a link. It's the first link under General Information. It's after "You can look at Consupport on ..."

However as you didn't spot it, and you do consider it important enough to comment on, I have also added a link to the official homepage, in a section called External Links, using the same method as in the Google entry.

> The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just > happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added > by the same editor).

There was a message a few days ago which said there were not enough links to the page. Originally I wanted the page to settle in before I added lots of links to it, but following your message I went round and added in links in the most appropriate places.

I will look round for more links to add.

The problem is that many of the conventions that consupport supports do not themselves have wikipedia entries. I could add these conventions as well if you think it's worthwhile.

As I say, it's a service like Google. And I have tried to model the entry on google. Google has a section on "Products and Services" - would it be better if I changed the titles to also use "Products and Services?"

All suggestions and comments on improving the entry are appreciated.

All comments and suggestions are welcome.

Ratty. 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One very important thing that the article on Google has that your article on Consupport lacks is a section titled "References" that says where the authors of the article on Google got their information. This is something that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to have. I'm sure if you had such a section with an appropriate number of references to publications not produced by Consupport that discussed Consupport your article would get a lot more, um, support. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the suggestion.

I've figured out how to do references and put a couple in (including one to the web site itself, like google does). The problem is that there is very little written about the subject, which is why everything had to be developed from scratch. There should be a lot more information, but many commercial companies keep the information confidential to avoid competitors.

As I find more references, I'll add them

Ratty. 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Added a couple more references. If anyone knows of any other references where we can refer people to, please either post here, or feel free to edit the page.

Ratty. 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dusko

This article is about a comic. Other than that and the names of the characters, it offers little else. Google is understandably not helpful, and my prod was removed by an anonymous user. My vote is Delete, at least until the author offers some context. Danny Lilithborne 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenne Hardt

Tagged for speedy but notability is asserted, so brining here. Article itself is pretty poor but the subject may be worth saving. Guy 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically voice actors don't 'appear', but that resume is impressive enough to keep the article. This should be sent to cleanup. It just needs someone to spend two minutes to make the assertion to save it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotusland

This page more or less copies the content from a copyrighted Web site; see http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/cycad.htm and the sidebar on the left. The subject itself isn't a bad idea for an article, but the garden by the name "lotusland" does not appear to be notable. The term itself goes back to the "Odyssey". modify 07:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. I've yet to see a non-notable botanical garden, so I see no problem with the article title. It's the name of the place, why not use it? I also quickly scoured the site but couldn't find anything that even remotely resembled the article. Could you please be more specific about the supposed copyright violation? - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be hard to spot at first because the Web site has more text than the article. On the page, there's the bold heading "Bromeliads" and the text "Other notable plants include a branched pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelinii), Trithrinax brasiliensis palms and giant ponytail palms (Beaucarnea recurvata)." On the Web site, at http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/brom.htm (with the title "Bromeliad Garden"), there's the text "Other notable plants in the garden include a branched pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelinii) and Trithrinax brasiliensis palms. The garden is bordered by a planting of giant pony tail palms (Beaucarnea recurvata)." On the page, under "Cactus garden", there's the text "Notable specimens include species of Opuntia from the Galapagos Islands, Armatocereus from Peru and a complete collection of the genus Weberbauerocereus." On the Web site, at http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/cactusgdn.html ("Cactus Garden"), there's the text "Notable specimens include species of Opuntia endemic to the Galapagos Islands, several blue, sculptural species of Armatocereus from Peru, and a complete collection of the genus Weberbauerocereus." I haven't looked under each heading of the article, but given the similarity between the headings and the titles of the pages on the Web site, it seems likely that there is more copied text as well. modify 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WealthWars

Just another run-of-the-mill MMORPG. I doubt it's noteworthy, but the CSD A7 it was tagged with certainly doesn't apply. Procedural nomination; Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Oman (Battlefield 2 map)

Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual and various websites. Does not assert the notability or importance of this specific map, and cannot be expanded beyond its current (uninformative) style unless the map becomes significant in some real way. Prod removed by Anon. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll of the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment has not been without its critics, from Joseph de Maistre onwards, so a section on criticisms would not go amiss in Age of Enlightenment. This article, however, is an essay (and WP:SOAP applies to those), probably original research (in which case WP:NOR applies), and does not cite any sources beyond those for the indiscriminate rummelcruft list of deaths. Philosophical criticisms of enlightenment ideas are already mentioned where appropriate (PoMo etc). Was previously deleted by WP:PROD on unknown grounds. In my view it would be appropriate to delete it again (and allow the AFD to run so that future incarnations can be speedied under WP:CSD G4). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how it asserts notability. However, it is WP:OR and is therefore worthy of deletion. illspirit|talk 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I could believe that this might be sourceable to some political philosopher but until it is, it looks too much like OR. I'm going to put an "unsourced" tag on it and, if it doesn't get sourced by the time this AFD debate is over, then it should be deleted. --Richard 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rich Sheik

