This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG(talk | contribs) at 18:32, 12 July 2024(fix weird crap in AfD transclusions: double-space paren (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 18:32, 12 July 2024 by JPxG(talk | contribs)(fix weird crap in AfD transclusions: double-space paren (via WP:JWB))
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non-notable rab group. This was tagged with {{prod}} but the tag was removed by an anon. No evidence of notability cited except a mention of "two albums", but no publishers are cited. If as i suspect these are self-pubs, then this woudl not fulfill WP:MUSIC. Delete unless reliabel sources are cited to establish notability. DES(talk)00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the criteria. Google found the first album on homerecording.org which is self-explanatory and the other album is only available on their site. But at least it's cheap. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I must say, though, "Krewe [sic] D'Etat" is a pretty clever name for an album. Why didn't I think of that?! *grumble* --Kinu03:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per Michael Slone's research, this appears to be a misplaced text dump from the Project namespace on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. If this is true, delete (disregard my vote if this is debunked further down the discussion). (ESkog)(Talk)00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm no expert at reading Vietnamese, but from the formatting (i.e., use of all caps every so often) and basic gist ("Q&A"), it's likely a copy-paste job from a newspaper or website, and thus would be a WP:Copyvio. --Kinu00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello. I don't regard myself as being very good at Vietnamese (I didn't put a vn userbox on myself), but this is Vietnamese. The title says "Help/assistance: Writing a new piece". The first line which is boxed is a question which is directed towards a presumedly Vietnamese Buddhist monk and asks about the bird flu pandemic and how it is related to karma and cause and effect. The text below is the monk's answer to this. It is probably a text dump from a dharma talk somewhere.Blnguyen01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a text dump from an existing Vietnamese Wiki page, so transwikiing wouldn't really be neccesary, but with the amount of odd diacratics I can't check that. Besides, this would still be an unacceptable Q&A no matter what wikipedia we're talking about. Mgm|(talk)11:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By glancing through it - and looking at User:Blnguyen's comments, the quotes, the question marks, the exclamation marks due make it look like it is a short narrative or something along those lines. Not encyclopediac. AndyZ01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I have edited the page to turn it into a very short stub. Chief Minister of Rajasthan seems like a notable political position and so should have an article here. The previous version was not any good but hopefully it can be turned into something that does work. MLA15:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. Not true, re-read the post. Band has several demos released and will be putting out first album shortly. May not be nn world-wide but is picking up steam in Canada.—The preceding unsigned comment was added byCscarsbrook (talk • contribs) .
Delete "up and coming " are the operative words. Maybe in the future this band will gain notabilty. But then again can't the same be said of hundreds of bands out there? --† Ðy§ep§ion †03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. what is considered notable then? these guys are big in this part of Canada. is that not notable in Winnipeg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byCscarsbrook (talk • contribs) .
That's a common misconception. The two album thing is only one of the criteria by which band notability is rated. If they have meet multiple of the other guidelines at WP:NMG they can still be notable. - Mgm|(talk)11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG. The only criterion that looks like could be met is being covered in the national press... which when Googling I saw no indication of. Treznor21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
pointless and potentially endless list. many of these are indeed famous books about WWII, but there seems no point to having such a list -- this would be much better done with a category, if at all. not an encyclopedic list. DES(talk)00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, users should be able to find examples of famous books about WWII, and those examples should be annotated to helps them choose which link to click on. Kappa01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until such time as somebody links all the books and is able to form a category. This is a fairly extensive list, it would be a shame to lose all those books just because the list isn't encyclopedic. I'd say keep the list, form the category, link all the books, then delete the list. Batman200504:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and perpetually incomplete partial bibliography. No attempt at a critical appraisal of the titles or a grouping by subject/argument/theme, so of no use to a researcher attempting to determine which if any book they should select for further study. Even if it were possible to be comprehensive, the list would need a complete bibliographic record in order to be useful for a researcher - title, author, publisher, date & place of publication. See British Library and Library of Congress records for details. (aeropagitica) 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either clarify inclusion criteria (fiction/non-fiction? How much should the war be mentioned?) or categorize. Right