Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 18 October 2022 (Pass two of evil substituted transclusion hacking: remove excess whitespace (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< June 4 June 6 >

Purge server cache

June 5

[edit]

Connor McClure

[edit]

This seems like an autobiography with very little verifiable information. I don't think it is an asset to Wikipedia in any way. I vote to delete. Vaniac 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pon And Zi

[edit]

Non-notable comic. Prod removed with no explanation. cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Although Aguerriero (talk · contribs) did a good job re-writing the article, it seems AfD still isn't too impressed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R4U

[edit]

I am the anon who protested (I removed the message because I didn't know how to protest -- I'm still finding my way around here, friends). I created the page because I wanted to give a link to the product download URL. If it violates Wikipedia policy, please delete the page. As for "strangely" not contesting the companion article, that was because I had not checked to see if it was listed for deletion.

Prod contested by anon (who strangely didn't contest the companion R4U Multilingual-English-Tamil-Telugu article). Advertising for non-notable product via a non-notable website. Opabinia regalis 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum despite the recent rewrite by Aguerriero, I'm sticking with the nomination; it's better now but still makes no claims to notability, and sounds like a software plug (I won't say 'ad' since it's apparently free.) Opabinia regalis 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Prod contested by anon" is a phrase that should never appear in an AfD nomination. PROD is supposed to be contested if anyone, logged-in or not, thinks the article is worth keeping. Complaining about it on AfD is sad. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Spell

[edit]

The only Zatch Bell episode article, has been on cleanup since May 2005 but nothing new has been added. I don't think the episodes are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Danny Lilithborne 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloffs dairy

[edit]

Poorly formatted, nn store, advertising SM247 01:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's reposted content of articles that were previously deleted. -Fsotrain09 01:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have links to the previous deletions? DVD+ R/W 01:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user that created the page has a history. User:Motorox2 is suspected of being a sock puppet of User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate, who's discussion page [2] shows that this is a repost of patent nonsense that's previously been deleted, see Cluff of a bird Dairy Products, Clauth of a bird dairy products. --MZMcBride 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Clufth of a bird dairy products, Cluth of a bird dairy products...not to mention User:Claught of a bird. -- Scientizzle 03:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protection won't help. The previous ones are protected. He changes the spelling every time. However, maybe admins should stop playing with temporary bans on the user. Fan1967 03:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive opinion

[edit]

Neologism, only 1 ghit in the described context SM247 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still assuming good faith, don't you think it's a bit dictionary-like?--Andeh 03:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see what good faith has to do with this. Nobody's saying that someone just made the term up to make Wikipedia worse, just that it is a neologism and as such inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Captain Disdain 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Heltec was trying to back his reasons for keep, saying that he created the page in good faith. He may have been newbie, but that isn't really a reason not to delete the page.--Andeh 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, but Heltec didn't create the page. That was User:Pogogunner. (And again, just because a page is created in good faith, that doesn't mean it should remain. No one is assuming any malevolence or ill will here, but the article is judged on its own merits, not on whether its creator honestly thought it would be a good addition to Wikipedia.) -- Captain Disdain 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

[edit]

This guy does not want an article on himself in Wikipedia, and so we should not have one. Please don't vote for keep based on notability, because notability has nothing to do with it. It should be deleted because this guy doesn't want an article. Houston, Texas 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne's Team

[edit]

nn, information is already listed on the main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff's Team

[edit]

nn, information is already listed on/has been merged with the main Celebrity Fit Club article. Ckessler 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carole's Team

[edit]

nn, information is already listed on main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's Bellies

[edit]

nn, information already listed on main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild out productions

[edit]

Unsourced, suffers from POV problems, reads like an advertisement (which it probably is) and is kinda crystal ballish, and as for notability, well, it gets a total of two Google hits. -- Captain Disdain 02:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attempt to describe a sub-culture of the jamband scene, it wasn't an advertisement; this is comparable to schwagstocks and /or the schwag.

Wild Out Productions is like a smaller schwagstock, Bonnaroo, or Wakarusa. But those events are listed in Wikipedia, why can't Wild Out be described?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Leaps (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Parker (Theater Designer & Professor)

[edit]

Vanity page. cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Dimensions

[edit]

A class at a high school is not notable unless it meets some external standard of influence or notariety. The current article does not provide evidence of notability. Whosasking 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to speedily delete at the request of the creator. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Order of the Stick comics

[edit]

I created this page, but upon recommendation, I've moved it to Comixpedia. This page should be deleted. –Gunslinger47 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As author, you can request its deletion easily. Just edit the page and put {{db-author}} at the top. Fan1967 02:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. –Gunslinger47 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin will probably speedy delete it soon. No worries :-). --Andeh 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was A7-ed. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponytail (band)

[edit]

Utterly nn and not even published by own admission; violates WP:MUSIC SM247 03:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to put Dan Deacon for afd too? (just a suggestion)--Andeh 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Mike's beaten ya to it!--Andeh 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no official website or evidence of notability.--Andeh 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Deacon

[edit]

Does not fulfill the notability requirements laid down by WP:MUSIC. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I found: Citypaper, airplay, part of a 2 hour radio special (googlecache); review on Explodingplastic. Somebody at WFMU clearly likes him, but the fact that I can't find any of his stuff for sale is a negative. Nonetheless, I see him as meeting WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what part of WP:BIO do you see him meeting? I saw all of those links too while I was looking into this, but nothing I saw indicates he meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO... just that he has a supporter/supporters at WFMU.--Isotope23 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:MUSIC as Isotope23 says, notWP:BIO.) "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city ..." per the Citypaper and WFMU; said style being modern pretentious, sorry ironic. I have no idea if he gets over the touring hurdle. But I won't weep for Dan if he's deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, I understand what you are saying. Yeah, that is certainly an arguable point.--Isotope23 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope. --Strothra 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn & no reliable source. MaxSem 17:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has appeared on TV in Washington state, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~leak/dan-on-nbc/ and has toured the USA. This meets WP:MUSIC criteria "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." . I'm in Canada and I've heard of this guy. Need I remind people that Dane Cook has a very popular myspace page? Entertainers CAN'T MAKE GOOD WEBPAGES. Should we crucify them for that? I'm starting to think that the inmates are running the asylum, and everyone has gone deletionist on me. Does Wikipedia need more storage space? I'll donate 10 bucks. Remember this is not a print encyclopedia, we can have as many articles as we want, we're not limited as to what can appear on paper. Thank you. --Sheldonc 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has nothing to do with, how cool or ugly his MySpace is. It has to do with meeting WP:MUSIC criteria and the evidence of meeting said criteria coming from verifiable, reliable sources. So far no evidence has been presented to show that Deacon meets WP:MUSIC (though Angus McLellan has advanced an arguable point). Appearing on a local NBC affiliate in any given city does not meet any criteria at either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, do that is irrelevant. Touring meets WP:MUSIC, but as you've said it has to be "reported in notable and verifiable sources". So, you would mind posting a link to the verifiable sources for Dan Deacon touring the United States?--Isotope23 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WP:MUSIC guidelines say he only has to meet "any ONE of following the criteria", and he clearly meets several. He "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." why would you say there is "no evidence"? Is the Baltimore City Paper not a verifiable, reliable source? He also "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city." again verified by the Baltimore City Paper naming him "best solo performer" and running several articles on the resurgence of the Baltimore music scene, attributing it to him and his venue / non-profit music and art collective, Wham City. If you would like to see where releases of his are for sale, visit http://psych-o-path.com (featuring "notable" band Sightings on the roster) or to http://standardoilrecords.com (where you will notice that Dan appears on a split called "Porky Pig" with "notable" bands The Bran Flakes and Big City Orchestra). If you go to www.allmusic.com (which is a little bit more difficult to break into than wikipedia) you will notice that there is a page on him. You will also notice that he appeared on "Electric Love Letter" an EP by the very "notable" Langhorne Slim. To top it off he appeared on the first episode of Liam Lynch's podcast show "Lynchland". You may view it at http://www.liamlynch.net/podcast.php Liam Lynch created Sifl & Olly, recorded the hit song, "United States of Whatever" and shot the Tenacious D movie. --RobertO 10:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a number of musical artists much less well-known than Deacon whose Wikipedia entries are ignored for deletion by the staff. Plus, have you ever seen this guy perform? If this entry is deleted, it will spring back up until Deacon is a household name, basically. 129.2.249.207 04:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Confederacy

[edit]

There is no "New Confederacy." The creator's personal blog and website are not credible sources. "Neo-confederate" article covers this topic.--Phenz 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • But this is indeed a seperate group. crazyfurf


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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy's speech at Rice University

[edit]

Mere repetition of the speech - possible copvio? (I'm not sufficiently well versed in the relevant CR laws applicable to this document) In any case, should be transWikied if appropriate or redirected to the main JFK article, as Wikipedia is not a repository of transcripts SM247 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Couples

[edit]

Fancruft. It'll be a horror to maintain for others, and really can be best covered on subjects' own article pages. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hollywood celebrity couples. — Haeleth Talk 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect Eluchil404 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noble experiment

[edit]

Mere dicdef of term - redirect to Prohibition or merge the one sentence of unique content if it is worth it SM247 03:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Ville Rouge

[edit]

Delete for notability issues. Just as parents, siblings, and offspring of famous people need more than that to make it into Wikipedia, so too should parents, siblings, and offspring of famous racehorses. -- Grev 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Golbez 08:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Robles

[edit]

Not a notable individual. (Sorry, Hugo.) — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Sasquatch as "made up BS". Zetawoof(ζ) 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-men 4

[edit]

IMDb search reveals no evidence of any such film; only a few blogs found via Google support this claim. The spin-off movie Wolverine is apparently on the cards, perhaps this is what the article's creator meant, but other than that this is crystalballism. SM247 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog-O-Sphere

[edit]

NN. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete (speedied, obvious hoax) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jemish

[edit]

Hoax? I could not find any information about ths purported philosopher. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mailbox replacement door

[edit]

NN — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I am new to wikipedia and I posted this page. I want this page to represent our company What changes should I make to keep this page part of wikipedia[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Raliffe

[edit]

NN. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwold

[edit]

Fake episode. --Caldorwards4 04:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Flame

[edit]

nn, already listed on main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Boghos Derounian

[edit]

This was tagged, but the tagger never finished the job. I vote Speedy Keep, not delete. Apparently, the tagger doesn't think a US Congressman is notable enough to be in wikipedia, but a look at the user's contributions would indicate why he tagged the article in the first place. [9] Nobunaga24 04:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep; bad faith nomination. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Seckel

[edit]

I have checked many of Seckel's claims in the past and have documented evidence that he is extremely dishonest. This evidence includes proof of phony credentials and false financial statements. Because of this, we should not accept his version about himself. I welcome a genuinely neutral entry on Seckel, but this current one is hopelessly biased and is pure self-promotion. Many of the current claims are demonstrably false. By way of disclosure, I worked with Seckel in the 1980s. When I saw how unethical and dishonest he was I criticized this. He then promised to sue me if I criticized him further. Afterwards I obtained documentation from Cornell and Caltech that his claimed credentials with those institutions were lies, and documentation from the State of California that he made false financial statements about his Skeptics group. I also received letters from Prof. Pearce Williams and from Prof. Feynman's secretary showing that he is lying about their relationship. Some of this evidence is included in http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm, which is listed on the Wikipedia entry for Philip J. Klass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmciver (talk • contribs)

If he is notable, then someone should write an entry for him. Proven liars should not write their own entries. I thought writing one's own entry was clear violation of policy to being with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.104.67 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep This it the ultima thule of bad faith noms. A disagrement doesn't warrant a deletion. Also, the nominator's only edits have been to this AfD. Yanksox 05:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the ultima thule of bad and dishonest entries and a clear violation of stated Wikipedia policy for entries to begin with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.104.67 (talk • contribs)
There are other ways to express concerns like {{NPOV}} tags or other tags. A flat out challenge of deletion doesn't make sense for an article that meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 05:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Autobiographies are discouraged, not forbidden. You have not offered any grounds for deletion under Wikipedia rules. Please review them. If You feel that information is incorrect, change it. An article is certainly not going to be deleted based on obvious personal animosity from an anonymous user. Fan1967 05:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia guidelines: "If you judge an article to be a vanity article, and thus prone to the problems associated with such articles, you should request its deletion."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.104.67 (talk • contribs)
Fine. So far, we appear to disagree. And please sign your comments by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~. It creates a time-stamped signature. Thatcher131 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Vanity article" is typically used in Wikipedia to describe an article (usually self-written) about an individual who is not notable. It doesn't apply here, as Seickel is clearly notable. Fan1967 06:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we disagree, and that is fine. I don't *disagree* with Seckel's entry, however; I know it is dishonest self-promotion: "...every Wikipedia article is expected to cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Articles that exist primarily to advance the contributor will likely be deleted." I apologize for lack of tildes: I am brand-new to Wikipedia. 67.20.104.67 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The solution to biased articles is more editors, working to eliminate bias. Unless you want to claim that the dozens of publications don;t exist, he is clearly a notable person, worthy of an article. Don't like the article, work on it. I can promise you this nomination will not succeed, and the article won't be deleted. Fan1967 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunless Effects

[edit]

This is advertising that I nominated for speedy long ago. It ought to be speedied. Chaser (T) 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Morbitzer

[edit]

Does catching Barry Bonds' 715th ball mean you are criteria for an encyclopedia entry? Ethii 05:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hmmm, but it's funny we have a page for this snot nosed little brat OSU80 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC) I nominated the other HR ball catcher Tyler Snyder for deletion too. OSU80 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polina-Z

[edit]

Vanity KNewman 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digimaker CMS

[edit]

Most of the article has been blanked, and the remainder is vanispamcruft. This article serves no purpose other than to advertise a product. Richardcavell 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoko Kuwahara

[edit]

non-notable vanity article TerraFrost 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus) The article is an absolute mess, IMHO but I discern sufficient notability that it's not a clear delete. Further a clear delete consensus has not been established to my satisfaction. --++Lar: t/c 06:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hittman (band)

[edit]

Doesn't seem to match criteria at WP:MUSIC Tempshill 06:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed predictions

[edit]

It is half a list of quotations, half original research. There's no standard for inclusion--sources are incredibly diverse, and everyone knows that predictions often fail, anyway. Unencyclopedic. Grace 07:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia isn't a place for lists of quotes in the first place - that's for Wikiquote. Secondly, why list failed predictions? Predictions often fail, often succeed - what is notable about that? Failed predictions as a category aren't notable in themselves, though they may be good in the relevant articles. (Would we want a list of successful predictions, where somebody once said something like "Everyone will drive cars to work in the future"?) --Grace 02:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Why delete it? If it doesn't seem "professional" enough, why doesn't it just get cleaned up a bit. It's an extremely enjoyable read, and a more complete list of failed predictions is nowhere to be found anywhere on the web. It is the perfect supplement to the 'predictions' Wikipage, and it would be downright discriminatory to deny people the right to explore the various predictions made over the years that have amounted to nothing! I say clean it up, but don't delete it.Ackatsis 10:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~, at the end. That something is "an extremely enjoyable read" (which I agree it is, in parts) doesn't qualify it for inclusion on Wikipedia. That said, the whole content of the article is free under the GFDL, so if your reason for keeping is just that you like it, why not copy it to your own website? Or create the page on Wikiquote. --Grace 08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you still want to delete it, why not integrate many of these quotes into their respective articles? And we just have to keep those failed Doomsday predictions- as far as I'm concerned, they're a part of human history, and, therefore, are worthy of inclusion in any encyclopaedia. They could easily be linked to the 'Prophecy' Wikipage. Ackatsis 12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Please don't alter another user's comments, or add another "Keep" that might make it look like you're trying to vote twice. I've moved up your reply to make it clear that it's part of the same discussion.) Anyway, en.wikiquote.org is another Wikimedia project that exists as a repository for quotes. --Grace 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The majority of Ackatsis's few contributions to Wikipedia are edits to this AfD. GassyGuy 08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm sorry, GassyGuy- what's your point? I haven't exactly been a registered Wikipedian (is that the right noun?) for that many days. This article is basically the one that I feel the most strongly about keeping at this present time. Is there a minimum contribution quota that you feel I should know about?Ackatsis 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I only pointed it out because I've seen this sort of thing pointed out on many other AfD discussions. I mean nothing personal. GassyGuy 09:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Huge potential for growth. SushiGeek 10:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An anonymous user vandalized this discussion here, adding a vote for Keep but also changing another user's vote from Delete to Keep. I reverted the entire edit, since I don't think the vandal's vote should be counted. --Grace 12:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote re-adds a comment added during the vandalism mentioned above, see this edit. I feel it should not be counted as legitimate. --Grace 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea

[edit]

I originally tagged this article with a {{prod}} instead of going for speedy deletion (can't remember why), prod was contested (well, removed) so I guess someone won't like a speedy deletion request either, so here it is for AfD. Reason for deletion : a school band with no claim of notability and no song to call their own. CSD A7, fry this


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus) There is no clear consensus to delete here. Further I note that the organisation can be of historical significance even if the website is out of date. 1000 reps, 200 universities seems notable enough to me. --++Lar: t/c 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars

[edit]

Appears to be sufficiently notable, but author's hostile attitude (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liu_Yong-chuan) and unsourced promotional language makes me ponder about whether it's actually notable, and therefore decided to submit it to an AfD to see what folks' opinions are. Weak keep. --Nlu (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Okay, "delete" really, but when people say things like "that similar article doesn't count as precedent for keeping, because it was redirected", it's hard to reconcile that with an argument for flat-out deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikee Lee

[edit]

Non-notable contestant of Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Also, it seems that Wikipedia deletes Big Brother contestants. We made a so-called policy at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Prod contested by an anon. --Howard the Duck 08:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother#Precedents for similar votes. --Howard the Duck 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Prod contested by an anon" is one of those phrases that should never appear in an AfD nomination (others are "vanity" and "-cruft"). It doesn't matter. You make it sound like contesting a PROD is a bad thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete/For retention, i would just like to comment that mikee's entry would be viable for an article itself (stub), as a matter of fact, it just needs an overhaul or for it to be expanded, i think the notability of mikee stands not on whether he was runner up or something but because of the impression of being a housemate. Yes, the celebrities, they're notable, but i think lee is far more noted than the likes of Rudy, Budoy, gretchen or angelina for that matter, except for those who are celebrities already. I think a number of teen housemates deserve an entry and to be noted as STUBS. It's my point of view. Emerald 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above or redirect if not possible. I personally know Mikee Lee; we met at a debate competition (he is an Atenean debater) but conceded that much of his popularity today stems from the current season of PBB and that I don't know him well enough to write a full-fledged article. If it is not possible to keep his article, we can redirect (or something to the extent), but that would mean we would have to do the same thing for all the other PBB Teen Edition housemates except Kim. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain/Keep per above, I believe that the Mikee Lee article should be retained

as could stand as it is. Yes his popularity stems from PBB, yet we could definitely expand the article considering much of the many references available, i for a fact has gathered a number of references and would be very much into updating and expanding his article, i think he deserves an entry much as Jason Gainza (who doesnt have his own entry) who, like Lee, was a runner-up finish, it's a feat almost, yes almost, to the extent of winning and i think it should be given credit, just as other first-runner ups. User:Cane_crew 05:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirected to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion without merge, since although everyone agrees it doesn't deserve its own article, no-one suggested where it belongs in the long and relatively cruft-free main article. I have Oblivion, in terms of notability the Courier is somewhere between the rejuvenating effects of cheese and the character creation beard slider. Anyone is free to follow the redirect back if they do know where the content should actually go. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Horse Courier

[edit]