A decidedly non-notable video which generates ninety unique ghits. Usual blogesque plugs, YouTube and GVideo links, but nothing to suggest anything has been written about this that would meet WP:V. Undoubtedly fails WP:WEB, but it's the lack of reporting that really proves this is NN. Was prod'd, prod removed by author. Given the lack of evidence for notability, I think delete is the Right Thing to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article meets WP:V because it is verifiable. A added a link on the article. It also meets WP:WEB and WP:N because it is on the famous comedy central website along with many others. Its fame has sperad across the web. It is now even on YouTube and GVideo because of this.--Taida 21:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong, strong, SUPERSTRONG delete I thought I'd seen this on TV recently, and I had- it was a sketch on Mind of Mencia. This, of course, would explain why the video is on comedycentral.com. Not much else needs to be said- it was a one-time skit (Better Know A District, this is not) that was in no way important or acclaimed enough to have its own article. If there was an article dealing with recurring sketches on Mind of Mencia (as there is for Chappelle's Show), it would not even deserve a mention on that page. -- Kicking222 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you should be able to decide what is important or acclaimed. The Rich Sheik is a music video, not a one time skit. Many people's hard work went into the making of this and you call it a one time skit. I also don't think there is anything wrong with articles that are about one time skits either.--Taida 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime (expressing church in youth culture)

non-notable local church youth club. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but subsequent improvements made it assert notability and I think any prod tag would be removed. Anyway, it's just of local interest. Graham87 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly disagree - Firstly Sublime and the Big Story have had a huge impact all over the south of Englad as well as in America, Germany and South Africa to name but a few so as you can see its not meerley local. Secondly its not a youth club, its a youth congregation. Finally its not only of local interest - the website has hits from over 40 countries every month. User:Wardie9025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.128.133 (talk • contribs)
Yes, and the article is well-written and shows this. However, although the group has done a lot, it's not notable according to wikipedia standards. Graham87 11:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Wardie9025. I think it would be unfair to remove such an important group from the database as it is clearly a large group with members all around the world. User:Ajv2809 — Ajv2809 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete A youth group at a church in a city of 220,000 which only started 10 years ago, and an article which asserts only very marginal notability? No thanks. -- Kicking222 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website has got well over a million hits from a world wide audience, there is not just a local interest but a global interest, also as a part of community church it is inbeded with the history of the church, for example Billy Graham's first talk in england was at central hall community church, yes it may be a youth group of only over a hundred but the effects of this youth group are not just southampton they are Africa, India, Germany, America, Spain, France.. ect. Other noteable things to come from sublime, the cutting edge events, which "Delerious?" played. Delerious? are a widely known christian rock band with global sucess, and they have important history with the community church in particular the youth,(sublime) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.49.224 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Not notable enough. - Joshua Johaneman 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability asserted. Website hits are not enough; show us how this group in anyway meets the notability requirements in WP:ORG. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner (film)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no source for this, and hardly any information present! Was created a month ago, and still has these major problems. Prod was removed without comment.} JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete, I think it's clear that this article needs to be deleted. After two relistings, the only !votes are to delete. The consensus is very strong to delete here. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Irvine

Notability? (converting contested speedy to afd - association with CIM asserts some notability) — ERcheck (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little confused about the policy here -- and where exactly I'm supposed to "defend" keeping this page, but I created this stub and I will copy here what I wrote on its talk page about Jeffrey Irvine's notability. "Jeffrey Irvine is one of the leading viola teachers in the US today, and the list of where he teaches/has taught ought to lend enough clout to his name to assert his significance or influence, without other superlatives or generalizations. His students hold positions in major orchestras and they are teachers in university music departments all over the world. As a student of Karen Tuttle he is also part of her legacy as an annual organizer & teacher of the Karent Tuttle Coordination Workshop." J Lorraine 09:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with Uncle G; if a person's field of work IS teaching, then whether or not they are notable teachers depends not only on what they teach, but where and who they teach. If a music teacher's students are themselves teaching & performing in major musical venues all over the world, then that person's influence is felt all over the world. Thus, such a person is notable because of their students' activities. J Lorraine 03:38, 27 September 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 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BIO lists a number of ways a person can be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it also seems to say that passing or failing such tests is not a sole reason to either include or delete an article, and that the whole idea of notability is not a wikipedia policy. It does point to verifiability, not original research, neutral point of view, etc. I contend first that this article is verifiable, it is not original research, and it has a neutral point of view. I'm in the process of finding more references (besides the link to his bio on CIM and ASTA's webpages), so I would like to request some time to finish doing that before any consensus is reached to delete this page.