now, there's too many possible books to enter, making it unmaintainable. - Mgm|(talk)11:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize I generally like lists more than cats, but this is a text-book case of where a cat trumps a list. There should be multiple sub-cats, too. youngamerican (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize I generally don't think that lists should be deleted based on potentially infinte numbers of members, but here a cat or several is better than the ambiguous list. Carlossuarez4619:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize this list, although the category will eventually have to be split. It's so broadly defined it's meaningless. Does Diary of Anne Frank belong on this list, with no military action? Catch 22 or Naked and the Dead, all fictional? Mein Kampf, written well before the war? All arguable. More specific categories would ultimately be far more helpful. --Lockley22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete Title and first sentence are misspelled from each other. First sentence term (with m) gives NO google hits; title ONLY returns the wiki article. Probable hoax, seemingly nonsense. Tagged as such Avi00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Google hits all wiki mirrors. --Kerowyn 01:03, 7 February 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
User 64.60.147.230 removed my {{prod}} tag without comment so I am moving into here for discussion. This article reads like spam. The article does provide information regarding the game, however, based on the non-NPOV of this aritcle I am questioning it's claims. James08400:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No, Alex, that's not what we meant! We meant: Delete this page entirely, as it is nonsense, and redirect Ac/Dc to AC/DC. There is no album called AC/DC. Otherwise we would have moved the page in the first place. ProhibitOnions00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete — although I started this AfD page, and believe this article has no place on Wikipedia for much the same reasons as have been mentioned above, I also accept the suggestion that "Ac/Dc" is a plausible search term for "AC/DC" and a redirect would make sense. ProhibitOnions12:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was tagged with {{prod}} as nonsense, which is not a valid reason to delete it, otherwise we would delete cow-tipping. I think it should be kept if references can be provided, and deleted if not. Kappa01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Otherwise I could start tipping the people at the McDonald's counter and write an article about that too. Ruby02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby: Tipping the guys at McDonald's is a waste of money, they're not even doing anything. Maybe I could see tipping the people at Sonic, since they actually bring it out to your car, but not McDonald's. ;) --Rory09602:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's not nonsense and it does happen with surprising frequency, but it doesn't seem to be WP:V for wikipedia purposes. Most of the reasons cited for deletion above are pretty weak though. Per most of the Delete comments Cow tipping and a whole slew of other articles should go too.--Isotope2317:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cow-tipping is a fairly major urban(?) legend; this is much less so. There comes a time when a line must be drawn; pointing out that one line is arbitrary does not make it less arbitrary to draw it elsewhere. Smerdis of Tlön17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cow-tipping, as the article is written, was probably a bad example to use. My point is simply that many of the reasons given for deletion are rather silly and if the reasoning were extrapolated a whole slew of articles would be deleted from Wikipedia. If anyone has a real interest in keeping this information around it would probably be better served as part of an article on practical jokes or vandalism incorporting current articles on Toilet papering, etc. Provided of course someone can source Toilet Tipping information.--Isotope2319:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm unsure about this article, but I oppose the majority of reasons given for deletion. Scientific journal coverage certainly should not be a prerequsite for a wikipedia article. This prank has been used in a lot of TV shows and Movies, like Jackass and refered to Space Cowboys. Those examples are just off the top of my head. Savidan19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a student on a certain sink estate there was an outbreak of people throwing bricks at the bus. It was pretty bad, the incidents inevitably made the local news, several people were injured (none permanently, thankfully), soon the bus company refused to serve the area, which was fairly out of town. Verifiable, but to see nothing beyond random hooliganism. Pilatus04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough case. On the one hand, it's pretty obviously the product of an inside wiki joke, probably perpetrated by the gentlemen standing on the porta-potty in the photo. And yet, porta-john tipping is a real thing. I think this falls squarely under the (as-yet unwritten) principle WP:Ignore the obvious irony of making joke articles into encyclopedic content. With some non-snickering focus, this article -- which is in need of a good cleaning -- could, in fact, be a worthwhile article. Keep.JDoorjamTalk20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As soon as the opinion is removed, this article turns into summary of a non notable minor news article summary, best left for those sorts of newspapers. I'm tempted to list the endless list of similar non notable dicdefs that would get articles if this does, but it may inspires