Completing nomination. Tag put on the article by Tijuana Brass a few days ago. Removing the tag is probably unwise. No recommendation from me. DarthVader 08:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete User:Blintz has been warned about his apparent repeated personal attacks in this nomination discussion. Such personal attacks and vexatious discussion are not acceptable. Although "Man Who Survived Suicide via Jesus" and "Boy Pet" are no doubt interesting roles, sufficient notability has not, in my view, been established. --++Lar: t/c 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Wong

[edit]
  • Keep - Seems to have a good number of "External links", and the article is more substantial than the slew of articles for porn stars that are allowed to stay (which makes Wikipedia a great porn star directory). Hong Qi Gong 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mostly on principle. See Special:Contributions/Blintz, plus strange accusations of pro-Asian bias and some seeming hostility toward the article's subject makes the AfD questionable. --Wzhao553 06:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've cleaned up the "External links" section, and nice try, Blintz, but my only bias as far as this article is concerned is that plenty of other articles on porn stars are allowed to exist with much less information. Why don't you go list them for deletion instead? Hong Qi Gong 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentBecause, Gong, I can only focus on one article at a time. Why? The obstructionism of people like you makes deleting even the most frivolous article such an ordeal that I have to neglect cleaning up the porn section until the one at hand is dealt with. By "bias" I was referring to the tendency of partisans of topics (for example, trans-sexual Malaysian deconstructionist authors) to jealously prevent even the most absurd articles under their "protection" to be deleted. Thus, I wasn't surprised that some Asian user defended the right of some other Asian to inflate his nonexistent reputation in a PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. Unsurprisingly, the other user making strange accusations about "hostility" is named "Zhao." Blintz 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not doing yourself a favor by making those remarks and getting into those kinds of fights. The nomination stands on its own merit and doesn't need flying accusations of xenophobia to proceed. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What ho, Trialsanderrors? I didn't make any accusation of xenophobia, nor did I get into any fight. I made a comment that "Gong" chose to take offense to. You'll notice that while the only accusation that I made concerned "pro-Asian bias" (a charge that, since not specifically attributable to "Gong, I addressed in a general way), you accused me of xenophobia, a far more serious matter. Don't be overzealous. Blintz 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I? Re-read my comment. The only thing I see is you making unsupported insinuations about editors' motives based on their screen names and (assumed) ethnicity. A clear WP:AGF and WP:NPA violation. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake regarding xenophobia. I meant to address your use of straw-man tactics: wildly claiming that I was making accusations of xenophobia. I'm not sure why you feel the need to delve into Wikipedia jurisprudence for this matter, but I doubt that my rather inocuous comments violate any rules. In fact, since you felt the need to imply that I wasn't acting in "good faith", consider the phrase "well-intentioned error." Even though you may have taken offense to my comments regarding ethnic partisanship, you should have noted that my efforts were well-intentioned - for the benefit of WP - so you should have assumed that I was acting in good faith. By assuming that I wasn't, you've violated the rule. And "no personal attacks"? I was merely mentioning that the user was tendentious. That's not an attack, nor is it particularly personal. Throw the book at someone else. Blintz 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't implying you didn't act in good faith, I was implying you didn't assume good faith in others. A seemingly minor but ultimately crucial difference. ~ trialsanderrors 01:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last comment is irrelevant. The issue of good faith doesn't even enter here, since I made no comment regarding the quality of the intentions of the author of the article or his apparatchiks. In fact, I made no assumption on the subject whatsoever. Again, your citation of the rule wasn't necessary. Are you finished? Blintz 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the WP:NPA policy and how you fell afoul of it, especially the part about discrediting others' opinions based on their affiliation. End of communication. ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was This article is now a redirect created by the nominator moving the page. Please take this to RfD and/or CfD. Not a valid AfD nomination. DarthVader 09:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway

[edit]

All references and categories refering to the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway have been replaced with the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad. This railroad is referred to as a railroad, not a railway in all the literature. I corrected all the references and created a corrected category.george 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Failing any references of notability in the article, this is a textbook non notable bio. I was a student body officer once and am not notable either. It is true that student activists can be notable but this one is, in my view, not. --++Lar: t/c 07:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

André Brazeau

[edit]

A WP:NN student body president of the U of Ottawa. Only linked from the student federation page. Clubmarx 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. We can not tolerate highschool student council presidents to have their Wikipedia page. "Not-Notable". "DELETE". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillaliberte (talk • contribs)

User (74.56.237.201) deleted the AfD notice before, now it is back.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. IceKarmaॐ 06:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avelant

[edit]

This is a blatant advertisement Em3rald 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda seno

[edit]

I'd like opinions on this one. She does appear to have had at least one book published (Trilho de Pó but I'm unable to determine whether self-published or not - it seems likely). The article was unanimously deleted from pt.wiki (which I think is usually fairly inclusive) as vanity - see [11]. An anon claimed in that discussion that she has books in legal deposit in the National Library and on sale in Lisbon but nobody commented on that. There are some streets named Fernanda seno but I suspect they are named after someone else.

Note that I had moved the content of Fernanda seno to the article Fernanda Seno, so there are two articles that should be kept or deleted as per the decision. Stumps 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my nom, for now but I'll be happy to be convinced otherwise. Dlyons493 Talk 09:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always difficult to make a judgement call with titles in certain languages as they don't have the same web presence as English language books. But this search seems to show only three mentions of the author's books, all in book lists and one page that now doesn't exist. This, plus a few other searches I've tried, plus the delete vote on pt.wiki would seem to indicate a delete is in order, unless other sources are provided. Please let me know if they are, as I'll change my vote if they stand up to scrutiny. Vizjim 14:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm willing to accept the judgement of the Portuguese Wikipedians. If she doesn't belong there, I can't see any reason to keep her here. Fan1967 14:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Cohen (internet)

[edit]

I can not see why this page should be deleted. I has sat here for over a year documenting a well known journalist and businessman in the UK. As a result of constant vandalism the page is continually flooded with innaccurate information.

Cohen is well known in the UK link

Also those continually changing the content of the page appear to have some personal or other grievance of Cohen as they only edit pages relating to him or his work. —The preceding unsigned comments were added by Philsome (talk • contribs) 04:54 – 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete how much nonsense can be written about cohen - he's not famous, most of the info philsome keeps uploading is nonsense, get rid. wikigreps
This is this user's 7th edit, see contribs. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006
  • Delete --- I can't believe how much nonsense Philsome has added to this page looking back thru the edits -- Chavlaz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chavlaz (talk • contribs) 13:25, June 1, 2006 (UTC)
    This page is the user's first edits. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006
  • Keep --- Having made some changes to tidy this up using content found elsewhere on Wikipedia. I think that this page is worth keeping as it does document an important figure.Testytesty 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is obviously some competition by a group of idiots to put nonsense on wikipedia and watch us debate it. .Ajshelo 14:48, 4 June 2006
    This is this user's first and only edit. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006
  • Delete I don't actually think it has, although I'm not sure how to - reckon we should delete though - taking a cursory glance at the edits shows philsome keeps adding garbage to the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stambelch (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    User's first and only edit – Gurch 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as obvious bad faith nomination. I have added sources to the page. Cohen is a clearly notable character, a figure of importance in the development of e-business in the UK. Also request that the page be protected by an admin. Vizjim 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see also Benjamin Cohen (UK). There appears to have been some clumsy moving-around of content recently, so we now have two separate articles on the same guy. I guess a merge is in order, if someone can figure out exactly what's come from where. — Haeleth Talk 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sourced articles are less than about 6 years old - Yedido —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yedido (talk • contribs) 18:09, June 6, 2006 (UTC)
    This is this user's only contribution. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006
  • Comment Yedido, part of the point of an online project like Wikipedia is that it is current and up to date. Claiming that something should be deleted because its sources are recent is irrelevant. Philsome 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Philsome, if you read my post you'll see that I said that none of the references on the page about you are less than 6 years old. In other words, all the links you added about yourself are old, and not up to date. Who is this person who states that they just saw a TV series about Cohen? There was not any such series broadcast in this country (the UK) recently yet the IP address is a London one. Philsome claims to have heard a lecture on Cohen on the UCL economics course yet there is not one - I have checked with the department. Why on earth would there be? Not only this, but a brief glance at the history of this page, or at Philsome's talk page shows that he clearly repeatedly adds information about Cohen that, at best, could be described as an exaggeration. Wikipedia is not a forum for self-publicity and this whole page is entirely ridiculous. Cohen had a website that he sold for £40 000. He "occassionally" writes short articles for the Times of London's internet site. He used to run a pornography search engine. This is not reason for an article on wikipedia. If it is, I may as well put in an entry about my neighbour's cat. Look at Philsome's user page. He repeatedly dodges the remarks people have made about his posts there. 12:09, 11 June 2006 YEDIDO(UTC)
  • CommentYedido- the IP address of the poster 80.33.141.151 is in Spain not in London. Secondly, the Trouble at the Top documentary was played on BBC Prime Europe on the 26th May this year. Thirdly, a lecture on the e-economy did reference Cohen earlier this year. Philsome 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They do appear to be notable, with enough references for me. Those citations are all wierd though, but the external notes, especially The Register. I find the large number of new people showing up to vote delete rather disturbing. Anon notice tag is added. Kevin_b_er 07:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure Mr. Cohen is "great" and that he "looks interesting" but he's a used-to-be teenaged millionaire, a former pornographer, and ran a company once upon a time. In other words, back in the day, he used to be notable when he was all those things. Tychocat 09:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Used to be notable" means "still notable". Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and yesterday's news is still news here. That's kind of what an encyclopedia's for. Vizjim 08:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Hayles

[edit]

I don't see any evidence this kid exists and the story sounds implausible.--T. Anthony 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep per Royalbroil's evidence Eluchil404 11:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Gaetani

[edit]

Not notable. Google returns 288 results for the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Siarach (talk • contribs)

  • Weak Delete looks non-notable. Nearly Headless Nick 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, it has to be by WP:MUSIC without reliable sources. There's a bio here at his production label website though. - Motor (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Easily meets WP:MUSIC by charting in a large country - from his official website: "In 2000 he is involved in a chart success with a funk-soul song he writes for the artist Malina called “By your side”, remixed and licensed by Tommy Boy label NY, reaching # 12 on Billboard charts." Royalbroil 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete unless someone can verify this claim. [12] knows him but doesn't list any chart placements for him. Deleteme42 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This site [13] says that the song hit #1 in the U.S., this site [14] says it was the #6 dance song for the YEAR 2001, and this site [15] shows that Gaetani composed the song for Malina. Royalbroil 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding the it was the #6 dance song for the YEAR 2001: Is this any notable chart? This seems to be roughly the personal charts of some person... I'm not sure about the reliability of the other sources you quote, but considering that everyone can easily create a webpage containing any amount of nonsense or false information, you should take more care what to cite. Deleteme42
      • Also, AllMusic.com shows that the song hit #13 [16], and this link [17] (also on allmusic) shows that he wrote the songs for her. These combine to demonstrate he meets the WP:MUSIC criteria "For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.", and Malina meets the criteria "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." That country is the United States. Royalbroil 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless reliable sources claiming chart placement are found. Wickethewok 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Weak keep per new sources. Wickethewok 13:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and thanks to Royalbroil for taking the time to research it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Royalbroil's research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great pony famine

[edit]

It's not even that funny. Creative... but not funny. 0zymandias 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

as an outsider opinion, beleive it or not i've actually heard of this before— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.83.112 (talk • contribs)

Google test = No results. 0zymandias 02:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My history text book, 'enduring vision' gives a one line mention of this. 10:38 PM 31 may 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.83.112 (talk • contribs)

As a history professor at the renowed Harvard University, I would like to acknowledge the relevency of this article to my current classroom teachings. To all of those skeptics out there, the Great Pony Famine did indeed occur, and left a large scar on the global pony population that is still being felt today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.175.110 (talk • contribs)

A "one line mention"? You just proved my point. Please see WP:DP before responding. Oh, and as a history professor at Harvard, wouldn't you already know how to spell 'renowned'? (sorry, couldn't resist) 0zymandias 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense/hoax. Not even remotely funny enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as BJAODN (aside from talking about how unworthy it is). Also, 0zymandias's above comment is priceless, but 0zy also missed the anon typing "less" instead of "left". -- Kicking222 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced nonsense and a hoax. Might change my mind if an anonymous person claiming to be a known-again Yale professor vouches for it though . . . ScottW 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment 0zymandias old chap! Have you really got that dull of a life that you google wikipedia articles and comment on them!? I mean really, when was the last time you were intimate with a woman? OH what's that.....never?!?!!?!? what a surprise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.175.110 (talk • contribs) Oh, for god's sake. You could at least be witty. One more ... spell 'relevency', if you please. Colonel Tom 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hendricks

[edit]

Notability of subject is in question; history of editors shows it to be largely autobiographical/vanity. Note that User:Musea, the main editor, has attempted to work with process and improve the article. I have informed Musea that he can use this process to justify inclusion. — Estarriol talk 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD has been included on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts -- Tyrenius 00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Currently considering this issue; my current thoughts suggest should possibly be merged into a new section on Underground Literary Alliance (although there's a question in my mind as to whether organisations that largely exist to promote their members are notable) or moved to userpage. Hard to establish notability since references are in the large part from a website written by the subject, or part of his alliance. — Estarriol talk 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think merging with the ULA is correct. All of the events excluding the one fact that Hendricks is an officer of the ULA, is outside the ULA and almost all was done before the ULA was founded, and all was done exclusive and independent of the ULA. I hope no part of the protest is due to problems with the ULA. This is outside the issue in my opinion. I encourage all non factual info to be removed, instead of the entire article. I also note many references outside of the Musea.us or hunkasaurus.com website - neither of which were started by Hendricks. What is userpage and how would that apply? Musea 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confirm that no part of the process is due to problems with the ULA; the main question is the notability of Tom Hendricks — is he notable enough to include in the encyclopedia? The page WP:BIO provides the most relevant information, although Wikiproject Music have notes on notability for musicians at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Personally, whilst I may find Tom's work laudable, I'm erring towards feeling that he's not notable enough for an encyclopedia article, although my uncertainty has driven me to open this process, in order to reach a consensus from fellow editors who are more familiar with the requirements. As for your other query, a userpage is explained in WP:USER — yours is User:Musea. — Estarriol talk 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been having some dialogue with Musea about this issue, and would encourage him to provide any verifiable references that exist for Hendricks's work—this could be newspaper or magazine mentions, books published by external sources, or even substantial web mentions. It would be helpful if there was a way of filtering this google search to just show his hits. There is an ongoing problem with the way more "alternative"/"underground" writers and artists may have a reputation in their own field, which can be difficult to verify in Wikipedia's terms. Check out WP:VERIFY Tyrenius 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would argue that the ULA is a notable organization. They have acquired, as a group, real press, whatever their aims as an organization might be. However, I do not think they should be used as a source to verify information, since their entire reporting structure is based on superlative claims about their membership, usually directly in the words of the member on which they are reporting. At the talk page for Tom Hendricks, Tom/Musea mentions his own works, the ULA's writings, Artvilla, and the Texas Monthly June '06 issue as evidence of his notability. Artvilla is a fine publication, but I don't think a credit in Artvilla can be considered notable. I'll acquire the Texas Monthly article, though -- that's certainly legitimate reportage. JonathanPenton 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Artella has recently sent word that they will reprint the 'end of art' article. See talk Tom Hendricks

One wider concern is this - if articles depend on mainstream sources for verification, they will eliminate all entries whose notable achievement is to oppose mainstream art and media. Mainstream music press will not do articles on anti-band music. Mainstream art press will not do articles on end of modern art protests. Mainstream publishers will not do articles on zines or zine movements that oppose them. I think valid indie sources - if there are enough to fit the wikipedia criteria - like ULA or Zine World, should be considered as well as more noted media such as Artella, Texas Monthly, David Darling website etc. Musea 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point I made above. I think if there were sufficient "non-mainstream" references, this would form a strong argument for inclusion. In this case, there don't seem to be many, however. Tyrenius 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take Boog City's word over the New York Post's. "Mainstream" is not the issue. JonathanPenton 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we're being very considerate here, asking and waiting for more substantiation of notability, but at the moment it's not forthcoming, which will lead to a delete under WP:VERIFY. Tyrenius 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my point wasn't clear, probably because I nested my comment under your words instead of Tom's. I was trying to advocate the consideration of sources by their reputation for accuracy, not their readership. Unfortunately, the ULA web site has no reputation for accuracy, and I agree that the other references listed, which now seem to involve Texas Highways rather than the Texas Monthly, don't imply notability. I say Delete, for what it's worth. JonathanPenton 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I rewrote the article and removed all the POV/autobiographical/vanity/irrelevent stuff. Almost the entire article was written by Tom previously. Tom really doesn't formally meet the requirements for notability, but I think he should be included here. Primarily because he's been publishing a zine consistently for 12 years, but also just because I think there should be exceptions for eccetric outsider-artist-type people like him. But I do think he needs to stop editing his own article. If he has something he wants added or changed, he can put in on the talk page. Paul Slocum 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's a much better article, thanks Paul. Although notability is still the issue here — are you suggesting that someone who is an eccentric should be treated as if they are more notable than they are? I think making any exceptions to what are (once read) actually quite straightforward guidelines is dangerous. The drive behind WP:N seems to be concerned primarily with how many readers are likely to come to Wikipedia to look up the subject; I'm just not sure I see this happening. The very fact that Tom is the main editor on an article about himself just has vanity written all over it. Wikipedia is not here as a medium for self-promotion, surely? — Estarriol talk 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess persistence is more what I'm referring to. The 14 years of the zine (I miscounted), that he constantly writes letters to local papers (which are occasionally published, and I can document later), that he's been playing his music at the Inwood for years, that he continues to post his Usenet art quizzes and articles week after week. None of it alone has reached formal notability requirements, but I feel that if you sum it all together, he's made enough contribution to warrant an article. I ain't gunna cry if you remove it, but personally my vote is to let it stay. Paul Slocum 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, well done Paul Slocum. I agree that Tom has to stop editing it and should put info on the talk page for other editors to filter. I hope you'll be able to work on this article, as it's greatly improved. I think the problem is that there is a category that Wiki simply doesn't realise exists, namely the sort of underground/alternative art/literary pioneers, who are recognised within their field and who undoubtedly do have a reputation, which people knowledgeable in that field would recognise. I was certainly aware of ULA and would be glad of being able to find out more about them through Wiki. I would feel it a loss if such articles weren't able to be included. The thing is that everything has to be taken on a case by case basis, and I'm going with Paul Slocum's arguments as above. It doesnt't mean everyone that's ever published a magazine gets included, but someone that has this kind of consistency has developed a (cult) reputation. We have enough space on Wiki for all kinds of games info. Let's accommodate this as well. Tyrenius 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears from what has been written that the only thing that Tom might be notable for is editing Musea - which might in itself be worthy of an article, but being a persistent eccentric shouldn't be considered notable in itself, unless of course, we are talking about a "notable persistent eccentric." However, I am happy to let the matter rest as is. Good work from yourself and Paul, you're both welcome to sort out anything I might have written. --Richhoncho 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think he's notable specifically for being a "persistent eccentric", which in my mind is in a large part Musea but also the music and stunts — it's really a label for a level of notability garnered by someone who has persistently, recognisably and (to some degree) famously maintainted an eccentric but consistent and public style over years. The notability of Musea is still an open question in my mind, as I haven't really studied that issue, but the consistent thread through Tom's endeavours is his eccentric style, and I do think that's notable in this case. Not sure I'm explaining myself very well here, sorry. — Estarriol talk 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know exactly what you mean and am happy to support the majority view which I have already done by voting for keep, there's no reason for me to change my mind again. --Richhoncho 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Keep This discussion has helped me to form an opinion, and that opinion is that Tom is notable enough as a persistent eccentric to have his own article. I will confess that I still feel it's borderline, and strongly feel that Tom should stay away from the article itself — particularly because Paul has done such a good job on rewriting the article and actually made Tom look better that way. Should Tom attempt to make it a vanity article (vanitise the article... do we have that verb?) in the future, it would be looking for trouble IMHO. — Estarriol talk 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. However my dealings with Musea/Tom in the past have been quite civilised and I think he would be happy to work with other editors and learn more about the Wiki ropes. I suspect also that in his extensive period of committed time to art/literary/music projects there's other stuff that would add to the article, but which he's simply not recalled. There may also be interesting material on the scene(s) he's involved with which could add to Wiki in other places. We have a huge amount of specialised knowledge on certain subjects, but not so many people filling out the contemporary arts coverage. It would be good to encourage further involvement. Tyrenius 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no disagreement there, and to clarify, I just don't think Tom should directly edit the article. I'm all for editors getting info from the subject of an article as long as they have no other connection — I'm personally working with a sportsman in just this way on his bio article right now. I'd just like to add that this has been an interesting process so far, I think one that validates our entire approach here. My personal thanks go out to all involved. — Estarriol talk 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to thank you for starting the AfD in a way which has encouraged a genuine discussion process, which, to date, I think shows Wiki working at its best. I have only made up my mind through the course of this. Tyrenius 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, no problem with Tom contributing info, but I think it should be on the talk page. Paul Slocum 02:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Whip Wrestling

[edit]

This is essentially an advertisement for a non-notable indy wrestling promotion in Ireland, I mean, they've uploaded the banners to the servers and make it look as if they're using Wikipedia as like a backup hompage. Saint-Paddy 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete--with a good editor, this article could make sense.Adambiswanger1 01:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I wrote this article and uploaded the banners, if they are taking up too much server space, I will of course take them down and leave it as a text only entry or with one picture, whatever is recommended.