I also would like to point out that he does meet some of the criteria for notability on WP:BIO and on WP:MUSIC, even though such criteria is not supposed to be a sole reason for keeping or deleting an article. For example....

  1. made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (Organizing, publicizing, & teaching at Karen Tuttle Coordination workshops, and, through her work, contributing to the spread of William Primrose's techniques in the following generations of violists.)
  2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2] (as a performer with the New World String Quartet in the US and in Europe.)
  3. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (The Journal of the American Viola Society, the Journal of Performing Arts Medicine, several news articles (I'll try to find exact dates))
  4. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style (This is not exactly spot-on, since I'm claiming that the "style" he represents is a technique or school of viola teaching, not a musical style of performing; and he is one of the most prominent, not the most prominent).
  5. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Aspen Music Festival Viola competition, Cleveland Quartet competition)
  6. Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in ... teaching in a particular music genre. (notable teaching organizations such as Cleveland Institute of Music, Meadowmount, American String Teachers Association; also referenced as a notable teacher of Karent Tuttle's Coordination technique in places like the Journal of the American Viola Society)
  7. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (well, if you call classical violists a 'sub-culture').
Again, I'd like to reiterate my request for more time to find exact references, since most of them are in journals or newspapers, and the dates and article authors of which aren't readily stored in my brain. J Lorraine 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In addition to what I listed above, he also passes several of the "alternative" tests for notability on WP:BIO.
  1. The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. (He has published more articles on teaching in American String Teacher and in the Journal of the American Viola Society than most average college Viola professors).
  2. Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now? (yes, it can)
  3. Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? (yes, there is sufficient information to provide a full-length article)
  4. 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? (yes, although this will probably be limited to those in the field of classical music, in particular those interested in 20th & 21st century performance practice)
  5. 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today? (yes, again, though, probably only in the specialized field of historically informed performance, which is a sub-field (albeit a large sub-field) of current performance practice in the classical music world).
  6. Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? (yes, although the word "lots" is somewhat ambiguous)

J Lorraine 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Pop Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korben

The subject is not notable. An also-ran in Pop Idol, who has not had significant achievements since pop idol. Ohconfucius 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, with blessings from the original author. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KAXM

The station was never built. The analog permit was canceled and the DTV permit dismissed on July 3, 2002. The station's callsign was deleted per CDBS. Propose to delete the article as Not Notable. dhett 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. - Yomanganitalk 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the station's licenses and construction permits were cancelled, i support the deletion, even a speedy deletion if that may help. The sources i had (though legitimate, reliable, and very detailed), were incorrect. (FCC.gov, w9wi.com, and so on) Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. I suppose I could have relisted this one more time, but looking at the comments since I first relisted it, I can see that there are some very strong arguments to delete. I feel that if I were to relist this, it would simply garner more delete !votes and meanwhile we would have wasted more time of AfD !voters' time. It's somewhat telling that we didn't get more people interested in !voting here, If you feel I made this closure in error, please let me know and I'll relist it for the second time, but only if you truly believe that AfD regulars honestly feel this article needs to be kept. I don't want to waste the AfD regular's time to once again look through this AfD that they have likely looked at for at least two times before. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Shakugan no Shana

Wikipedia is not dictionary, and copyvio from [7].--Zospped 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Zospped (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[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 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder to Roninbk's comment above: Sockpuppetry of whom? Pre-sockpuppetry of somebody (such as myself) who will then agree? Possibly (well, I'll claim I'm somebody separate, but I would claim that, wouldn't I?), but I think you need rather more convincing evidence. There could be some other explanation. Anyway, I see no reason why the nomination shouldn't be considered on its merits. -- Hoary 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Hoary, (if that IS your real name...,) first off I classified it as a neutral comment, not intending as a vote one way or the other. Secondly, I'll admit that it might not be a sock, but it is some form of single purpose account. The alledged SPA went two steps beyond the normal procedure listed at WP:AFD. Normally people outside the wikiproject don't add those tags. And third, even 2+ weeks since the nomination, the account doesn't have any other edits. Classic SPA. --Roninbk t c e # 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because if WP is WP:NOT a repository for plot summaries, it certainly isn't one for plot ingredients. Plus it's a bizarre sort of article: I gather that there's no English version of this thing, so those people who are interested in those Japanese terms that aren't obviously gairaigo must often (not always, cf "Haridan") guess at an English translation, and then look that up. If these translations are original, this is not "Original Research" but it seems a bit pointless; if they aren't, the translator should be credited but is not. There's only one "External links" (sic): to a blank page. This kind of thing is prime material for a separate Wikia wiki, surely. -- Hoary 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth and Hoary. Sandstein 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_22&oldid=77143219"