someone.Obina22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete "The green hat is specifically concerned with ... new ways of looking at things" I'm thinking of looking at this as a redlink. AdrianLamo ·· 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have any of the Delete voters actually bothered to check out the context? Google confirms that this clearly refers to one of the concepts in Edward De Bono's lateral thinking book Six Thinking Hats. Personally, I think the idea is utter utter bullshit. But as it relates to a book by a notable figure, and a page exists for the book, why not redirect to it? Since the content will be destroyed by redirection, as Allen says, copyvio won't be an issue. Tearlach01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete if now copied to user's own page, this can be deleted as WP:VANITY. Sixty vanity-imprint books to be published in March 2006 is not enough to qualify for notability, nor is writing for defunct websites or acting in one short film. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 07:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepif this really is the Sean Ripple from The American Analog Set (which was for some reason not wikilinked in this article) as the article contends. AmAnSet is a notable band and there are many Wikipedia bio pages of people whose only claim to fame is being in a band of lesser fame. I'm not sure how to verify the two people are one and the same. But, afd pages being what they are (same people... usually don't look at the afd after they've voted), I'm guessing that I'm beating my head against the wall here.--Hraefen00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact the same SRipple from The American Analog Set. This whole issue came up (after having the page up for quite a few months) because I goofed around with a trail concept using the name Sean from my page. It was an art project not meant to cause any harm. As I mentioned on my talk page, I realized after thinking about it that it was very irresponsible of me to mess with the integrity of Wikipedia's function. I enjoy this site and agree with RHaworth when he states that Sean Trail was, "pure vandalism."
Regarding the issue with whether or not I am notable...I suspect that a great deal of the content you have on your site pertaining to people currently involved in the creative arts has been added by the publicists of the people being documented. I don't see this as any less vain. It's just a tad more removed. The few bits of self-promotion that I added recently (60 self-published books in March) were mentioned to try and gain some momentum as an artist. I suspect that publicists are doing the same sort of thing to promote the latest whatever.
I've learned that I should respect Wikipedia for its function. If you choose to keep this page, then I will be appreciative. If you do not, I understand.
P.S. Right after this whole thing happened, I noticed someone editing a falsehood about me into my bio. I had to edit it out. I've left my response on the bio. It reads, "The bit about Fela Kuti was funny, but untrue."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 even without discounting the comments from users who have made almost no other contributions to WP but this AfD. W.marsh18:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. See Little Green Footballs, etc.-many other blogs are on Wikipedia. IMAO recieves thousands of hits daily, and certaily is worthy of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.152.26 (talk • contribs)
Keep and move to IMAO.us (which seems to be the more common name). Verifiable justification for possible notability has been provided in the article now. It may not be the most prestigious blog, but I'm now inclined to let it stay. If these assertions had been present from the outset, I would have voted to keep all along. As a note, on Google, "IMAO.us" turns up many, many more search results than "Imao blog" does, so that should be the article's title if it survives this AfD. -- TKD 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per above. "Thousands of hits" is not notable. -- TKD03:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Double Plus Delete I don't want to be a part of your stupid doodie-head site. I once read an article on 802.11 ecryption here, and it was slightly inaccurate on one point. IMAO only associates itself with quality and 100% accuracy.--Frank J. Fleming13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Multiple award nominations meets criteria for notability per WP:WEB. IMAO has had numerous nominations for best humor blogs. ----Jfqueen21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete IMAO is a significant blog in Conservative circles, I use it by name in talking. Unless Wikipedia entry is only suitable for blogs dependending on which way they lean? No reason to delete a blog that has had multiple awards and links from many sites. User: ArcaneFury
Do not Delete eh I say its a borderline case. Somewhat notable blog in my opinion. ScottM
Do not Delete. Somewhat notable, both in its readership and its effect on the conservative blogosphere. Viz. the term "Puppy Blender" for Glenn Reynolds was invented on IMAO, and is now widely used. Edgr05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, interesting modern culture topic, encyclopedic enough for three interwikis. Better even speedy keep as featured article. Kusma(討論)02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article appears to be the computer software equivalent of band vanity, i.e. its not notable. The only google hits point back to WP. Furthermore, the software seems to implement Bios theory, a topic itself that is itself possibly pseudoscience or original research or something irrational: this accusation is right now being hotly debated at Talk:Bios theory and Talk:Chaos theory. WP is not the place for advertizing software, and even less for advertising pseudoscience software. linas02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Academia's version of advertising. I don't know how notable the journal in which this was published is, but it doesn't seem to pass WP:SOFTWARE anyway. --Kinu03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just read WP:SOFTWARE (which is a proposal only, but a good one in my oppinion) provided by Kinu and agree that it is not notable. Lakinekaki