As for non notable, professional wrestling is obviously not to everyone's tastes but it is an interest shared by many and very popular among internet fans. This particular company have a TV show and run over 40 shows a year nationally as well as having national press and media coverage.

I'd be happy to change or amend the article in any way that would make it more aceptable to wikipedia or its users. Apologies for any inconvienience. - Bncrew 16:07, 26 May 2006


I would be more than happy to change anything about it if someone could give me a few pointers. Obviously, if the pictures are taking up space on your servers, they have to go but I'll edit it down to more basic fatual information if you like. - Bncrew 17:40, 07 June 2006


In relation to the whole non notable thing, this company does perform more than dates in a year than 90% of companies in the Europe. They have changed alot for wrestling fans like me here in Ireland. I have edited down the article to exclude things that might seem like advertisement and taken the pictures off. Anything else that would make the article better or more acceptable to the wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. - Bncrew 02:08, 08 June 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Mulcahy

[edit]

Unreferenced, uncategorized bio with no claim to notability Paul 04:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shahril Alfian

[edit]

No definite results on googling. The actor is not famous. Ferisin 09:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Youth

[edit]

Completing nomination by Klafubra. No recommendations from me. DarthVader 09:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit better now whats wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenane (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Doesn't belong at AfD. Take to RfD. DarthVader 09:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaiykh Ahmad Al-Alawi

[edit]

There is an article on Ahmad al-Alawi. "Shaiykh" is a title, and doesn't need to be part of an article name; also, it's a spelling error anyhow (should by "Shaykh" OR "Shaikh" but can't combine both)Mark Sedgwick 09:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Muslims

[edit]

NN website, Alexa not in top 100,000, and article has no useful content Goldom (t) (Review) 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus for Zooomr, so keep by default. Unanimous Delete for Kristopher Tate - Richardcavell 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zooomr and Kristopher Tate

[edit]

I can't see that this meets WP:WEB. Spondoolicks 10:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Zooomr but Delete Kristopher Tate. Zooomr seems like it has notability, particularly the TechCrunch article, the Slashdot article and the mention in the Belgian press. Ironically these sources are listed in the Kristopher Tate article and should be moved from there to Zooomr. I don't see Mr. Tate meeting WP:BIO just yet. Meta comment - would probably have made sense to list these as two separate AfDs. Gwernol 10:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Kristopher Tate doesn't meet WP:BIO and Zooomr doesn't meet WP:WEB, a flash in the pan jump in hits from a bit of slashdot attention doesn't do it. If it takes off properly... recreate. - Motor (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete both per Motor, but without prejudice to recreation if these subjects do later get some mor substantial coverage. I agree, these should have been 2 AFDs. Sandstein 19:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I want to do is just a-zoom zoom zoom and a boom boom ... er, sorry. Delete. Per original nomination. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep of Zooomr and Delete Kristopher Tate. The person has no notability outside of the web site, but the web site does seem to be notable. Alexa ranks the site at around 25,000, which is good but not amazing, while "Zooomr" brings up 134,000 Google hits (and I can't imagine any of them don't relate to the web site), although only 233 are unique. The article is way too advertise-y, but I think there's sufficient notability for the site. -- Kicking222 23:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zooomr and Delete Kristopher Tate. Zooomr is an up and coming web application which has had media coverage, probably not quite up to WP:WEB, but more than trivial. Delete Kristopher Tate per nom.--Matt 20:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viral diabetes

[edit]

Not a recognized clinical entity. Any theory of viral/environmental causes of diabetes best discussed within the context of diabetes mellitus. InvictaHOG 10:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteWP:NOR Furthermore it's rubbish. Dave59 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD G7. - Liberatore(T) 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reedy Boy/Series Boxes

[edit]

It is a page i don't use anymore, and for which i can use my sandbox

Please delete it!

Reedy Boy 11:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Article was meant to be a redirect anyway. DarthVader 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drave

[edit]

Badly formatted dicdef of a nonsense word - does anyone actually say 'drave'? Delete ::Supergolden:: 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Cordeiro

[edit]

Vanispamcruftisment. Delete ::Supergolden:: 11:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing world

[edit]

A big wall of text. Seems to be an entry about NASCAR, though with the lack of an introduction or paragraphs that can actually be read, it's hard to tell. Anyway, what we seemingly have here is a long stream of characters about something related to racing cars. Maybe this is a duplicate of NASCAR or Auto racing, I don't know, but I don't think we should keep that entry unless someone can make sense of it and write a stub Equendil Talk 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J. Bruns

[edit]

Not notable or encyclopedic. Also, no reliable sources available for this. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of ze World

[edit]

The page is an obvious vanity article intended to make the insignificant flash-film seem significant. Joffeloff 12:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just, delete. Ben W Bell talk 12:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Thomas White

[edit]

nonnotable "artist" (the quotes are deliberate, look at the alleged art on his website) NawlinWiki 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD has been included on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts -- Tyrenius 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not established. Colonel Tom 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable per artist guidelines in WP:BIO. -- Docether 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, good luck to him but fails WP:BIO. - Motor (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Insulting someone's work by putting "artist" in quotes isn't really necessary in an AFD. Please remember that these pages get archived for eternity. What are your credentials for deriding someone's work as "alleged art"? This is hardly very different from the thousand numbers currently on sale for around $600 each, for which about 500 have been sold in about a week. Your personal tastes should have no bearing in an AFD. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My "credentials" are that I have eyes and discretion, and scrawling numbers on construction paper is something kindergarden kids do before nap time; we don't hang those up in art galleries either. (For that matter, debate over someone's personal tastes, and their right or lack of right to have them, scarcely belongs in an AfD either.) Delete the heck out of this, per nom. Ravenswing 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, we do put them in galleries [21], and I'm glad Kline or Pollock didn't have you as their agent, dismissing their work as kindergarden scrawls. But the point of my comment was that AFD should not be a place to insult the subject of the article, particularly if the subject is a living person. There have been numberous cases brought to Jimbo because of living people discovering that one of their first Google-hits is some insult on AFD (e.g. [22], [23]), something Jimbo refered to as a "sickness in the process". — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly the likes of Pollock and Kline would have been glad as well, given that I believe their efforts to have been tripe. That being said, before we have whitewashers and spin doctors suitably sanitizing AfD discussions so that no one could ever, ever fancy themselves disparaged, I'd far sooner purge AfD of the knee-jerk editors who vote without ever bothering to verify the merits of the nomination, one way or another. That ain't going to happen either. Ravenswing 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Asbestos but delete nevertheless. Kafziel 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strongly agree with Asbestos that derogatory comments about people or their work have no place on AfD. There are criteria for deletion which should be respected. One of them is not an editor's personal opinions of artistic worth. This is specifically cautioned against as OR. It therefore represents an illicit attempt to influence the outcome of a debate that should be conducted strictly from a NPOV, and shows no respect for the process or other editors. It is also apparent from the disparaging comments made (e.g. on Pollock) that the editors making them have little knowledge of are indulging in a strong POV on the subject, which only makes it even more embarrassing for those of us who are trying to strengthen the art presence on Wikipedia. See WikiProject Arts and WikiProject_Visual_arts for a start. Ignorant Such comments are likely to be seen as ignorant by those versed in the field and will merely discourage new editors with genuine knowledge them from contributing. Thank you. Tyrenius 00:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just out of curiosity, upon which basis are you making unsupported suppositions about anyone's art historian expertise? Someone so interested in NPOV and in not making anything that could be construed as a disparaging comment should surely be familiar with WP:NPA, and not automatically assume that anyone differing from his personal artistic tastes is ignorant and inexperienced by definition. Ravenswing 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, this isn't the place to say whether or not you think his work is any good. AfD is for deciding if articles meet the criteria for inclusion here, and personal jabs at the worthiness of the subject matter don't belong here. Kafziel 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apology. Someone expressing POV may have a lot of knowledge of the subject, but, in that case, is unfortunately not following policy in making use of it to give a balanced representation of established views in the field, which is that Pollock, for example, is recognised as a major artist and not "tripe". Tyrenius 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator; keep as disambiguation page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafziel (talk • contribs)

EDR

[edit]

Firstly, this is an acronym expansion page referring to only one instance of the acronym. Secondly, it points to Event Data Recorder, a page currently under threat of deletion due to copyvio. Checking the page history there suggests that in addition to being copyvio, it is a suitable candidate for deletion as advertising. If the target is, then this disambiguation page with one item is as well. Please let me know if I've made a bad call here, but I suggest Delete. Colonel Tom 12:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Nominator changes his suggestion to Speedy Keep & withdraws the nomination, per the arguments below. Colonel Tom 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. If anyone wants to clean up the article, they can (and appear to already have) do so without an AfD closer's help. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Farrington

[edit]

Prodded by User:JByrd as vanity, but at least the microbiologist entry appears to be notable. Hirudo 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Microbiologist Mark Farrington appears to be a possibility for notability; he's head of the Clinical Pathology department of Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge and co-author of a textbook, Infectious Diseases Manual, published by Blackwell Science. I can't find evidence for him at Nottingham, though; I think that may be mistaken. Espresso Addict 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the user who created the page is "MarkOnAir" and the radio presenter got three external links where the others didn't, it seems likely to be a creative way of making a vanity page. Espresso Addict 14:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too would say this is supposed to be a dab page. The Canaries player is notable, he played first team games when Norwich were in either the first or second division, which meets WP:BIO. The councillor and the radiowallah don't look especially notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate/split My bad, as i should have looked at these "other" entries a bit harder before prod-ing the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:JByrd (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as is (but as mentioned above, if someone wants to write an article about the microbiologist, that's probably worth keeping.) Deli nk 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I disambiguated this. I dropped the councillor and am strongly considering the radio guy as he also does not meet WP:BIO (if anyone wants to boldy remove him; do so. I will in a couple of days if nobody else does and no assertions towards WP:BIO are made. The footballer and biologist apparently meet WP:BIO and could have pages if anyone cares to do so.--Isotope23 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Isotope23 above, the two Mark Farringtons who remain meet WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomatoville

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milites Christi

[edit]

Apparent hoax. Google shows 3 hits for '"Milites Christi" jiujitsu, one of which is Wikipedia. The arms shown are lifted from Malta and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Looks like conspiracy-theory garbage. AlexTiefling 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unsurprisingly) - I have also now found Milites christi which is identical, and which I am therefore adding to this AfD. AlexTiefling 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Deli nk 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both versions. Kafziel 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a reliable source is provided to prove that this isn't the hoax it looks like. Alternatively, a redirect to Miles Christi might conceivably be useful (and would discourage recreation). — Haeleth Talk 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Apologies, i created the article and it is not a hoax. The organisation exists, although its foundations are small, and even smaller online. My attempts to redirect the page to Milites Christi have been unsuccessful, however this was my initial idea. I currently have no verifiable publicy published sources to back up the information held on the article. The only testemony I can give to prove the organisations existence is my own, after interviewing a member in January of this year. However in accordance with Wikipedias Deletion Policy I aknowledge its deletion as viable. User:1303 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People claim to be members of the Priory of Sion, too, but I wouldn't regard that as firm evidence. If this isn't a hoax, then it's original research. (1303, I'm not accusing you of perpetrating the hoax - but you are conceivably the victim of one.) AlexTiefling 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I aknowledge your comments and fully understand the dilema faced here. However the organisation is a relatively small one, and as far as i'm aware has had only one article in a 1997 edition of Clitheroe Today, Lancs, UK (for which I do not have a link). As you say the organisation could conceivably be a hoax, however i'm near to fully certain that the source is a reliable one. I would classify this as Original Research (in terms of online conent), although I do not know if this would save the article from deletion. If the article is to be erased on these grounds, so be it, but it was originally added to highlight the organisation within the online public domain. If hard evidence is needed to maintain the article, i have none as yet, although I suspect some will come to light.1303 10:58 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Further investigation shows that an organisation called 'Milites Christi' was founded in 1939 by Giuseppe Lazzati. (Source[24]) That body subsequently became the Secular Institute of Christ the King. There's also a fiercely Catholic, distinctly American, and almost certainly non-notable body (12 members!) calling itself 'Milites Christi' with a painfully slow web page here: [25].


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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Note that as the article has been merged, the redirect must be preserved, in order to satisfy the GFDL, despite it being a pretty strange search string ... Proto||type 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs Ben Matlock sings

[edit]

I have merged this article into Ben Matlock. I hope others agree that this was the right decision and are prepared to delete this article. Takeel 13:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep by default. I note that the German version has survived AfD. - Richardcavell 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renate Thyssen-Henne

[edit]

Profiling article, mainly POV and yellow press style. Related article in de-wiki is also requested for deletion. --EvaK 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Akcin

[edit]

Delete as a vanity page. JonHarder 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Discussion

[edit]

Either "nonsense" or "importance". Or both. --JennyRad 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as CSD G7 by Paolo Liberatore. DarthVader 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reedy Boy/Series Boxes

[edit]

undefined Reedy Boy 11:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorostitute

[edit]

Already been deleted: Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/December 2004 (1). Wiktionary will not accept this anyway Dangherous 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Kafziel 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, no it's not heard on college grounds. Anywhere. It's heard at UCF, and probably nowhere else. It's not just a neologism, but also a poor one, and an unpopular one. -- Kicking222 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always (song)

[edit]

This article doesn't look verifiable, nor suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The song is "unrealsed" and its claim for notability seems to be that it's on some bootlegs. I found it via {{copyedit}}, and it also had {{verify}}, {{cleanup-date|June 2006}}, and {{uncat}}. I removed the tags for aesthetic reasons, and to keep well-meaning editors off an article under discussion. Keitei (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Article content changed. :] --Keitei (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep by default. - Richardcavell 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Nee

[edit]

This article survived a "no consensus" vote on AfD. The primary reason no consensus was reached was because of the idea that a listing on IMDb made her notable. As the IMDb is an index of all persons, contrary to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it cannot possibly be a criteria for notability in this article. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirected to What If (comics) Computerjoe's talk 14:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What If...? (comics)

[edit]

Duplicate article to List of What If? issues with less detail and context, presumed draft article

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bustmobile

[edit]

Non-notable vehicular neologism. Prod tag removed with no explanation. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The article Bustmobile has nothing to do with Boost Mobile, only the name is similar.--Andeh 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, wasn't the name "Bustmobile" used sarcastically in a Boost Mobile commercial in the United States? I thought it was, I hope my mind isn't playing tricks on me. --ForbiddenWord 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Katie Holmes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suri Holmes Cruise

[edit]

Child is only notable for having famous parents. —tregoweth (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been hashed out at a different article name here. Does that qualify this for Speedy? The Disco King 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and be bold. Since we've already had community consensus on this issue, I don't think I'm being too bold, but if anybody objects to me redirecting, revert the edits and we'll keep going here. Cheers! The Disco King 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a longstanding tradition with every one of these kids, like the Jolie-Pitts. There's a long debate where some people try to argue the kid deserves an article, but in the end the consensus is a merge/redirect. Fan1967 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting to Katie Holmes doesn't seem right -- the child has a father, too... —tregoweth (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are you American? Fathers have no rights here; other than the right to pay child support. Seriously though, in my opinion, Redirect to the mother is probably best practice unless the mother has no existing wikipedia article, but the father does. Disco King's top page note would definitly work... or, I imagine that the child's birth would be mentioned somewhere in the article. We could just (*gasp*) make people read the article to find out who the father is. I know, it sounds dastardly... On a side note, expanding WP:BIO's "involvement in newsworthy events" to a child's birth, even when covered extensively by the press, it really pushing it in my opinion. I'm still of the opinion that you have to do something other than be born to be article worthy.--Isotope23 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that as well. It seems to be the practice with these kids; Zahara Jolie-Pitt redirects to Angelina Jolie, Sean Preston Federline redirects to Britney Spears, etc. It does seem a bit POV, but if we're not going to keep them as articles, we need to redirect them somewhere...I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a note at the top, like "Suri Cruise redirects here. For her father, see Tom Cruise."? The Disco King 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Sports for Kids

[edit]

Unnotable book that only gets 4 unique google hits: one of them is this page, two others are plugs by the author. —Xezbeth 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Murphy

[edit]

NN band, does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC, appears to be yet another MySpace band Wildthing61476 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted and protected from recreation (CSD G4) by User:RadioKirk. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii60

[edit]

Not a common meme. A comment on the talk page leads me to believe this may be an attempt to promote a Wii60 community. Optichan 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - people can want know the meaning of the term because is widely used now in internet forums. --Ragnarok Addict 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and keep I believe I created the article in a much different form but the history page doesn't show anything besides the current version with and without the delete tag. This is a fairly common term to run across in videogame circles in the wake of E3, and it will only grow when the PS3 and Wii come out later this year. I am in no way involved with the Wii60 or Wii60.com, except that I plan on getting both the Wii and the 360. I have rewritten the article. Transwiki. It is a neologism, but an important word in the gaming community. KevinPuj 15:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Transwiki to Wiktionary, merge into either Wii or Xbox 360, or just delete. I get 168,000 hits for Wii60, but it is nothing more than a definition. -- ReyBrujo 17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While my first impulse is for compromise, maybe a redirect to the Xbox 360 page, where a tiny blurb could be included about "Wii60", that is generous, and I don't think it is warranted. If people want a definition, they could look it up somewhere else, but Wikipedia isn't the place. Dancter 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was incomplete, I am listing it now. - Liberatore(T) 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was give it a rest, please. This is the third afd in as many months. It, like its predecessors, found no consensus. Please step back for at least three months before trying to delete it again. Keep-voters: the onus is on you to improve the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy St. Clair

[edit]

Non-notable collectable card game player. This article survived two AfDs as no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_St._Clair and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy St. Clair (2nd nomination)), but there still hasn't been anything additionally notable about the person added. One of the major proponents for keep the last couple times has also indicated to me that he has changed his mind and now believes St. Clair to be insufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. In fact, I'd probably be up for deleting pretty much any CCG player articles. Unlike, say, poker, CCGs aren't generally recognised as a mainstream competitive sport. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; nor does there need to be anything new added. As long as these games have professional world championship loops, their major players are at least as notable under WP:BIO as any other player of a professional game, and right now any athlete who so much as plays a month for a single "A" club in Palookasville, Montana, is by-definition notable. That CCGs aren't a "mainstream competitive sport" is irrelevant (and POV); WP:BIO doesn't draw a distinction between "mainstream competitive sports" and any other sport. RGTraynor 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in this case I agree with RGTraynor, CCG major competative players are as notable as any other competitive game players. Particularly in this case, you have a player who was fairly highly ranked but was banned for cheating. Within the realm of CCG I imagine this is probably the equivalent to a baseball player getting caught using steroids (OK, maybe not... the baseball player wouldn't get banned from the game). Regardless, WP:BIO could be construed to include notable competative game players under notable sportspeople (hey, if walking around swiping at a little white ball with metal stick is a sport, then cards are too).--Isotope23 18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A competition in one of many collectable card games doesn't compare to mainstream sports in any way. What is the relevance of notability within a community that is just barely notable as a whole ? Equendil Talk 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (Wii)

[edit]

For now, the Zelda release on Wii is Twilight Princess; there is no reference to any other Zelda at this time. This is a phony article to generate traffic to a Web site, and should be deleted for all the same reasons it was deleted last year. Primarily, the "crystal ball" rule. The absolute earliest point at which this article should exist is when we have official confirmation that there is a Zelda in the works on the Wii that is not Twilight Princess AND when have at least one or two specific, verifiable facts to offer readers about this new Zelda. The Yar 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate in Delaware

[edit]

Spam article. Haakon 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction

[edit]

Original research. The discussion on the article's talk page gives a pretty good summary of why grouping together all of the literary works mentioned in this article is inherently POV: many of them do not, in fact, depict pedophilia, but rather, abuse by people who may or may not be pedophiles. In addition, some of the works depict consensual adult/child sex, which is neither pedophilia nor abuse. I think that "pedophile" is rather like "terrorist": using it is almost always inherently POV. Finally, the article discusses many works by non-notable authors (at least judged by whether the author has a Wikipedia article) -- it's okay to mention such works, of course, but in this case, the majority of the article is devoted to them. Delete Catamorphism 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pedophilia and adult-child sex in fiction, as it was before, delete original research, keep list, problem solved. AFD is not a vehicle for clean-up. JayW 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even the list itself is OR and difficult to verify. I favor getting rid of the entire article. I don't think that moving the article and eliminating everything but the list solves the problem. Catamorphism 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I oppose the move to "Pedophilia and adult-child sex in fiction". It only had that title for a few hours, previously. The title was discussed on the talk page. Now the article has been moved with no discussion. "Adult-child sex" is a term used primarily within the pro-pedophile community and its use is POV. -Will Beback 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This illustrates the problem. "Adult-child sex" is considered POV by some (and is inaccurate since many of the works are about teenagers.) "Pedophilia" is considered POV by some, including me, when applied to literary works where the author didn't necessarily intend to portray a character as being "pedophilic". There doesn't seem to be a good possible title, which certainly throws question on whether the article can be NPOV. Catamorphism 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will, while we're often in agreement, I think you're wrong in this particular case. I was convinced by 24's argument that if an an adult-child relationship was described in fiction as non-abusive, it should not be listed under "child sexual abuse"... it's fiction, a fantasy. You wouldn't list Pippi Longstocking etc. under "Child Neglect in Fiction" even though she's left to fend for herself, and so forth. Herostratus 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a matter which is worth dicussing. In my view, some of the novels, like Mystic River, are about sexual abuse, not sex. More broadly, "child sexual abuse" is a synonym of child molestation. If we don't want the title to include those terms we should remove those books from the list. Pedophilia is simply the wish to have the sex, not the performance of the act. Then it is child sexual abuse, child molestation, or statutory rape, in most circumstances. -Will Beback 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I see what you're saying... technically, instances of raping a num could be included in an article List of instances of nuns having sex, sice a rape is sex and there was a nun involved... but we wouldn't do that... similarly, you're saying (I think) that putting instances of child molestation/sex abuse in an article titled "Adult-child sex..." is kind of bizarre. OK, I agree with that. Hmmmm. But removing just the abuse cases leaves a list of just fantasy fiction where the adult and child fall in love and live happily ever after or whatever... hmmm I dunno if that's good either, since to the extent that it claims to be complete list it would kinda sorta imply that all "Adult-child sex in fiction" is benign... I dunno the answer to that, be it can be figured out. Just flat deleting the whold schmear is not the answer IMO. Herostratus 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While desperately few people would describe statutory rape as not being abuse or pedophilia - the bloody definition of the term is having sexual feelings for children - I agree that it fails WP:NOR. RGTraynor 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, that's not the definition of the term. The definition given in Pedophilia is "the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children." Many of the literary works in the referenced article either involve sex between pubescent or post-pubescent adolescents and adults, or involve perpetrators who aren't primarily attracted to children, or both. Catamorphism 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, that's not the definition of the term. See the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch#Terminology, also that project's Terminology page and its discussion page, and indeed the talk page at article Pedophilia. The Amer. Psych. Assoc. definition you cite is not the meaning as used by most people, and our definitions are generally descriptive not proscriptive. I wish that Wikipedia would define the term "pedophilia" more narrowly than does the Daily Mail, (although the Amer. Psysch. Assoc. definition is a bit too narrow IMO), but I don't think the community agrees with us. Herostratus 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly OR and sloppy terminology. It's common in the popular press to treat pedophilia and ephebophilia as the same thing, but they're not. Fan1967 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, as regards WP:NOR, I think the nominator has a point, but I think it is permissible in such cases to rely on the listed works themselves, which after all are reliable sources, and it should be relatively uncontroversial and easy to determine whether a particular work "deals with" a particular topic or not. Second, the most doubtful thing about this article for me is whether any thematic list of fictional works is at all encyclopedic; but a focus on notable works and narrower criteria should do it here. Third, the nominator's beef with this article appears to be mainly that it does not reflect his own POV, as reflected in assertions such as "consensual adult/child sex, which is neither pedophilia nor abuse", which I for one and the law codes of most countries would strongly contest, as children are for various reasons not able to freely consent to sex with adults, which makes all such sex abuse — but these at any rate are content issues for which AfD is not a forum. They can be addressed by a renaming of the article and other editorial work. Sandstein 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A relationship between an adult and a 14-year-old is certainly abuse. It is not pedophilia. Fan1967 19:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly a child can "freely" consent to sexual activity; the question is whether they can give informed consent. A blanket legal conclusion would form a ridiculous basis for abuse laws, since it would naturally suggest that sexual experimentation between young peers should be on par with adult-child sex in terms of punishment. CSA should instead be criminalized because of the nearly innate power imbalance of adult/child relationships. Most research has concluded that adult-child sex is (generally) much more harmful than youthful exploration: nothing is pointing at the "informed consent" myth. The problem, instead, appears to be imbalances (or possibly even stigma). JayW 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article consists not only of a list of works, but of detailed interpretations of those works, and I think it's fairly obvious that the interpretations are OR. As for the works themselves? I think for many of them, it's a matter of opinion whether the works in fact depict "pedophilia", "abuse", or neither. Thus this article cannot be NPOV. Finally, your comments about my POV (and please check my user page and use the pronouns I prefer to refer to me) illustrate why this article cannot be written in an NPOV fashion: there is disagreement about whether sex between someone over 18 and sex between someone under 18 is always abusive, and the existence of this article reflects the POV that it is always abusive. Given the existence of a debate, an article like this encourages POV-pushing. Catamorphism 20:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I did mean informed consent. Catamorphism, I don't see any interpretations in the article, much less detailed ones. Whether what they depict should be called abuse, pedophilia or something else is an editorial matter not suited for AfD. As to your preferred pronoun "they" — sorry, I didn't notice that and certainly have no intention to offend you. However, while you may certainly refer to youself in whatever way you want, you should not expect others to change their use of standard language for your sake — I call men he as a matter of the English language. Sandstein 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Look at the article history; that's where the detailed interpretations are. They were removed after I posted this AFD. Also, I'm not a man, which is why I prefer "they" as a pronoun. Catamorphism 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Catamorphism. Also, since people are paranoid about pedophilia, they may see this as a pedophile reading list. If it was an important enough topic, I would say keep it anyway, but I don't think this one is worth it. -- Kjkolb 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the lower half list is useful. The authors may only be unnotable because of the bias of editors and readers. Call the title "adult-child sexual activity in fiction" which is wider. Skinnyweed 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a tidy up, certainly a controversial issue - but encylopedic - agree with Skinnyweed on title - pedophilla is a controversial term but 'adult-child sex' covers both pedophillic and (arguably) non-pedophilic child-adult sex (I note concerns about and debate about informed consent - unlikely a child can ever give - power issues etc). Regardless of this, article is worthy and basically well written. --manchesterstudent 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think there's still a problem with the name, as normally one doesn't refer to a teenager as a child, and that seems the primary age group in most of the listed works. Fan1967 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. But the Oxford English Dictionary defines "child" as someone short of full physical development (which includes most people through about age 20 or so). It's a contentious issue, the meaning of "child", and has been discussed at WP:PAW and elsewhere, with no resolution likely. Herostratus 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And definitely Move to "Pedophilia and adult-child sex in fiction". And tag for Cleanup. Or else move to ""Pedophilia and adult-child sex in literature". Speaking as one unlikely to be tagged as a pedophilia apologist, I think that's it's valid and useful list. I have spoken against links and other material that may be taken as promoting pedophila, but this article doesn't much worry me. It's validly encyclopedic. Also, as a general rule, you can pretty much assume that work by User:Tony Sandel in this area is probably scholarly and correct. Herostratus 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, categorising under-18 sex as statutory rape/abuse is inherently NPOV. The Age of consent is not universally fixed at 18, either geographically or historically. Would Romeo and Juliet count? As far as I know, few people consider that play to be about child sexual abuse. -- GWO
  • Keep. Hi everyone. I've read all the keep/delete comments and thought I'd better comment too, as I contributed most of the list and article. I don't think it's really OR as there are many similar respected lists on this topic on the Internet like at amazon.com [27] for books or imdb.com [28] for movies. Likewise, I have tried to keep POV neutral. We will never get agreement on what is/isn't pedophilia or who is/isn't a child so I considered it valid to include references to books/films that a significant number of people in the UK or USA would consider as pedophilia and/or child sexual abuse. I recognise that the text (as opposed to the lists) causes more problems, but it does at least define the context of the pedophilia/sexual abuse. And I thought it was important to include works where there is no 'proof' of either pedophilia or abuse! The books/films Death in Venice and The Man Without a Face are well known examples and the list would lose credibility if they were left out.

One solution would be to cut up the first sections and put one line/two line descriptions under each work, but I feel it would be less useful as an encyclopedia reference. Surely the point of an authoritative wikipedia article is to answer firstly a search then to provide many links to whatever aspect of the topic the searcher is looking for.

Finally, we should recognise the views of experts. Carolyn Lehamn has just sent me a mail saying "It's a good list you have. I'm glad you're including both fiction and non-fiction as they inform each other. It makes for a much richer resource." See her OR on the topic at"Carolyn Lehman: Strong At The Heart" Tony Sandel

  • Comment. I've just noticed that the fist few sections have already been removed by Catamorphism. Is this not vandalism to remove such a large section without having the courtesy to wait for the deletion debate. How can other users form a view if the deletion has already taken place? Can someone restore it while the debate continues please? Tony Sandel
  • Comment I dont' see the discussion about the removed material. JayW deleted it with the comment "(rm for now)"[29]. It seems inappropriate to remove text for the duration of an AFD with the intent of restoring it later, which is what I took that to mean. -Will Beback 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some comments here are bizarre. "pedophile" is rather like "terrorist": using it is almost always inherently POV". Pedophile is a very normal word that everyone understands - some arguement about the age of the kids I know. Also "non-notable authors (at least judged by whether the author has a Wikipedia article)" - more than half the books on the first list have wiki articles and who's to say whether an author is notable or non-notable??? Article seems NPOV to me, though some could be OR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganymedes (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The problem I see is that this article ignores the fact that there is a real, substantive difference between genuine pedophilia and inappropriate relationships between adults and teenagers. I don't see this distinction being made at all, or even acknowledged. Fan1967 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment - that there is "a real, substantive difference between genuine pedophilia and inappropriate relationships between adults and teenagers". The article is headed pedophilia AND child sexual abuse, and I have excluded the dozens of works that deal with adults and teenagers well past the age of puberty. There are, however, a number of borderline cases and I have included them where, having read the book myself, the relationship could be interpreted as being either pedophile behaviour and/or child sexual abuse. It's best that readers make their own judgement. Tony Sandel

If you want to be a universal encyclopedia you have to include everything. The bad with the good. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise in ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.85.117 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. If this is a POV issue, should it not be discussed on the talk page rather than listed here? As someone said above, afd isn't a cleanup tool so there is no reason to list this here. Skinnyweed 13:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Watts (actor)

[edit]

NN actor. Does not meet WP:BIO. There is no listing for this actor on IMDB and no information on this actor on pages relating to either show. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollywood celebrity couples

[edit]

Unmaintainable list of no encyclopedic value; also inherently biased towards a US-centric worldview. If people want to stay up-to-date on who's sleeping in whose bed, they'd be better off visiting a celebrity gossip site. If people are interested in whom a particular celebrity is dating, they are more likely to find the correct information in that celebrity's own article. It's hard to see what other purpose this list serves.
On the systemic bias front, note that a similar page not restricted to Hollywood couples is also up for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Couples. — Haeleth Talk 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(oops sry about that!) --Rehcsif 19:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters by position on political issue

[edit]

This list is rather pointless and the size is virtually unlimited. This doesn't even reach the level of trivia and will almost certainly lead to endless debates over content. Aren't I Obscure? 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe just give it up as a bad idea. --Calton | Talk 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can judge these lists by content. If, from the entire canon of fiction, the first ten characters added are from bad TV Sci-Fi, its usually an idiotic list, and safe to delete. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Timeline

[edit]

This article is basically a POV fork of Category:Scientology, cherry-picking items favorable to Scientology ("1997-12 Thousands of Scientologists hold candles and demonstrate in front of Clearwater police headquarters, accusing police Chief Sid Klein of discriminating against Scientologists." -- why is this protest notable enough to make the timeline?) and slanting items in a notably pro-Scientology fashion ("the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association ... rejected [Hubbard's claimed "findings on the mind"] and later attempted to discredit his work and reputation." (emphasis added); "the High Court of Australia overturns Scientology ban, contributing greatly to the scope of religious freedom in that country.") At first I thought a timeline of the major events involving Scientology could be useful. After seeing this, however, I'm not sure it would even be possible to create an NPOV timeline. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Not sure if cleanup is a vote, but regardless this article does have some factual content. Instead of deleting it why not slap a POV tag on it and add information from the other point of view.--SomeStranger (T | C) 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleaning it up is what I started to do. But where would it end? When an article has a tight focus, editors from all sides might be able to reach agreement on which events are significant enough to merit discussion and which are not. Here, where the only requirement is "it involved Scientology and it can be tied to some rough span of time," there's nothing to prevent an arms race in which all sides add whatever incidents they feel support their cause, going into ever-more-intricate detail in order to counter what they'll see as over-representation of the other side. In the best-case scenario, all we'd wind up with is just a duplication of everything that's in all the other Scientology articles, rearranged chronologically. And the worst case is a never-ending POV-fork maelstrom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry, but AfD is not for content problems, and this does not appear to be a content fork of a category (I can't really imagine such a thing) or of anything else, although I'm not familiar with the Scientology-related articles. The timeline is probably encyclopedic, given the impact (for better or worse) that Scientology has; also, the first entry I picked at random was quite non-flattering ("Hubbard's wife and 10 other church staffers are convicted of conspiring to steal federal government documents and cover it up."). Cleanup is quite warranted, though. Normal editing practices ought to be able to determine what to include or not; if necessary, criteria need to be agreed upon.Sandstein 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Sandstein. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename for consistency with Timeline of Christianity- as you can see by that link, there is precedent for this sort of thing. I did notice some unflattering things here- legal disputes and whatnot aren't feelgood material. If it was written by User:Terryeo, who has a history of pushing pro-Scientology POV, I could understand the charge, but this was written by the author of Scientology History of Man (an article that, by the way, also desperately needs renaming), which the last time I looked at it leaned against Scientology views. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Yes, all the significant events could never fit in one article, but that doesn't stop it from including the most important. Plus, if it gets too large, we can always go to the summary + main article link format, maybe by decade. This could be interesting if fully wikified. --Davidstrauss 10:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but.... I think if the article is to ever be any good, the timeline should be restricted to MAJOR events, not an endless torrent of trivia like dates that various books were published (There are so many Scientology publications, this one aspect alone would make the article unacceptably long) or dates that various churches and missions were formed (ditto). Keep it to BIG news items like "L. Ron Hubbard dies" and "FBI investigates Guardian's Office". wikipediatrix 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Yeah it's just a goofy little "Hubbard wants to be a millionare" club, but still it's kinda notable, in a granola cereal sort of way. ;-) — RJH (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. --Golbez 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAKID

[edit]

The article on NAKID should be deleted. It is just an advertisement for a business to recruit members. "They" have been spamming the Kickball article repeatedly with external links to their website and they are now trying to get around this by linking Kickball to their NAKID article via the See also, where they put their external link there. Wikipedia has a policy against being used for business advertising and this article should be deleted. Also, they are not significant enough to warrant an article. They did not significantly impact the sport of kickball as WAKA did. Note: This AfD is created on behalf of User:204.149.192.90 by Henrik 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davison Design & Development

[edit]
    • How does this article differ from any company on Wiki, this seems fair to me.

This article reads like a pomotional piece for the company. Normally that could be changed without deletion. However, in this case I see no evidence of anything close to WP:CORP, so I am recommending delete. --Hetar 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Mirror Wars

[edit]

Fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete. Its been updated. AND JUST BECAUSE ITS FAN FICTION DOESNT MEAN IT'S MENT FOR DELETION! THIS IS A PAGE FOR Star Trek: Hidden Frontier isnt there? User:cjpwes

Dont Delete it because its non-notable. I mean, my hometown Elba, NY is in wikipedia, not very notable. You have a lot of non-notable stuff in wikipedia, I mean, come on. If you want this to be the best encyclopedia ever, then make sure you have everything you possible can, even if it is non-notable. And you may never know. Maybe it will be notable someday. Look at Star Trek Hidden Frontier, Stone Trek, ect... Usr:cjpwes

What are you people doing? One Star Trek Fan Fiction page gets posted, and YOU PUT ALL OF THEM UP FOR DELETION! I looked at the pages, they are all thier for deletion. I mean, they have been there for over a year without anyone noticing, but now that this article pops up, YOU HAVE TO DELETE IT? How horrible are you people. I hope the administration at wikipedia wont delete them just because morons like you dont feel that things that arnt "offical" should be deleted on the spot. GOD (forgive me)!