P.S.: linas, your categorization of Bios theory as protoscience is good, your categorization of Bios theory as pseudoscience or original research or something irrational is nothing more than your personal oppinion that by the way happens to be incorrect.Lakinekaki
William M. Connolley, no need for emotinal outbursts here! :o) Noone or nothing should die. That's such a strong, emotionally charged word. And you reasoning is false. Even if Bios theory turns out to be false, but there are million of users of Bios Data Analyzer, then the article should stay! One does not imply the existence or nonexistence of the other! Lakinekaki
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Incoherent nonsensical story (Pajoolr (Also known was "Lord Pajoolr" or "The Allmighty Pajoolr") is the name of the God and King of all things, according to Lord Aegis and Lord Draconis, the two eletust muvafukas dat ever wolkd d oif). Speedy tag removed, so I'm bringing it here for clarity (sorry). Delete or speedy delete. bikeable(talk)03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between posting something such as this, as opposed to "SNK Boss Syndrome"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Merchant (talk • contribs)
This page was created by my best friend and I to shed some background light onto a character that we have created and written several stories about, a few of which are going to be published in 2007. We are a pair of British Humor writers from Oxford, England.
We don't mean to be pests, but we do feel that we have the freedom to place information on our characters here. Won't it be handy, once the stories are published, to have this page? Perhaps it seems like nonsense, but then again, I'm sure Harry Potter did too, at first. We would be very grateful if you were leave our page be. We don't mind perhaps editing it a bit, but we'd like to keep it as-is.
Cheers mates.
Also, please note, it was not "made up in school one day". We are both professional authors by trade.
Speedy delete. You do not have the freedom to place information here - everything here is by the grace and favour of the Wikipedia community, and I think you will see its opinions very clearly here. -- RHaworth03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This type of page is not why Wikipedia exists. There are guidelines for encyclopedic articles. It fails WP:WEB (ZERO Google results), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (as this is claimed to be "yet-to-be" released material). The comment above also tends toward WP:VSCA, as you have a vested interest in the article, and because you are effectively using it to advertise your "yet-to-be published" book. Further, you have also lowered your credibility by repeatedly ignoring requests to stop vandalizing and deleting AfD tags. I'm not trying to bite, but let's be honest with each other here. --Kinu03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I do understand and respect the Wikipedia community, and the content and quality guidelines therein, I do not see any real harm in allowing our article to persist. And even if, as you say, we use this page as a means of promotion, what harm is there? We won't be generating any financial benefits from this, as the stories are being published in a local Oxford humor magazine free of royalty, as we also have not copyrighted or syndicated our characters or stories. If anything, the only consequence of allowing the article to persist, would be more traffic to the website, and I hardly deem that to be an undesirable side-effect. Furthermore, it is a negligible possibility that anyone apart from my partner and I will view the page for well over a year, so, I say again, what harm is there?
the only consequence of allowing the article to persist, would be more traffic to the website... Again, advertising is not the purpose of Wikipedia. As the author, your purpose on AfD should not be asking "Why not keep this article?" but answering "Why keep this article?" --Kinu03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a rather elementary question. "Why?" "Why not?" We're not children anymore, my friend, but that particular argument could render us as such, and go on for an indeterminable amount of time. I simply fail to see why you cannot just allow us our one article. It's not bothering, intruding, or linking to anyone elses. You've probobly allready wasted more than a fair share of your time. As to the purpose of Wikipedia.. I was always under the impression that it was a community-driven encyclopedia or articles posted by users on topic which they find interesting, and have a knowledge of. If there can be a Wikipedia page for a novel, there can be one for our as-of-yet unreleased stories, there is absolutely no real difference there. And like I said, it has the possibility of generating traffic for the rest of the website, which is hardly a detrimental attribute. To be honest, I'm starting to think of the restriction on our article as, dare I say it, a tad fascistic. While I can certainly appreciate a certain amount of zeal for upholding the site's 'regulations', I hardly see it as being neccesary, or even particularly fair, to be so prejudiced against something you term 'nonsense'. I term some of those guidelines 'nonsense', does that give me the right to change or remove them? I hardly think so.