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted Computerjoe's talk 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New_Jersey_Drive

[edit]

What is this? There is nothing here that indicates any particular value or even what it is. If it is something it needs to be expanded greatly. God and a half 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian Works

[edit]

Apocrypha Discordia deserves an article, and it has one. This article just seems to be an advertizement for "Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht", which in my opinon, is not notable. Excluding Wikipedia.org as a domaing from a Google search, "Ek sen trik kuh Discordia" gets 51 Google hits, all of whom are from Discordian websites or Wikiepdia clones. [30] The full title of the book, "Ek sen trik kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht" gets about 7 hits outside of Wikipedia, and only 3 of those are not from Wikipedia clones/Wikisource, one of which is the book's website, the other two are Discordian websites. [31] This part of the article reads like a typical Discordian hoax. This has the typical hallmarks of a vanity article. The vast majority of the links are to the book's website, Geocities pages, and Newsgroup/message board posts.

I've ben obsessed with Discordianism for a long time and have never heard of this book until I found this Wikipedia article. "Discordian works" doesn't list any other works, other than the Apocrypha Discordia, which has it's own article. Almost every person I know who calls him/herself a "Discordian" has written his or her own plagarism of the Principia Discordia and released it as an e-book. I don't think they all need encyclopedic coverage. If the book is "controversial", why have I never heard of it and why does it only get about 40-50 Google hits?

"Whereas Apocrypha Discordia is a collection of pieces from various sources, most of the material in the Ek-sen-trik-kuh was created specifically for the work. The book claims its inspiration came from a dream-vision that featured Goddess Discordia, her sister Goddess Harmonia, and their daughter, the naked Cherub Princess Shamlicht, who had hundreds of monkeys flying out of her butt. These were actually Bonobo apes, who gave their tales to Loveshade to first digest, and then to 'spread them far and wide, for digested flying monkey tales make great fertilizer.'"

Eh, I think Discordians could be finding something better to do with their time than writing Wikipedia articles for their books, and I don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox for Discordian heresy! Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- I won't comment on reasons for keeping this article as I am obviously biased. I certainly hope it's kept, but if it's deleted, at least the deletion was initated by a Discordian with a sense of humor: "I don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox for Discordian heresy!" Nice touch. (All right, now someone can accuse me of buttering up Sinatra Fonzarelli. Go ahead. I double dare you.) Reverend Loveshade 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: See related AfD's:
- Fan1967 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for Eris. Dominick (TALK) 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to mostly be about Ek-sen-trik-uh, which was deleted for the above reasons already. Wickethewok 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- As I said above, I won't comment on keeping or deleting this article as I'm obviously biased. But in answer to the concern of Sinatra Fonzarelli and Wickethewok, I added a section on the finely-written Novus Ordo Discordia (no, I didn't write that work), so the article is no longer about just one or two Discordian Works. Reverend Loveshade 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- And it now has a section on Summa Universalia as well. IamthatIam 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Warning: This might be considered a personal attack. Wickethewok seems to like voting to delete articles and has gotten some not-so-favorable reactions from several people here. And before this editor says it, I haven't written a lot here, so maybe my article should be deleted for that reason alone--as someone else said, Newcomers aren't to be trusted. But before you make a judgement, check out the discussions on Wickethewok's User Page and look for Wickethewok's contributions and people's reactions to them. IamthatIam 00:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The article is intended for Discordian works that do not have their own article. It originally had a section on the second Apocrypha Discordia and Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht. The section on the second version, compiled by Rev. DrJon Swabey, was removed on 24 May when hte article on that work was kept. [32] It is intended that sections on other Discordian works that don't have their own article be added here. This hasn't happened yet except for those two works, but is already being worked on.
As to the importance of Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht, some of it's material was in a work called Apocrypha Discordia years before Rev. DrJon Swabey's collection. The name was changed to Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia a few months ago, and The Tales of Shamlicht subtitle was just added about a month ago. That's why it doesn't appear in more search hits.
"Five Blind Men and an Elephant" appears in the Non-Existent Apocrypha Discordia, Swabey's collection Apocrypha Discordia (this main page lists both Reverend Loveshade/Rev. Loveshade and his version of the A.D. and has a link to parts of it posted several years ago), Apocrypha Diskordia (German version), Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht, The 23 Apples of Eris (one of the most famous Discordian sites, which is planning to add an entire subdomain for the E.D.:TTOS, and Wikisource which also mentions the Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht.
  • Comment- I fixed the 23 Apples of Eris link. The site has been rebuilt in the last week, and the story has just been fixed and reposted, so this is the new link. (And yes, I am new here--that's why I'm not posting an opinion. I know that on Wikipedia newcomers aren't allowed to have opinions). Rev. Bootie 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Here's the link to where Prince Mu-Chao made his comments about hosting the E.D. [33] It's in Orbita Dicta 15 on that page, but I don't know how to link directly to that entry. But it's on the page. And remember, I'm a newcomer so you can ignore all my comments as worthless. That's why I'm not making comments on this article, only fixing links. Rev. Bootie 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E.D.:TTOS is also notable for the legal problems that involved a seizure by the FBI--or as some would claim for a continuing hoax of legal problems that's been going on since shortly after the terrorist attack on the United States since 2001. Binky The WonderSkull 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I checked the discussion on keeping or deleting the article on Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia (which I fully admit I wrote with Gerina--but I did not write this article). There were 13 Deletes and 8 Keeps. But many of those Deletes were primarily because the article focused a great deal on the legal problems of the group, which some people thought was a hoax. This article only has a brief section on the legal problems, and mentions that some people think it's a hoax.
And remember, this article is not intended to be just about Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht. It's intended to be about Discordian Works. Anybody is free to add info about other Discordian works. Binky The WonderSkull 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Apocrypha Discordia. Half the online hits for Apocrypha Discordia are for Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia because that was its original name until recently. And some of the stuff in the newer Apocrypha are from Ek-sen-trik-kuh anyway. Besides this article is for Discordian Works anyway, not just one. JennyGirl 20:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the title just got changed, of course it won't show up in links. If you search for Apocrypha Discordia you get both DrJon's and Loveshade's works. MSN had 732 hits for "reverend loveshade" and Google had 655. The ones I checked all talked about the book but under different names--Apocrypha Discordia, Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, and a few for Tales of Shamlicht. "rev drjon swabey" on MSN got 810 and Google gave 791 but 7 or 8 of the top 10 on both also talked about Reverend Loveshade. On Google the top two hits for DrJon were written by Reverend Loveshade!
There was a big discussion here a couple months ago and people agreed we needed an article. So where are those people now? But we do need stuff about other Discordian Works. Otherwise this might as well be called Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. MRN 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which was deleted already. Fan1967 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article that was just about Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia was deleted were as stated above--some people felt that it didn't deserve its own article/others did--the split on that issue leaned toward keeping the article. The other issue, the one that killed the article, was that some felt that the legal problems were a hoax/a few did not. The hoaxers outvoted the non-hoaxers, and it was deleted.

This article addresses both those things. First, the legal problems have been posted online since 2001 (the dateline on the links proves that; as someone said in their addition, this is admissible as evidence in international court, so it should count here). But if a hoax, an old hoax is still a hoax. This article says the claims of the legal problems have been made since then and may be a hoax, which is fact according to Wikipedia's guidelines. While that was a major part of the original article, it's relatively minor here.

Second, this is not an article about just Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia; it's about Discordian Works. There's a whole list of them, which could each have their own section. If they get big enough for their own article, they could each have their own article. Anyone can add something about whatever Discordian Work they chose--that's the point of this article. Should we delete this before they have a chance to add them? IamthatIam 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the original version of this article, it talked about two works in detail, the two Apocrypha Discordias, one of which still has that name. A lot of the hits for Apocrypha Discordia (which were used to justify keeping that article) actually refer to an earlier version of Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, which as somebody said was first called that just a few months ago, and The Tales of Shamlicht was added only a couple weeks ago, so of course it doesn't appear in many hits. (If you notice, the article that was deleted doesn't even include that subtitle).

Check the links listed in this article and you'll see that a lot of the hits for Apocrypha Discordia are for the early version of this work, which became Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. In fact, Rev. DrJon Swabey, who compiled the Apocrypha Discordia that still has that name, recognized that Reverend Loveshade had his own version of Apocrypha Discordia[34] (which became Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia) [35]. Check your Google hits and you'll see many more. Note also that in DrJon's argument to keep the article on his collection, he recognized Reverend Loveshade's Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia site as a major Discordian site.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha Discordia

There is now a section in this article about Novus Ordo Discordia, and about Summa Universalia, so the article isn't just about two works.

  • Keep - For the reasons stated above. IamthatIam 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would have said Merge with Apocrypha Discordia, but since they posted this article has been expanded to talk about three Discordian works. MRN 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite some comments to the contrary, this article is about general Discordian works which do not have their own wiki entries. The explosion of Discordian Tracts is most certainly a notable recent development in Discordianism. The article is useful. Drjon 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reasons for suggesting a deletion have already been answered and corrected. I've taken the liberty of putting a Merge suggestion on the article A Discordian Coloring Book. It's been a stub since it was created, which is not surprising--how much can you write about a coloring book? But adding that article here would solve the stub problem with that article, and would expand this one to include an additional work. I think it's a great solution--but I know somebody will probably disagree with me. IamthatIam 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Franks

[edit]

I'm not quite sure if this person even existed. IMDB has no mention of an actress by this name in its listing for the shows she is credited with. She also does not turn up on Google. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally it was "Alyssa Franks was played by Stacy" until I changed it here. However she might have been on Movin & Grovin and Barney ABC. Either way who cares, it's still a delete as non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Montgomery

[edit]

NN actor. Does not live up to WP:BIO. He has appeared in three films (two of them in bit parts, the other is a role in an independent film). There appears to be no biographical information, except for his date and place of birth, anywhere online. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Nalbandian

[edit]

NN actor. Fails WP:BIO. Has played bit parts in a number of movies. Some of his most memorable roles include Salesman at Surveilance Convention, Butcher Shop Customer and Lodge Member. Certainly not a keeper here! Besides his birth date and place of birth little biographical information appears to exist. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van

[edit]

Vanity nonsense FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. I'm disturbed by the possibility that this discussion may have been influenced by recruitment and the presence of people associated with the company, but the article does seem to be considered keep-worthy in its present state. I assume the nominator's threat to take me to arbitration if I closed as keep is nullified by his later 'keep' opinion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppetry and vote manipulation

I suspect that User:Frogcat is a sockpuppet; the very first entry in this user's edit list is for Laserfiche. Edit here. Too much of a coincidence. If the vote for deletion results in keep, I will be asking for arbitration due to vote rigging. Alex 10:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laserfiche

[edit]

2nd nominate (last March 11 2006) non-notable compnay, advert Alex 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Feb 23, 2006 Computerworld columnist blurb
      • Founder interviewed on team-building uses for IT.
        • Response I mentioned this article when looking for recent press, and I thought Computerworld was a reputable publication. I suppose it's not really about details of the company, but in a way, a reputable magazine quoting an influential person kind of implies a certain notability, no? --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sept 15, 2005 CIO magazine
      • document management system purchased by Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
        • Response So... somehow you say "Okay, one army unit was using their product." and now CIO magazine talks about the Iraqi Ministry using Laserfiche, and somehow that's not as notable? Seems even more notable IMHO. --Docmgmt 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the article fails WP:CORP. Tychocat 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also note your dedication to keeping the article in WP, and your side-stepping the question of whether you're an employee or owner of the firm. Most of your references are catalog listings, I will not quibble po-tay-to/po-tah-to on how a "product bulletin" is different. Congratulations on the Iraqi sale, the whole country is a windfall for American contractors, innit? Frankly, I see more of an article about your founder than the company, she may be notable. Tychocat 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Boy, they're right when they say finding a good source may require some effort... Okay, here's some more evidence regarding Wikipedia:Notability (software) I have selected items that seem to fit this criteria --Docmgmt 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine. A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient; for publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed."
    • Google books search] revealed mentions such as:
    • Attract and Retain the Affluent Investor: Winning Tactics for Today's Financial Advisor - Page 133. by Stephen D Gresham, Evan Cooper - Business & Economics - 2001 - 224 pages ... optical storage facilities), scanners, and document imaging software (some of the providers are Laserfiche by Compulink, OnBase by Hyland Software, ...
    • Sci-Tech Libraries of the Future - Page 165 Language Arts & Disciplines - 1992 - 238 pages ... LaserFiche LAN can store document images and be integrated into a Novell network. The system handles computer files, paper documents, ...
    • Integrative Document & Content Management: Strategies for Exploiting Enterprise Knowledge - Page 516 by Len Asprey - Business & Economics - 2003 - 527 pages ... LaserFiche United http://www. ...
    • Run It Like a Business: Top Financial Planners Weigh in on Practice Management - Page 35 by Richard J Koreto - Business & Economics - 2004 - 243 pages However, she was able to team up with LaserFiche, which not only provides the technology necessary for high-speed, accurate scanning but promises to do so ...
    • Winning Clients in a Wired World: Seven Strategies for Growing Your Business Using Technology and... - Page 211 by Kip Gregory - Business & Economics - 2004 - 288 pages Sorry, this page's content is restricted.


  • Keep I am an employee of Laserfiche. I've been watching the drama unfold. So my 2 cents may be biased. Laserfiche is a not well know consumer brand but it is well known within the industry. Many installations do not get public coverage because document management is not sexy. BTW, the Iraqi deal was sold though a foreign contractor (not US). One of our larger customers is the the 'social security' of Saudi Arabi. It is a distributed system covering different cities connected to a main system in Riyadh (over a bad internet connection). Another interesting application is in US Congress where mail was converted electronically because of Anthrax scare. For what it's worth, CIA (can't say what they are using it for--but they do pay for support and I have been involved with their support incident;) We do have a tens of thousands of government installations (small towns, cities, counties, parashes all over the US) helping local government go paperless and publish documents online. A lot of installations all over branches of the military. I'm sure all this can be independantly verified if you google it (but I don't have time for this). I'm not here to start an argument just posting information in good faith. Employee 12:46PST, 9 June 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.70.34.233 (talk • contribs)
    • Question - your IP address is from the same block as user Docmgmt; a quick browse of the history of both the Laserfiche page and this page confirms that (all from 64.70.34.2xx). This tends towards WP:AUTO, specifically "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." It's difficult to write an article that's WP:NPOV from this position. Alex 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd add to my vote to delete, on the grounds of notability, that it's advertising (down to catalog listings), and by the devotion of employees/the owner it also looks like a vanity page. Tychocat 11:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye - I never much cared for those who write articles about the companies they work for, though sometimes I have seen cases of employers asking their employees to write articles for them on Wikipedia. Could be one of those cases too. Wickethewok 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • please read the guidelines for notability Boy, I sure am sorry I've managed to piss you off. I thought I was helping by showing how Laserfiche follows the guidelines for inclusion for corporations. And it follows the guidelines for notability for software. For people like Tychocat or Alex I notice you've never before been involved on a deletion for either a corporation nor for software. Since I wouldn't want to think you work for a competitor and have a grudge against Laserfiche due to its notability in the document management or document imaging industries, I have in good faith been trying to demonstrate how the article actually follows both Wikipedia:Notability (software) and WP:CORP by showing a long list of non-trivial third party references. As stated in both those links. Perhaps if you had been involved in more deletions of either software or of corporations I wouldn't be feeling suspicious. Why do I get the feeling that the more I try to provide evidence that the article follows the guideline for inclusion, the less it seems to matter? --Docmgmt 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not particularly concerned that you're "pissed off"; my only concern is (and was, see below) that the article at the point where I nominated it for deletion did not meet the criteria for inclusion. I do not work for a competitor of LaserFiche. Also note that this looks and feels like a vanity page. I do, however, commend you on attempting to justify inclusion on the grounds of notability, and the research you have undertaken. My voice is just one amongst many. Alex 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh yes, regarding the autobiography issue. There used to exist an article on Laserfiche here on wikipedia that Alex nominated for deletion back in March. (The only article he's ever nominated for deletion BTW) I took a look at this article through one of the wikipedia mirrors, and I suspect this article was written by one of our resellers, who are independent companies that are involved in integrating solutions for clients. I didn't know about any of this and so when I learned that we had an article, and it had been deleted, I set out to create a NPOV, independently verifiable article with no original research. Its one thing to edit the earlier article, to conform to wikipedia policy, but as it no longer existed, I felt that I could commit this faux pas to preserve a listing of a notable software product, and a notable company (as defined by the earlier mentioned policies/guidelines). I hope I can persuade others to see things this way, and I thank you for you time and understanding. --Docmgmt 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suspicion of a reseller being the original author of the deleted article is immaterial to the current request for deletion. Your suggestion that I have nominated LaserFiche for deletion twice out of some implied spitefulness or maliciousness is without justification. The original article was very non-WP:NPOV and was a straight advert without merit, as was this article. I have not nominated any other articles for deletion because I have not found them to be so obviously in breach of Wikipedia policies.
    • For your references via Google books search, please note that none of these articles or books appears to be specifically about the software Wikipedia:Notability (software), nor "company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). This would exclude press-releases, which are two a penny.
    • You have now answered the question about your status; you are an employee of LaserFiche. Is "Employee" above with the "keep" vote a sockpuppet? Alex 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he only has one other edit, so my guess would be yes. Or else its a different person from the same company. Also, whats up with that vote from User:Frogcat? That guy hasn't made any edits in 2 years, and then comes back just to vote in this? WTF?Wickethewok 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey! I was trying to add to the discussion. This is degenerating from a serious discussion to just personal attacks FROM BOTH SIDE. "Employee" 1:47 PST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.240.224 (talk • contribs)
  • I tend to agree, but your opinion would count for more if you were to create a userid and sign in; the IP address does not match the block from LaserFiche (it's now 71.105.240.224). It's difficult to work out if you are the same person, User:Frogcat, or a sockpuppet, or just a whatever. Creating an account is a matter of minutes. The discussion here is about whether the article meets the criteria of WP:NPOV Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and Wikipedia:Notability (software). I contend that it does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) in its current form. Additionally, statements such as "when a client, a large Japanese auto manufacturer, underwent a class-action lawsuit. At the time, paralegals had to wade through thousands of pages of depositions" are uncited and unverifiable. All in all, this article advertising LaserFiche is beginning to fall foul of several criteria over and above the original complaint. Alex 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • umm, actually, that info can be verified by third party publications. Perhaps I didn't format the article where every sentence has a footnote (and if necessary, am willing to do so) but the NAWBO article mentions this, and I believe its mentioned in the AIIM article and maybe the Krakau article. --Docmgmt 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • just out of curiosity, is there anything that can be done to demonstrate that this article should be included in wikipedia? I mean, is there a certain length of story that would make you feel the third party reference is notable? Is there a certain circulation size that would make you think the third party reference is notable? I mean, let's be reasonable here. Does the mere presence of an entry written by an employee make the article deletable, with no consideration of attempts to ensure the article is NPOV, verifiable or notabile? Are there any circumstances under which the article could be edited to satsfy you feeling that Laserfiche could be listed in wikipedia? I.e. If you feel that certain sentences are unverified, or biased, could those sentences be removed, and make you feel that, finally, the article should remain? Please let me know under what circumstances you'd be satisfied that this document management software company would qualify for inclusion. Thank you --Docmgmt 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) carefully and point out which entries in the list of references you have provided meets the criteria. As you are the editor of the article, it is your responsibility to provide this information. I have read the references and remain to be convinced that they support your contention. Press releases and reprints of them are specifically excluded, and do not support your case.
  • The information you added to Laserfiche that I marked as uncited and unverifiable remains so. For instance, the NAWBO article nor the AIIM article does not support the statements you made, and you may wish to correct them in line with it. Nowhere do they say that a client, a large Japanese auto manufacturer, underwent a class-action lawsuit. It is your responsibility to make sure that the sources are quoted accurately, otherwise other editors may simply remove them as they appear to be unverifiable (or, as in this case, verifiably incorrect). Alex 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is bizarre You say there's no justification for suggesting you're acting spitefully or maliciously, but ...?!?! Let me quote from the NAWBO article, paragraph 3: "Her vision began to take shape in 1981, while Wacker was conducting a study for one of the major Japanese automakers. American Honda engaged her to design a system to help manage documents, primarily for litigation support. By the time she finished the project requirement analysis, it was clear that the current technology was unable to handle large document volumes cost-effectively." Let me quote from the AIIM article (see the 8th question) "e-doc: Right around then is when you started Laserfiche. Wacker: In 1981, we were doing a study for one of the Japanese auto companies to design a system to help them manage their documents, primarily for litigation support. " --Docmgmt 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP article you wrote says quite clearly that a client, a large Japanese auto manufacturer, underwent a class-action lawsuit. That is not what either of these articles says. Who underwent a class-action lawsuit? Not Honda, according to these articles. Please cite your sources for this statement. Other statements in the same paragraph are equally not verifiable. Alex 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I get it. Although it mentions that in 1981 Honda hired a software company to provide "litigation support" involving large numbers of documents and attorneys, it doesn't explicitly say the words "class-action lawsuit." I suppose the class-action lawsuit is a public document, and hence can be cited, is that what you think should be done to ensure that the article should remain on wikipedia? --Docmgmt 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • how can we resolve this dispute? Are you taking the position that any article about a private software company that was initially written by an employee should be deleted? That regardless of any considerations of NPOV, verifiability or notability, there can be no keeping such an article? Please let me know if there are any circumstances that you'd be satisfied that this document management software company would qualify for inclusion. --Docmgmt 14:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with WP:AUTO as long as WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability are adhered to. These are not criteria for deletion, but for correction. I will transfer these issues to the Laserfiche talk page so you can focus on the issue in hand.
This dispute is over Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and the consequent request; Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Notability and the avoidance of advertising or vanity pages is the issue. I would recommend that you raise this article for Wikipedia:Mediation should the article be deleted as a result of this deletion request. However, you have not helped your case by having a keep vote by an employee, and another by a possible sockpuppet. Alex 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the issue is Notability and the avoidance of advertising or vanity pages, what burden of proof do you require to satisfy these concerns? For example, let's start with "non-trivial." Since it seems that the links I've provided to show that the company has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself," do not seem to fit your criteria of "non-trivial," could you perhaps help provide some criteria that you use to determine if a work is trivial or not? It's OK if your criteria are extremely strict, I just want to make sure I am not wasting your time by providing links that don't meet your criteria. --Docmgmt 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Docmgmt asked me to enter my opinion on this AFD [36]. After reading this discussion (with the exception of checking all the external references), I felt that this debate could really go either way. I hate to base a decision on the Google Test, but in this case it became the deciding factor. In a Google search for document management [37], Laserfiche comes up as #4. In my opinion, if Document Management has a Wikipedia article, and the fourth listed company in search engine results for that topic has someone willing to write an encyclopedic article about it, then it is helping Wikipedia and not hurting it. What we really need to worry about is the linkspam coming from companies listed much, much lower and linking directly from the article itself using common search keywords. I vote Keep. -- Renesis13 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep notwithstanding the sockpuppetry. The article is now much better researched; is no longer POV and meets (if only just) the criteria for notability imho. Alex 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Curry

[edit]

Completing incomplete afd nomination from User:165.189.91.148. Edit summary consists of "afd -- A7 vanity, unreferenced (supplied link is an unvetted press release written by subject), grandiose claims, spamming multiple articles." Ricky81682 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless some serious sources can be produced. IMDB has never heard of him, his feature, or the Lenny Kravitz documentary. Fan1967 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong delete I heavily edited the article and have been pestering the creator to defend it. I think the films are real based on the external link I added (which meets WP:V for "Self-published sources in articles about themselves"), but I don't think he or his movies are notable enough to merit keeping the article.--Chaser (T) 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm entering this keep vote on behalf of the page's creator, curiously named Doctorcreator, on account of his comments on this article and his own talk pages and his indication in the article that Curry was the first Bahamian filmmaker. I'm not sure about casting a vote on his behalf, and I'd welcome comments from the closing admin about whether it's proper to do so. For full disclosure, I will note that he has less than 20 edits, all of them related to this page or variations. --Chaser (T) 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a reply email. He's working with this guy on films. I'm changing the strength of my vote. --Chaser T 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is lacking, and apparently a vanity page (from comment above). Equendil Talk 06:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect since it's a valid search term. Richardcavell 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space mutants

[edit]

I feel kinda bad nominating this one, as it's obviously a "Wikipedia for Kids" kind of moment. But it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Maybe one day we can have a 13-and-under Wikipedia so we don't have to feel like the Grinch? ;-) — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete both. Proto||type 09:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendogs lists

[edit]

This includes:

Contextless lists of objects in a video game. Possibly suited to GameFAQs, but certainly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Chaser T 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Baron

[edit]

Strong Delete non notable individual, vanity article. Violates WP:VAIN WP:BIO WP:NN WP:VERIFY Strothra 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable as creator and producer of Rocketboom. My assertion, of course, being that Rocketboom is plenty notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rocketboom for that discussion. The short version is that it receives more than a little media attention [38][39][40]. Also, I don't believe that this article qualifies as vanity. So far as I can tell, the subject has not been involved in the creation or editing of the article. ScottW 02:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons, and that Andrew Baron will feature in the future history of "vlogs". Gordo 10:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many citations and references have now been added. I agree that Baron will be remembered as one of the important pioneers in Internet history. Researched and written by me, so not vanity. The Rocketboom people are so busy making their first million they certainly don't have time to hang out on Wikipedia. Pepso 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep With the recent boom in popularity for Rocketboom, someone who's this involved is most definitely notable. As for WP:VAIN, I don't see any conflict of interest with any of the major editors; the burden to prove vanity is on you. WP:BIO: look at the references, they're pretty big sources. WP:NN: that's sort of redundant with the other accusations you've made. WP:VERIFY: once again, look at the references and external links; they're all pretty big and reliable. Jesuschex 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Mailer diablo. - Richardcavell 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booty snatching

[edit]

Funny (love the history section), but very, very nonencyclopedic. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and BJAODN...Which is why I put a speedy tag on it as vandalism. This is a "non-criterion" on WP:CSD, but is obviously "something come up with at school one day" and WP:BOLLOCKS. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WAvegetarian. Sadly, nobody will benefit from this information, hard-won as it apparently was by "one of the leading authorities on high school partying in the area." -- Docether 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy) per nom Optimale Gu 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - close, but WP:V is non-negotiable - sorry - even if he did meet WP:BIO, which has not been established. All links are blogs, apart from the Wired article, which is misleadingly titled in its link, and is not about Chuck Olsen. Proto||type 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Olsen

[edit]

Strong Delete non notable individual. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Vanity Article see WP:VAIN. Notability not established in article. Unencyclopedic content. Strothra 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, I've been unsure of this one since it was created. Olsen doesn't have notability from being covered by the mainstream media, and this article doesn't particularly do anything to establish other notability for him (note that the interview in Wired is nothing more than a one sentence quote). However, so far as bloggers go, he is well known. Ultimately, though, I guess he doesn't meet WP:BIO at this point (although I don't believe this article is vanity). So, unless someone can state a good argument for keeping this one, I say delete. ScottW 10:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction The Wired article contains more than just a one line quote from Olsen. There actually is a little more content involving him toward the end. Its title under External Links is still a bit misleading though. ScottW 10:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chuck is actually a well-known online storyteller in Minnesota. He has received lots of regional news coverage there, and his Minnesota Stories project is cited regularly in journalism circles as a best-practice example of community-oriented citizen journalism. I think it would be a shame to see him deleted just because he's not as well known in other parts of the US or the world. Acarvin 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you provide links to these citations? Maybe something outside of a blog? Specifically, can you show that Olsen meets the guidelines under WP:BIO? I'm open to changing my opinion if you can do that. ScottW 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's absolutely no proof give to your claims. Please see WP:VERIFY. --Strothra 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Mailer diablo. - Richardcavell 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel McIntyre

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Proto||type 09:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desire lines

[edit]

This has been transwikied per talk page and is unlikely to develop further from its current state of semi-expanded dic def. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)...so merge as below—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Author requested deletion. Mak (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Managesturbation

[edit]

Protologism, original research: Google shows no hits at all. -- The Anome 20:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page per this discussion.--67.190.190.226 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Was not logged in.--Briantemple 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content but page is still present. Somebody with the power, please delete page.--Briantemple 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 09:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Plecnik

[edit]

Not sure of this person's notability NawlinWiki 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.150.177 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 09:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artists In Exile

[edit]

Delete-Article is about a relatively new band. There is a claim to notability in the article, but it is not enough for WP:BAND to have a chance encounter with Bono. I also don't see any google hits for anything besides their website.Gershwinrb 21:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam --Bachrach44 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this might be a hoax actually - the phrase "Artists In Exile" is too common for a Google search to be of any use but their supposedly notable song "Trodden On" (by "The Soles"? Anyone else catching an aroma of fish?) produces nothing, and neither does "The Travelling Soles". Ac@osr 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "Artists In Exile" website that come us on a Google search has nothing to do with this band, unless it turns up 12 pages in, as I'd given up by then. {{Ac@osr 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't notice that. Then it would appear that they have a website (linked in article) that isn't high traffic enough to appear on google, or something along those lines, which further enforces my belief that they aren't notable. Gershwinrb 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not a hoax then but if the name of your group takes well over 100 GHits before coming up with reference to yourself, well....Ac@osr 07:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The band name was changed this week - however their singer, Din Yalonen is a nationally published and recognized Columnist and Artist who works and sells in Canada. As well as the band... which highest Charting was # 13 at Guelph University Radio - however, this is the biggest indie sation in Canada... Type in Din Yalonen in Yahoo and you get many hits right way. However, this discussion is understandable. Din is not huge, but is certainly notable.
  • Comment - It would seem the entry should be 'Din Yalonen' or "Din Yalonen & the Artists In Exile"
  • Spelling error & Update - Jason Collette should be Jason Collett - Greg Keelor SHOULD be in Wikipedia - he is Jim Cuddy's equal in the band
  • Comment - Here's the GHits for "Din Yalonen" [41]. Here's the Ghits for "Din Yalonen" "Artists In Exile".[42]. It's up to the admin I guess. Ac@osr 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon Waits

[edit]

This page appears to be a vanity page. While a search of Amazon reveals she has indeed published a book, that alone would not make one noteworthy. Millions of books have been published by millions of people. They don't all rate a page on Wikipedia. Nothing about her beyond self-promotion seems noteworthy. The links to the various press releases are links to services that contract press releases from small businesses. Again, they all appear self-aggrandizing. Hebron 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Please don't count me twice for deletion as I am the originator of the AfD nomination, but Ms Woodbury, a google search of your name and email address reveals your email address as being "yourfirstname@arhiannonwaitscompany.com", so I seriously doubt you have a neutral interest in this article. If the person you seek to promote is indeed noteworthy, write the article as such. As written, it appears more and more to be as Caliga10 wrote, an article where "Ms. Waits herself edited Wikipedia, or at the very least a friend/employee of hers." Since you apparently work for Ms Waits, you are actually in a far better position than any of us to show why she is notable. But you haven't done that. If Ms Waits is noteworthy enough to be included in wikipedia, please tell us why. Please give wikipedia users something other than links to a bunch of sites owned, leased or sanctioned by Ms. Waits. Hebron 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links at the bottom of the page are not all owned, leased or sanctioned by her company. Google is not by her company either. I am trying to add links to magazines, shows and publications to show this. If you look at the magazines you will find they print her work. The show clearly has a link. There are links to everything. We didn't want to just list her as a psychic because she is alot more. I also put links to a few shows she has spoken at. Remember these are deleted off after a period of time and not all shows advertise online.
  • I am trying to show reasons. I need input instead of insults.(E-mail I have received). I have been accused of harrassment, insulting, being rude, stupid, uneducated etc. I have been accused of being Rhiannon and advertisement. All because I am trying to put bios of people that appeal to New Age and spiritual groups. Rhiannon really is not just New Age but these group seems to be drawn to her more so than others. Can we not just be nice and try to get this edited to suit everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelleWoodbury (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Although at present this article does look like self-promotion and needs to be cleaned up, I do feel it should be given the benefit of the doubt and as it does have some minority interest. - Solar 09:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit - User:MichaelleWoodbury actually emailed me, stating: "Why are you trying to go along with deletion of Rhiannon Waits? I am not Ms. Waits I am Michaelle Woodbury. I am adding New Age bio's since this place seems to be lacking them. I am not trying to be confrontational but I how can this be a vanity page? If it was vanity it would be THE MICHAELLE WOODBURY PAGE" Now, I've been trying to guide her in the correct direction and assist in the cleanup of the article, but I consider emailing me like that harassment. Funny thing is, Outlook thought it was spam. If she had been making some effort to cleanup the article, then I would gladly vote keep. That hasn't happened and it isn't going to happen at this rate, and nobody else cares enough about Rhiannon Waits to do it, either. :/ --Disavian 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "Why would you consider me writing you harrassment? It has a button to e-mail you. I stated I am not trying to be confrontational - and I have appreciated your help. I was addressing why this should be call a vanity page. It was a question over comments made on this. I have never tried to harrass or be rude to you. I am sorry if you feel this way - but I am not being rude by asking questions of someone I consider more in the know of what is going on. Sorry you feel harrassed Michaelle" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelleWoodbury (talk • contribs)
Annoyed Answer: it's called a talk page. USE IT. Can anyone help me clarify this for her? We don't email other editors about articles, we talk to them... on their talk page. While it is not required, it's also reccomended that you use proper grammar.
Calmer, more detailed answer: the places where you would discuss Rhiannon Waits would be my talk page, your talk page, and the article's talk page... and possibly here. At this point, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees you are not Rhiannon Waits. However, you are too close to her to present an unbiased viewpoint, something we value greatly. It would be prudent if you took time to read wikipedia's policies that I pointed out on your talk page. If nothing else, reading that would help you understand why this article is up for deletion. --Disavian 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misc: There's an "email this user" feature? Guess so. *disables it* --Disavian 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless the author can find a reputable source to support notability. I couldn't find any substance in related web pages, and IMHO other Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to do all the work in removing puff and bias (one problem being that the existence of psychic phenomena is of course POV and so notability cannot be based on that alone). I would have said keep as a single-para article if it weren't irredeemably promotional (and apparently written by the subject's office staff [43]). Keeping this would set a bad precedent. --Cedderstk 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I dont think any article regarding Rhiannon Waits should be deletedAthena louise 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC) athena[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia does cover notable New Age authors, certainly - the difference is that I've heard of 4 of the 5 people you mention or their work; plus the pages about them were not generally started by people with a vested interest or partiality in the subject matter, as can be seen from the balanced style most are (I hope) written in. Links might be useful in supporting notability, at least if they are to well-known print publications (such as newspapers) reporting on or reviewing the subject. PR releases just clutter the web with needless verbiage that few take seriously, and have made it very hard for me to extract any relevant factual information about the subject. To put it bluntly, it currently looks like one big publicity bubble with little content, at least none of general interest. WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN remain relevant here. --Cedderstk 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets see if I can make research easier for you.

[Dr. Emoto - Gary Null] [Dannion Brinkley] I am a fan club admin for Toby Keith not an employee. Same with Rhiannon. So I need to delete mine and get my mom who doesn't know her to write it? I also Volunteered for Richard Sutphens Seminar - should I not write about him either? Michaelle 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)MichaelleMichaelle 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wrote the following in a good faith effort to provide some suggestions to you, but was prevented from saving it due to and edit conflict... you had just written your comments above during the time I was editing mine. After reading what looks like a sarcastic retort on your part, I'm only going to continue leave these suggestions as a matter of continued good faith in the hopes you weren't being facetious, but were rather serious. Sarcasm really won't get you anywhere. Please keep that in mind when you write to a discussion page. Anyway, my original comments where as follows: It does not help or lend credibility to your argument that you work for Ms Waits, and that a new wikipedian has logged on to lend support to your cause under the name "Athena Louise", a name that also appears under one of Ms Waits websites as being the pseudonym of a friend of hers, a Ms Barbara Melit.[44] It leaves other wikipedians (in my opinion) looking at this like it is a publicity campaign, along with all the contracted press releases. My suggestion to you is to follow the old adage "less is more". Example, Kevin Sites is a journalist known by millions of people around the world for his blog and his prominence on Yahoo's website. Yet take a look at his page here on wikipedia... it's not even a full page long. The more "fluff" and unsourced claims you put in this article, the more you link to magazines most of us have never heard of, the more it appears you are trying to make someone seem famous that really isn't. My advice, and it's only my opinion, is to trim the article down to something smaller and well written. Leave a link to her homepage, and put all the magazine links there. I say all this, but even with improvement, the article may be better written and not appear as a publicity stunt, but it still lacks any indication of notoriety. I've thought about this... what is notoriety. The best answer I can give you is not to list what she has written, but rather include what others have written about her. Tolstoy and Asimov may have been among the most prolific authors of all time, but what makes them truly notable is only partly based on what they wrote... the rest is based on what others have written about them. Hebron 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW THANK YOU!! and noooo I am not being sarcastic. I truly appreciate the constructive advice. YOU have actually gave me advice. See, I was trying to add more because it seemed others said I showed little reason for her notability. So I just kept on adding. So you think shrinking it down will work? ((HUGS)) - Sorry I have been looking for a kind person to give advice instead of slurs - THANK YOU THANK YOUMichaelle 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLEMichaelle 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Also I wrote in one of my comments that Barbara Melit and I were writing these bios. I have never tried to hide my real name or e-mail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelleWoodbury (talk • contribs) [reply]

  • Comment I'm not saying shortening it will get it accepted, I'm saying unsubstantiated fluff will not. Again, the important thing that would add the most legitimacy to her is what other people have written about her, not what she has written about herself. This again is only my opinion... I've only been editing at wikipedia a few months myself (though I've been referencing it for a year or two!) I won't be on here for a few days, as I am going to Pensacola myself, so let me wish you good luck! Hebron 00:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link The thing is - Rhiannon doesn't write about herself. That is one of the things everyone likes about her. Barb hates this and she is a friend of Rhiannon's. Here is a link to Dannion Brinkleys agent - Mel Minitor and he is the head of Lightstream Productions. You can e-mail him and ask him - yet he put these up.
Why don't you go meet her while you are in Pensacola. Steve is retired Navy and Barb says they plan on living there. http://www.lightstreamers.com/Rhiannon_Testimonials.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelleWoodbury (talk • contribs)
Further comment Thanks for the links above to www.thewowfest.com [45] and www.lightstreamers.com, which are the most objective things I've seen about the subject, and support appearing at the same conference as David Icke. However, this subject falls below the strict threshold for notability and, given the nature of the significant claims, verifiability. That which is verifiable (say, existence of an online radio show) isn't sufficiently notable. --Cedderstk 09:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Show Ad [[46]] [[47]] 68.1.122.211 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE68.1.122.211 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Answer to "Further Comment" -

The show is aired in Washington - yet also online.Even ABC is airing a TV show online now. You asked for proof of an author - I gave you 2 books and a CD. You asked for proof she is a syndicated columnist. I gave links and proof. You asked proof that she is a motivational Speaker. I gave links, proof and names of owners of several shows. You asked for proof that she works in the same group as people on here. I gave proof and links. You asked to see things writen by OTHERS. I gave you links. You said Prove she is a psychic. I sent you links and I offered numbers to people that validated her predictions while she was on stage.You asked I edit the page. I did and still am. One says add more links - another says shorten. I am thankful for all suggestions. The nice ones for sure. I have tried e-mailing others as I was - and was accused of harrasment even though I was not rude. I have asked for suggestions. What is next? You will not contact me for phone numbers or e-mails. What do I do next? 68.1.122.211 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE68.1.122.211 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to make a statement. I am not Dannion Brinkley's manager. I did work with him for over 20 years. His wife has been his manager the past couple of years. We at LightStream no longer work with Dannion nor his wife! The information posted on our site about Dannion, was given to us by Dannion or his wife and is there for information purposes only!

I, and LightStream Productions has worked with Rhiannon since 2003. The comments I made about Rhiannon Waits on our site and in her book, are my experiences with her, and are true and I stand by by what I wrote. I will put her ability up against anyone!! If anyone has a question, you may email me directly!! It is absurd to think Rhiannon wrote my testimonial nor do I appreciate anyone making such claims without checking with me! Mel Minitor 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Mel Minitor[reply]

Assumption of good faith requires, I think, that we accept the veracity of this user's statement. So there you go.--Caliga10 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I had Mel Contacted so he could verify I nor Rhiannon wrote the testimonials on his page! You want proof and when I try to supply it, you get insulted. Why do you throw these things out there if you do not want me to offer validation?68.1.122.211 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE68.1.122.211 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulted in the slightest... sorry if you got that impression.--Caliga10 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to start a page on Lisa Iris. It was deleted in less than two minutes because it belonged to me and no one else had added content. In two minutes.

I tried again, with the article remaining 5 minutes and was deleted. Can someone explain to me how this is right? Is anything I put on here going to be deleted? Michaelle 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLEMichaelle 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelle, there must have been a server error or something at that time. There isn't a deletion log entry for Lisa Iris, and pages simply aren't deleted unilaterally without discussion--as you've seen above with Rhiannon Waits.--Caliga10 12:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I don't see a log now either but it gave the name Academic Challenger. But I will take your word on it. Since there was not a log - it must have been a glitch Michaelle 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLEMichaelle 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) * I keep editing this - as suggested - but it keeps going back to the orginal. Any suggestions?Michaelle 13:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLEMichaelle 13:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Emo Kid Beatdown Day

[edit]

This is an attack article on a nonsense "holiday", with the entire article devoted to promoting violence. It isn't really a CSD, but it's only being talked about on minor forums, and should be deleted as soon as it gains unanimous support to do so. Harro5 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Violates four criteria for speedy deletion:
  1. Not notable. 44 hits on Google proves a lack of notability, plus the unsourced nature of the article given the flaws of the four so-called "sources" (as mentioned below).
  2. Attack page. Disparages so-called "emo kids", and condones violence.
  3. Vanity page. Condones a project supported by a handful of people.
  4. Borderline vandalism. This isn't encyclopedic in the slightest.
In this case, forcing this through an AfD process simply allows Wikipedia to be complicit in the event itself. This article will no longer be contested by its participants once the event is over (ie, tomorrow). -- ChrisB 21:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to Above
  1. Gogle Search actually reveals 13,700 hits. [48]
  2. This is not an attack page. The forums about this are attack pages. The wikipedia article presents everything in a neutral light including a section on criticism of the holiday.
  3. As per above this is spreading through the internet far beyond the original group of people.
  4. Wikipedia can not be the sum of all human knowledge if we eliminate the articles about subjects we find offensive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by God of War (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 June 2006.
Responses to God of War
  1. You forgot the quotes?
  2. It encourages attacks and is trying to spread the information and knowledge of this.
  3. 44 hits isn't notable.
  4. Who goes to wikipedia and searches emo kid beatdown or related terms?--Andeh 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See my responses to above criticisms. We can not delete an article just because it is personally offensive. The article might be about a hate movement but the article itself is presented in a WP:NPOV.--God Ω War 21:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Google search post is faulty. You did an open search for all of the terms. A search for "Emo Kid Beatdown Day" shows the true result, which has jumped to a whopping 68 hits. [49] -- ChrisB 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep searching for alternate spellings gives more results, is similar to No Pants Day, also similar to writing an article about a hate rally. If I haven't listed all my reasons to keep they're on the article disscusion page. The Masked Avenger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.181.104 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 June 2006
  • Speedy Delete take a look at the sources. pretty much all of them are just images pasted into public forums. i believe the wikipedian standard for a 'citation' is higher than that. frymaster 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin, I assume when you delete this (seems very likely at this point) you'll delete the redirect page too. Just a reminder. --Andeh 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. I could repost this for further discussion, but it is just someone's essay. Proto||type 09:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidity on Expeditions

[edit]

Seems to be original research coming out of a university study. At best, it should be merged with an existing topic. Harro5 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn; keep. DarthVader 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Lheureux

[edit]

Despite having researched the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations rather concertedly, I cannot find anything on this person. As such I think that there are WP:V violations at work here. Withdrawn. I will insert the external links and stub the article. --ScienceApologist 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Any one person could claim that they were the first person to disprove or acknowledge something. Yanksox 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Keep per below. Yanksox 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a bad faith nomination by a POV crusader. This man is a prominent contributor to the Apollo Moon Hoax debate. He has written two books on the subject "Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?", and "Lumières sur la Lune : La NASA a t-elle menti!". The page needs cleanup, for sure, but not deletion. Here's a BBC article about him [50], and here's the amazon link [51] For great justice. 21:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlina Sudrich

[edit]

Vanity page. Only notable thing is that she was a CBC reporter, but still does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Gump Stump 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was garbage. Just closed. No consensus, nor was there ever possibly going to be. This whole ungodly mess needs to go to arbitration mediation forthwith, where some kind of calm, common sense solution can be applied that everyone is happy with (and just after this, we shall all dance and sing for joy, as a beautiful unity envelopes all of Wikipedia, and those flying pigs wave a wonderful rainbow banner of love). Proto||type 09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid outside of South Africa

[edit]

Page duplicates (word for word for the most part) material in racial segregation. This is because it was merged with that article in February[52] and then redirected to segregation. It was orphaned (ie nothing linked to it). I deleted it because of that a few weeks ago. It has just been recreated today and a merge tag put on it calling for it to be merged with Israeli apartheid in an attempt to bury that article[53]. Delete or, failing that,merge/redirect with racial segregation which should be easy enough to do since the article's a duplicate. Homey 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Racial segregation and Apartheid are not identical concepts; Homey has no problem with creating (and defending) articles on Israeli apartheid, Sexual Apartheid, Gender Apartheid, and even Apartheid (disambiguation), and strongly objects to any of them being merged anywhere, but when it comes to this article he suddenly (and rather inconsistently) needs to have it deleted. He has actually deleted this article once already, using the rather bizarre claim that "orphaned re-directs should be deleted", when, in fact, the opposite is true - ideally all re-directs should be "orphaned", to avoid straining the servers. Now he is simply trying to avoid having Israeli apartheid merged into this article. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so Jay, why did you support the dismemberment of this article way back in November 2005[54], a dismembersment that came to fruition last February? Why did you only recreate this article the day after the Israeli apartheid AFD failed?Homey 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if articles on pejorative POV political terms are going to exist on Wikipedia, then they really should be presented in an WP:NPOV way and context, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question Jay. Why did you support and help facilitate the dismemberment of the article last November to February?Homey 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't dismember the article, I NPOVd it, removing a bunch of nonsense unrelated to Apartheid. And your question has been answered; if you have any more comments, please put them on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You called for the article to be merged to other articles and left as a redirect. You didn't remove a bunch of nonsense unrelated to apartheid, you helped remove the entire article, particularly any reference in it to Israel. Why do you suddenly want to put Israel back into the article now when you supported removing it just a few months ago?Homey 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish you would read the previous comments; as I said above if Wikipedia *must* have articles on pejorative POV political epithets (which, of course, it really shouldn't), then they at least should be presented in an WP:NPOV way and context. Tendentious asking of questions which have been answered doesn't help Homey; please, at least, restrict it to the Talk: page - I won't be answering here again. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you are answering a question I didn't ask and not answering the question I did ask. Israeli apartheid can be an NPOV article. There's no reason to recreate an article that's already been merged with racial segregation for the sole purpose of subsuming Israeli apartheid into it. What you haven't answered is why you suddenly want to recreate Apartheid outside of South Africa the day after the Israeli apartheid AFD failed? Homey 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Homey's reasons for this afd are extremely suspect, especially considering his crusade to keep the Israeli apartheid article. In fact Homey created half a dozen ridiculous articles ending in "apartheid" all of which were about terms that didn't actually exist, just so that he could make a pov disambigiation page. Now he wants to delete the only article that really makes sense to keep. This demonstrates a level of hypocrisy that I thought was actually fatal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moshe, you supported the dismemberment of this article last February. Here's [your edit removing Israel. Why would you possibly support the article now when you helped destroy it last February?Homey 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your really really reaching if you have to find an edit I made 5 months ago to have something to argue about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want you to explain why you suddenly want to keep an article that, only a few months ago, you wanted to merge with another article and turn into a redirect.Homey 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why I suddenly want to change my mind"? Are you joking? It was 5 months ago, I edited the article that one time and didn't touch it again until today. I think you are really going to have to find another angle to argue from because this one isn't working too well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-Comment this article creation/recreation and AfD, along with a bunch of other similar articles and AfD (i.e. [56], [57], [58], [59]) is part of a long running multi-article edit war and strategic AfDs and merge proposals around the equating of Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians with Apartheid. The comparison has inflammed passions (to put it mildly.) The prime individuals involved are most of the people that have voted on this AfD page so far and a few others: User:HOTR (admin), User talk:Humus sapiens (admin), User:Zeq (banned recently for vote stacking of a recent AfD [60]), User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, User:Heptor, User:Pecher, User:Jayjg (admin), and me? - I am sure I am missing some others. Both sides accuse the other of violating WP:POINT. I am of the opinion that both sides are not engaging in model Wikipedian behavior and are mostly engaged in pointless wasting the time and energy of everyone involved. --Ben Houston 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation: ArbCom - I think things have progressed so far that maybe this whole set of related articles, AfD, merge proposals and moves be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and be settled properly. --Ben Houston 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as an outsider who has never edited, that I can recall, an article having to do with Israel, I agree. This is silly. Being an administrator is not a license to edit war. BigDT 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME OR DELETE It seems more sensible to name this article Apartheid(political epithet) and place a disambiguation page in apartheid. Then every bombastic statement used to malign different cultures, countries, religions Serengetti tribes etc. can be placed in this article. The entire idea of apartheid outside South Africa sounds ridiculous. What other country inscribes the legal seperation of one ethnicity from another based on genetics and ties those people not fit, (based on some arbitrary norm of purity) to legally work as manorial servants? Unless South Africa Jr. suddenly rises up, labelling other countries as having apartheid systems is a form of slander or political epithet, and this article or its name has no reason to exist for that reason. Guy Montag 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa#Global_renaming.2Fmerger_proposal as well --Coroebus 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayjg, Moshe, Humus and others, but under the title "Apartheid (political epithet)," an existing article that is very similar -- similar to what Guy Montag proposes and also similar to what others above are calling a "merge." The "Israeli apartheid" article should then be merged into the surviving article. As an alternative to "Apartheid (political epithet)" the title could be something like "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa." 6SJ7 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • using "epithet" or "political epithet" in the title is POV[62]: S: (n) name, epithet (a defamatory or abusive word or phrase) (primary definition, the secondary definition is "descriptive"). Homey 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no problem with "epithet", because outside of the South African context, the word "apartheid" is being used in a defamatory and abusive manner. Do you think the people who talk about "Israeli apartheid" are trying to praise Israel? Are the people who talk about "sexual apartheid" trying to praise those who believe gay people should be kept apart and discriminated against? "Apartheid" as used in this way is a term of abuse, so "epithet" is correct and non-POV. 6SJ7 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV. There are some who refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" or as being in danger of becoming an "apartheid state" as part of an analytical comparision between Israel and apartheid South Africa. They may be incorrect in their analysis but its not for us to impugn their motives. I doubt most people would think Desmond Tutu applied the term apartheid to Israel because he intended to be abusive.Homey 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Homey, I agree with your last sentence. In one of the "Israeli Apartheid" articles attributed to Archbishop Tutu, his tone is compassionate and constructive. If one reads the article carefully, the first parallel he draws is between the *struggle against* South African apartheid and the *struggle against* the Israeli occupation. In the fourth paragraph he starts to compare the suffering of Palestinians to that experienced by South African Blacks. My reading of it is that his analogy between apartheid and the occupation has as much to do with his faith in the techniques for ending it as it does with criticizing Israel's practices (which, no doubt, he does criticize!).
And BTW, I'm not entirely convinced that Desmond Tutu would approve of "Israeli Aparatheid" used as the title of an article on Wikipedia. First, the people who write articles are not usually the ones who write the headlines, so he might not even have used the term. He does compare Israeli practices to apartheid, using the term "apartheid," but (please correct me if I'm wrong) he does not call Israel an "apartheid state." Second, newspaper article titles tend to be written to grab attention so they can compete with the "Jen & Vince keep 'em guessing!" headlines. Wikipedia articles have almost comically utilitarian names like "Trade and Usage of Saffron." What's par for the course in a newspaper headline could be inappropriate in a different context. Like Wikipedia. Su-laine.yeo 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously I can't speak for Tutu's views on wikipedia ;-) but he did write another article in the nation [63] entitled 'Against Israeli Apartheid'. I'm not convinced that the Nation or the Guardian tend to have Jen and Vince headlines (you know I actually had to look up to see who they were, how sad am I?), and certainly not on opinion pieces. --Coroebus 09:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coroebus, I think your comments about sensationalism in headlines are fair, although I still don't think "Israeli apartheid" is an appropriate encyclopedia title. By the way, the article you just linked to and the article I just linked to are the same article, which appeared in several publications. Su-laine.yeo 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither motive nor their characterization, or analysis have anything to do with the fact that it is an epithet. The term apartheid is political and abusive because the term has powerful negative connotations associated with a past system of injustice that everyone is familiar with. When you label someone a "Nazi" it is to demonize that individual by drawing upon the negative connotations of Nazism.

Catagorizing a state or system as an "apartheid state", without it actually being lawfully entrenched apartheid as recognized by international law, gains an audience because of the inflammatory nature of the word. But then offering colloquial or anecdotal evidence is not objective research and wholly manipulative.

It is abusive, it manipulates and maligns by drawing upon an imagined system in one place and stealing the momentum of a successful organized movement that was once against apartheid and hijacking it to the political agendas of those who oppose another state or society. Using vague associations between their target states, these individuals attempt to gain the same legitimacy as the anti apartheid movement, by coopting their agenda through sophistry into what was an existing successful one. It is easier to organize a movement when the groundwork has already been laid down and the inferstructure is there, but the goal has been achieved or is obsolete. Hence, its a propaganda tool to malign and forward a political agenda through negative past association.

Guy Montag 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Guy said, and written very well I might add. Or, in my own words (written before I saw Guy's) the term "apartheid" in the modern day is used as a pejorative, in a derogatory, defamatory, abusive way (even if, in a particular case, I might think the users of the term are correct), in virtually all cases. The only people I know of who ever used "Apartheid" in a positive sense were the Apartheid-era governments of South Africa (and maybe Rhodesia, or maybe it was called something else there), who decided to call their racial policy "apartheid," and the supporters of that policy of South Africa. Today it is understood to be a bad thing, hence "epithet" is a correct description and non-POV. 6SJ7 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Until either a mediator or the arbitration committee can get this mess straightened out. As others have pointed out, this AfD is part of a much larger disagreement involving several articles.

  1. I think that allegations of "apartheid" applied to any country other than South Africa should be discussed only in the context of broader, neutrally-titled articles about that country.
  2. However, I feel even more strongly that if the community accepts having an article specifically about allegations of apartheid in country X (other than South Africa), then it should allow the same for all other countries.

We are trying to deal with issues #1 and #2 in no particular order, and one AfD at a time. It's not working. It feels like playing chess with the board broken up and the pieces in different rooms.

There are about a dozen long pages of Talk and AfD discussions for the various related articles, some of which are alleged to have been tampered with. There is a long trail of page renames and redirects, and allegations of all kinds of seriously bad wiki-behaviour. We have multi-day page protections with no end in sight, bans, blocks, and AfD discussions that end in no consensus. Desmond Tutu's name has being brought into the fray; thank God nobody's brought up Mother Teresa yet. Understanding all of this would require stretching out a very long piece of paper on the floor and drawing a detailed timeline. Mere mortals like myself don't have the combination of time and wikiwisdom to do that. Su-laine.yeo 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Su-laine's comment is a perfect description of how I feel about this as well. It is so confusing. I love this line, it is so true: "It feels like playing chess with the board broken up and the pieces in different rooms." That is perfect. Using (or abusing) the same analogy, I feel like I keep making moves but they don't get me anywhere because after each move, suddenly it's a different game at a different table and nobody can see what happened before. (Though, sadly, it almost always turns out that the same person is sitting across the table.) 6SJ7 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I love your extension of the analogy. It's nice to know someone else is having the same week I am. Su-laine.yeo 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wazzup ma slim m8!! I don't believe for a second that you're a mere mortal; if you think a timeline would be useful it's your duty as a conscientious Wikipedian to get to work on that long piece of paper. In regard to your second point "then it should allow the same for all other countries", I think that's fair and balanced (as long as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are adhered to). Article20 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the paper: thanks but no thanks. Maybe someone else will take it up as a sociology research project. We might all one day be part of someone's Master's thesis on the dynamics of controversial topics at Wikipedia. Re: second point, I agree, mate.Su-laine.yeo 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all non-SA apartheid articles to Apartheid (epithet). -- tasc talkdeeds 08:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • even the one on international law? How can an item of international law be an epithet, tasc? And what source do you have for calling apartheid an epithet? The title you propose is OR. Homey 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. The only appropriate name for a general article on apartheid is Apartheid; "Apartheid outside of South Africa" is unnecessarily clumsy and convoluted, and "Apartheid (political epithet)" or "Apartheid (epithet)" violate Wikipedia's naming conventions. It's either Apartheid, or deletion, and clearly the term apartheid is noteworthy enough for its own article, even its its usage oustide of a South African historical context is illegitimate. -Silence 16:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"even its its usage oustide of a South African historical context is illegitimate"? I would direct you to the crime of apartheid article that describes its history in criminal international law. --Ben Houston 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what international law exactly do you mean? -- tasc talkdeeds 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking to me about the article crime of apartheid I was referring to the ICC Rome Statute. See that article. --Ben Houston 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was actually refering to the Homey's remarque about even the one on international law? How can an item of international law be an epithet, tasc? And what source do you have for calling apartheid an epithet? -- tasc talkdeeds 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Hair

[edit]

Advertising (and user's other contributions are all spamlinks to this business's website; speedy was contested so I'm listing it here) NawlinWiki 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen Patricians of Downing College

[edit]

Extremely non-notable, lacking information. One of the most well known drinking clubs in Cambridge. Adambiswanger1 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transferred to Wikipedia namespace because I wished to preserve the edit history and I've got an idea for the text. Any recreations of this in the article space should be treated as db-repost unless actual sources appear. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quazer Beast

[edit]

Was deleted before as either original research or hoax. I list it here for AfD instead of using db-repost because there are more than 1 contributors. Zoz (t) 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Chaser T 08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albanisation

[edit]

Invented, non existence term. --Albanau 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Delete - it is unquestionably a real term. It has plenty of non-trivial google hits. However, that aside, looking at the article, it seems unlikely that the article could ever be more than a dictionary definition and/or a POV war. As it stands right now, the only content it has is unusably POV. I would say merge, but there isn't anything useful to merge. BigDT 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Current contents not a reason for deletion. - FrancisTyers · 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I've heard the term and it has googles. But I agree with BigDT - it is going nowhere apart from a dictionary definition. --manchesterstudent 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn given the book list below. Now *Weak Keep Still have concerns about where the article can go and hope it undergoes revision. --manchesterstudent 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current contents not a reason for deletion. - FrancisTyers · 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vote struck out as duplicate vote by nominator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"clearly a real and notable concept", any evidence for that? Is there any evidence at all that it is a term? really I would like to know! --Albanau 10:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bogdan found it at google books. That proves that someone has used the term and it's not simply a neologism posted to wiipedia. Notability is more subjective. Eluchil404 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 08:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Yurdin

[edit]

seems nn to me. city councellor at most, which isn't enough. Also reads like a campaign ad. Bringing to Afd since prod was removed by anon user. Hirudo 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. It's word for word. I could put it through WP:CP, but god knows it's backlogged enough ... WP:SNOW ... yeah. Proto||type 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Jacobson

[edit]

Puffery-filled self-promoting bio of a minor music industry exec. Anirvan 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Blurrrgh. Nothing's going to be solved here - there needs to be some kind of informed and agreed consensus by the maths guys as to what is and is not suitable, which we could then apply. If someone wants to prune it down and merge this into Derivative, I don't think there would be many tears shed. Proto||type 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative (examples)

[edit]
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular number 8 titled Instruction manuals which specifically states the following:
while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.
To which I think it is fair to call this article a tutorial on how to find derivatives. Jersey Devil 02:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a tutorial or instruction manual. Just like dictionaries have pictures of some words to (literally and figuratively) illustrate what they are, encyclopedias contain examples for reference. In particular, derivatives are a very significant topic, and I beleive this page began as a split from the main page (just as there is Derivative (generalizations), which I think is also an important article). The tone of the article is also quite encyclopedic, and the article really helps to explain how to find a derivative; I understand that WP:NOT includes "how-tos," but this is a math function- it would be like the article for multiplication not explaining how to find a product. -- Kicking222 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I've noticed this kind of disease that makes people think Foo (bar) is the only correct format for article titles, when in most cases it's awkward and a much better title would be Bar of foo or Foo in bar or something. Table of derivatives should stay; Derivative (examples) should go. —Keenan Pepper 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main problem with this article is the level: it uses the difference quotient definition to compute derivatives. There is no good reason to do this for any of the functions given; indeed, the only time anyone actually uses the definition to compute such derivatives during the brief time in a calculus course between the introduction of the derivative, and the introduction of the power rule. Therefore this page is de facto textbook material and should go. The tone of the article reinforces my opinion of this. It would not be enough to replace the calculations with more reasonable methods, since then it would just be lost property of the table of derivatives. I don't think any of the examples is very valuable, nor do I think including one in the main article (note that there is already an example there) really adds anything besides how-to-ness. Ryan Reich 13:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an analyst, I have to disagree that "the only time anyone actually uses the definition to compute such derivatives during the brief time in a calculus course between the introduction of the derivative, and the introduction of the power rule," but I agree that only a few of these should be kept and merged into the main article.  ;) Lunch 23:06, 30 May 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almanac-like information. If this goes and individual episode summaries of Family Guy stay ... sheesh, do we want to look like cretins? -- GWO
  • Comment. This is remniscent of the debate over whether semi-trivial proofs of theorems are suitable for WP or not. Perhaps this shouldbe considered to be in the same class? Might be worth setting a policy for. The WP "proofs" category is Category:Article proofs, and it contains links to the debate where it last trailed off. linas 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steelers @ Packers 2005

[edit]

Although it was concluded, as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results, that there is no consensus as to whether reports of non-championship sporting event results should be the subject of Wikipedia articles, there is a general consensus by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and other editors on the National Football League (NFL) articles that there should NOT be separate articles for every single non-championship or non-historically significant American football match. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nastradamus (single)

[edit]

This page is about a probably no notable single, and contains no sources cited Benon 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but completely rewrite First things first: The content of the article is trash. Utter garbage. With that said, the single is notable enough to be included on WP. It's a single by an incredibly notable artist (Nas, widely considered one of the greatest rappers of all-time and a chart topper on multiple occasions). The song helped ignite a beef (a.k.a. incident) with another notable rapper, Memphis Bleek. As far as commercial success, Billboard itself states that "Nastradamus" reached #4 on the Hot Rap Singles chart and #92 on the Hot 100 (the latter position surely isn't that high, but it at least charted; the former position surely makes the single notable by WP standards). The album of the same name also peaked at #7 on the Billboard 200 and #2 on the Hip Hop albums chart. -- Kicking222 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless a single is something truly notable like "White Christmas" or "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" it isn't notable enough for it's own encyclopedia article, hence, it's fancruft. KleenupKrew 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite per Kicking222. There's a whole lot of precedent for singles to have their own articles, too. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but allow rewritten article everyone here agrees that the article is utter garbage; delete this article now, but state that this AfD is not a blocker for a proper article Deleteme42 10:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as needing cleanup. Just because it's badly written doesn't mean it should be deleted. Notability has been established. --Pc13 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and scrub thoroughly during clean up. GassyGuy 21:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Captain Disdain 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Mirror Wars Episodes

[edit]

Fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete I can see how this article could be up for deletion, but why delete the Star Trek Mirror Wars article. It may be fancruft, but everything about Lost and Star Trek could be considered that because it pretains to Lostties and Trekkies. User:Cjpwes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.68.99.197 (talk • contribs) 14:27, June 6, 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was hot, hard, horny deletion. DS 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MILF Seeker

[edit]

Not notable Web site, Commercial abakharev 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Flanagan

[edit]

I'm a fan of Smith's movies, so I hate to do it, but: Flanagan has played bit parts in Smith's movies, is nn outside that world. Ckessler 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General H. H. "Hap" Arnold Achievement

[edit]

The one-row entry for this award in the Civil Air Patrol article is just as informative as this. I don't see much more to be added to warrant a full article, and I don't see this as a stand-alone search term, so there's no point making this a redirect to the CAP article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This artcle had had it's tags removed, I've re-instated them so people know there's a discussion Inner Earth 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you for re-adding the tags. That's twice they've been removed now, by the same IP address. I put up a warning template on the address, which while it might not dissuade them from vandalizing again, at least lets us start tracking it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 14:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Aagard

[edit]

This article is a vanity article. I think his claim to being important enough to have a wiki article is questionable, but I will let others judge. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streetsus

[edit]

WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Self-admits it is about nothing. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 'nice' comments, but I'll only take the first one (on indiscriminate information) into account, and not much taking into account this encyclopaedia includes a version in Klingon (very 'existent' information, yeah). Of course you English speakers know it is NOT a word, a pretty obvious piece of knowledge many non-English speakers do NOT have. That's why I got the idea of including it, after finding 1100 occurrences in Google and many (non-English speakers) people looking it up in dictionaries. It is my only and last try to include something in here, after watching the encouraging and constructive comments you devote to contributions. Anyway, let me just share another piece of knowledge that you nice brainy English-speakers do NOT have but might find useful one day: lakhu lakhara, ben zonot.

www.urbandictionary.com Have a nice day. ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was - No consensus, keep by default. - Richardcavell 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rare diseases

[edit]

Del. What the heck is "rare disease"? The criterion is not specified. The list is neither definitive nor complete (as it says itself). The originating external link is dead. To have two huge lists (this one and the complete List of diseases) is pointless and useless IMO. A better solution would be to annotate the List of diseases, which is pretty much useless as well, besides showing 'red links' `'mikka (t) 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate you to go through and remove every disease from the list with a prevalence higher than 5 per 10,000. There's a lot of them in there. Peyna 12:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in "rare disease" is American. Hence at best the title should be List of rare diseasesas defined in the United States. How other countires define this term? Is there an internationally recognized definition? In other words, the article rare disease sucks. Someone was just happy to throw in many external links leaving the article itself basically useless. `'mikka (t) 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. The list is huge, and unverified, in the sense that it is impractical to check whether an entry belongs on it or not, especially given there is no stated criteria. It therefore has gotten filled with things blatantly do not deserve to be on it. (Alcoholic liver cirrhosis? The article on it says it's the 12th leading cause of death in the US, for goodness sakes!) The List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number is much smaller, and more easily verifiable - just check the number. Per Peyna, though, I will change my vote to a Strong Keep if anyone (Andjam being a strong candidate) were to go through the list and mark just how rare each disease is next to the entry according to some standard people can look up, and say - yup, this source says it's pretty rare. It would then be maintainable and verifiable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But again, such information may be addded to the full List of diseases. The often-repeated argument arising each time when someone proposed to delete some list because a category exist — is that a list can contain annotations. In our case annotations are most definitely lacking. For example these disease lists contain a big number of synonyms. To mark them would be a good idea as well. To add some to-level classification ("infectous"/"mental disorder"/"unknown") wold be useful as well. `'mikka (t) 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andjam.  Grue  14:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Invaluable list of diseases many know exist. Lord_Hawk 17:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC-8)

rare disease: "Eurordis (European Organisation for rare Diseases) estimates that there exist between 5,000 and 8,000 distinct rare diseases, affecting between 6% and 8% of the population." So this list is kinda 6% of possible size. Severe maintainability problem because of huge duplication with List of diseases. By common sense the List of rare diseases is expected to constitute a VERY significang part of List of diseases. It is not,like, there are two dozens of "rare" diseases. Thefore these two lists essentially duplicate information. It is always maintenance nightmare, especially keeping in mind their enormous sizes.

To put my keyboard where my mouth is, I vouch to start marking "rare diseases" in the List of diseases. See, e.g., how I did it in the (missing until now) sublist List of diseases starting with a non-letter (and suggest a better name, if possible). By the way, if I try to put more than two inline named references (syntax: <ref name=NIH> ), the referencing breaks. If anyone knows what happens, please advise. Is it a bug or my ignorance? `'mikka (t) 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the problem of definition. "Rare diseases" is defined differently depending on where you live. A disease may be vary rare in some populations, but very common in others. Until those questions can be answered, there isn't much point in developing such lists further. Peyna 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as hoax DS 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Crowson

[edit]

The entire content of the article is "Lucas Crowson is the character who is first seen when driving into Toon Town in the popular movie, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" Unfortunately, I don't think this meets the speedy deletion criteria, since it's rather obviously non-notable. I'm also not at all sure that the article has anything to do with reality; searching Google for "Lucas Crowson" gets less than a dozen non-related hits, which either underlines the lack of notability or indicates that this is a hoax. (Otherwise I'd just do a redirect, but as the latter seems rather likely, there would be no point in that.) Either way, I don't think this has any place in an encyclopedia. Captain Disdain 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasool Shahwali Zair Mohammed Mohammed

[edit]

Not notable, does not meet WP:Bio MilesToGo 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Nominator appears to be a relatively new wikipedia contributor, and may be unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and procedures. A couple of days ago nominator put a {pov-check} tag on this article. The placed a one sentence question on the talk page, asking if others agreed that the article seemed "anti-American". I asked nominator to explain, specifically, what they thought was anti-American. Instead of engaging in a dialogue nominator responded by nominating this article for deletion. WP:DEL says that a perception that an article expresses a biased POV is not grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground says:
    • "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." -- Geo Swan 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Disclaimer: I started this article.
    • I believe that the Mohammed does satisfy the WP:BIO criteria -- namely "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events".
    • I think it bears repeating that the wikipedia is an international effort. Afghanistan has been devastated by decades of war. Most Afghans are totally illiterate. The loss of a single doctor, like Mohammed's brother, willing to serve in a rural area would be notable, in Afghanistan. Mohammed is not a doctor. But he is a trained medical technician, and he ran their clinic's well equipped lab. So, his loss too is notable in a country where most people are illiterate. -- Geo Swan 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both Mohammed, and his brother, the doctor, were determined not to have been enemy combatants after all. His brother was released. Mohammed remains in detention, even though he was cleared over a year ago. -- Geo Swan 04:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on whether the article in fact satisfies WP:BIO, though I found myself interested in reading the details of the case against a particular member of a group of individuals - the Gitmo detainees - that are indeed, very notable. However, I would like to direct all concerned to the userpage of the editor who nominated this article, and to WP:POINT, and then ask them to think quietly for a moment. Hornplease 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:CSB, but serious POV trimming required. Possibly speedy keep per WP:POINT, but that would be stretching it. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems encyclopedic enough to me. Better than a Simpsons episode. Keeping it doesn't hurt anyone, and may even help his cause. ··gracefool |☺ 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with many other detainees, an unfortunate but notable individual from a significant and ongoing political event. The article is well sourced, no reason to delete. Comments by User:Hornplease are duly noted. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, article is not a "soapbox", it is simply a telling of facts known about the person. We have many American prisoners, whether they be arsonists, rapists and burglars with their own article, why would this be different? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abaidullah

[edit]

Not notable, does not meet WP:Bio MilesToGo 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL players A

[edit]

Includes: NHL players A, NHL players B, NHL players C, NHL players D, NHL players E, NHL players F, NHL players G, NHL players H, NHL players I, NHL players J, NHL players K, NHL players L, NHL players M, NHL players N, NHL players O, NHL players P, NHL players Q, NHL players R, NHL players S, NHL players T, NHL players U, NHL players V, NHL players W, NHL players X, NHL players Y, NHL players Z and List of every NHL player.

The page serves principally to promote a copyrighted website (HockeyDB), which has considerable usage restrictions and advertisements. I'm not bothered by 'listcruft' but all those links bother me. I'll put 'A' in as a test case but I'll mention that B through Z won't be far behind if you agree with me. Richardcavell 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC) As pointed out below by Resolute, the reasons for my original nomination are now dealt with. I continue to nominate A and now nominate B through Z, to allow the AfD to run its course. - Richardcavell 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I now nominate List of every NHL player pro forma for the same purpose - Richardcavell 05:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, article consists solely of external links. Peyna 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to tag all of these for speedy (A-Z), since they're obviously nothing more than a blatant attempt at Googlebombing or something along those lines and they all qualify under CSD:A3. Peyna 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I did A-G and got tired, so we'll wait and see what action an admin decides to take with those speedies before I go any further. That said, I move to include articles A-Z in this AfD should the speedy be unsuccessful. Peyna 01:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I like zis Guy's suggestion below regarding a project. You'll note that List of Major League Baseball players only has blue links. All of these articles are poorly named and if we do end up keeping them, it should be consolidated to one article List of NHL players and not broken down by the letter their name starts with. Anyway, categories serve these purposes better. Peyna 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why should a list of ONLY blue links be considered a good thing? WP:Hockey has been more thorough in populating the lists with EVERY player that has played; the lists are designed for easy expansion. BoojiBoy 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted - Pschemp speedy deleted NHL players A through NHL players Z, and added the comment that it was probably set up as a google linkfarm. Will an admin please close this AfD? - Richardcavell 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Speedy deletion was successfully contested. - Richardcavell 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete as a bare list of links with no context, or move to Project space as a "to-do" list for a Wikiproject or add some encyclopaedic information (and no I do not mean external links) and make of it something which does not meet Speedy A3. As-is, it's a clear delete as a bare collection of links and doing a job better done by a category, but I can quite see that the redlinks might need filling. Just zis Guy you know? 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate closed as Speedy delete by Pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), appealed on WP:DRV#National Hockey League player lists. Reopened to let AfD run its course. Closing admin: please allow one extra day for formation of consensus to allow for this being marked closed for most of today. Just zis Guy you know? 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There is nothing enyclopedic about hockey players names that start with the letter B. Simillar information can be easily achieved with categories. Existing lists and categories make this article useless. --Hetar 20:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "problem" with the external links has now been fixed. There are lots of useless lists on wikipedia, but this is not one of them. having a complete list of NHL players helps prevent duplicate articles, vanity articles, and helps disambig players with the same name. Masterhatch 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A complete list of all the players who have played in the NHL is very important for when people create player articles. The complete list prevents duplicate articles and helps with disambigs. Categories don't work as well because they only include players who have articles. By listing all the players, red links or not, it is so much easier. One possibility would be to merge all the players onto one article, but i think that would create too large of an article. Separating them alphabetically is efficient and easier to read. Masterhatch 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons is no longer relevant. The remaining one - that it is a bare list of links with no other information - remains. I suggest placing this in the Project space as a subpage of WP:HOCKEY - it is after all mainly a series of to-do lists. Just zis Guy you know? 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we can be given a chance to improve these lists before we do that? I've started to add more to NHL players Z as an example of what the list *could* be. Certantly these lists, as they currently exist, are no more useless than List of Major League Baseball players, which is nothing more than a cateogry posing as an article and does not appear to be targetted for deletion at the moment. Resolute 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work, and I hope you carry it through to the other articles (it will take a while!). Bare lists I hate, but lists which add encyclopaedic information, as the Z list now does, are an asset to the project and I am strongly in favour of them. If only all lists on WP were like this we would have far less difficulty with arguments over what is and is not listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately, categories don't work as well as a complete list of all the players who have played in the NHL for reasons that i have stated above. The idea is, of course, to eventually make an article for each NHL player (except players who have only played one game as one game doesn't make him noteworthy enough for his own article) thereby removing all the red links. I make about 10 player articles a week and I am not the only one making player articles. Not only do I create player articles regularly, I am also spending my time using media sources (such as tsn.ca) to update the list. as far as i know, it is the most complete list of sports players, and therefore the most usefull. A list (such as the baseball one) that is no where near complete is useless. having a complete list is the best way to keep track of all the NHL player articles. Can the articles be changed and improved? of course they can and should, but whatever fate holds true for this hockey list, the same fate must hold true for the baseball, football, soccer, rugby ones too. If you really want to tackle and delete a useless list that should be a category, then delete List of Jews in sports. Why not a List of Christians in sports? or a List of Mormons in sports? Anyways, my point is that there are countless useless lists on wikipedia, and a complete list of sports players that have played in a major league is not one of them. Masterhatch 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP WP:HOCKEY was mentioned in every article's talk page. Thanks for inquiring there prior to nominating. And thanks for assuming good faith, and realizing that the hockeydb.com links were added by a third party not as a "googlebombing" but because said site is widely regarded as the de facto resource for professional hockey statistics. ccwaters 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they are notable enough to be on this list, they are notable enough to have their own article, in which case that article can be added to a self-maintaining and self-sorting category. If they are not, they should not be on the list. I assert that this is listcruft as redundant to a category. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it's in use to further a WikiProject, then I have no problems with it being moved to Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Sorry I've had internet problems and was not able to contribute to the discussion as of yet, but this is just silly that these articles are being put up for deletion in the first place. I agree these pages could be improved so it just isn't names beside links, but it still is an effective way of seeing which NHL players have articles and which do not, so that we may create new articles because they are a ton of very notable NHL players (mostly former ones) who do not yet have an existing article. This list is continuing to get updated, and it is a great guide for us people in the hockey editing world, that could not be used categorically because as I said before, you can't put uncreated articles into categories. I have created numerous stubs (at least 100-150) about hockey players thru these lists that need to have been created. There is no way that these articles should be deleted. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn it all into a category, delete the article I don't see why these lists of MLB, NHL, etc. are put into articles when a link when a category page can do a much better job of listing these people.-- The ikiroid  02:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I can't believe you said that a category page can do a much better job of listing these people. There are hundreds of notable NHL players who have yet to get articles and that can't be listed in categories because, obviously, they do not have an article. There is no way a category is sufficient for the content of these articles. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 03:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a list on a hockey wikiproject subpage of all of the notable hockey athletes that still need an article. You put all of the players that already have an article in the category. How's that?-- The ikiroid  18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_5&oldid=1116775262"