This is a pretty common argument here on AfD, so let me warn you that you are unlikely to gain traction with it. In any case, WP is an encyclopedia, not a repository for everything in the world, and therefore it is restricted to topics that are encyclopedic: that is, well known, reasonably important, verifiable, and objectively written. When your work is well known, we will be happy to have an article describing it. The key phrase in your paragraph above is "as-of-yet unreleased." See in particular what wikipedia is not, including "wikipedia is not a crystal ball." thanks. bikeable(talk)04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply fail to see why you cannot just allow us our one article: Because that would set a precedent. Wikipedia would have to allow anything and everything, and AfD would cease to exist. ... It's not bothering, intruding, or linking to anyone elses: Orphaned articles are frowned upon. If an article is relevant, it's safe to say that at least one other one would link to it. ... If there can be a Wikipedia page for a novel, there can be one for our as-of-yet unreleased stories, there is absolutely no real difference there: Yes there is. One has been released, one has not and with no verifiability of release beyond your own claim. As has been said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... I'm starting to think of the restriction on our article as, dare I say it, a tad fascistic: Other users and I have cited reasons. We don't know each other. We don't always agree. But we do here. Doesn't sound fascist to me. ... I term some of those guidelines 'nonsense', does that give me the right to change or remove them? I hardly think so.: Apples and oranges. Feel free to read the talk pages for the guidelines. They've been discussed, rediscussed, and discussed again. They're not about 100% agreement, and some people downright hate them. But they're about consensus, just like AfD. Sometimes I interpret the guidelines differently and I lose to the majority on some AfDs. That's life. So is this. If the consensus here is to delete, within those guidelines, then that's what it is. --Kinu04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If being well known is a pre-requisite for an article to stay on Wikipedia, I could nominate a rather large number of articles for deletion on that exact same basis. Hypocrisy is a terrible habit. If that is such a common argument, perhaps you should take a step back, be 'objective' yourself, and consider as to why that it is so common? I'm sure your first remark on that will be something derisive or involving a degradation of the maturity of those who use the argument. However, if many people use it, could it be, oh my stars, that it is a valid and sound argument? And, if such is the case, a sound and valid argument generating no 'traction', as you put it, is hardly a positive light to have yourself viewed in. Furthermore, what 'consensus' has been achieved? The way I see it, two people wish the article to be deleted, and two do not.
The argument would be relevant if it didn't go against the core of wikipedia, which is, again, an encyclopedia. See WP:N and WP:V for rough guidelines on articles that belong in wikipedia. Certainly, if you think that there are articles that don't belong, you are welcome to put them up for deletion (although we hold very strongly to WP:POINT). We're not singling you out; yours is one of many that someone (in this case me) thought wasn't appropriate. As far as "something derisive", you don't give us enough credit; we try to assume good faith. I'd encourage you to learn more about what wikipedia is here for and stick around and contribute to that process. bikeable(talk)04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, May I ask, is your problem with Ninjas? Are you racially disinclined to idols of Asian folklore? Racially intolerant? That poses an interesting question, as to the fairness of your..Opinion.
Fair enough, I think you've all made your points. We imposed something on your premises which you clearly don't want to have here; so go for it. I'm not opposed to the deletion of this article anymore. - A.M.
I am, however, opposed to the existence of Avi. - A.M.
I'm inclined to agree. I would, however, like to thank you for your maturity and patience in this matter. We very much appreciate you taking the time to make us understand why our article cannot stay, and we apologise for using up so much of your time.
Which was our goal.
-LD
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete: A7 per Rory096. Having an Equity card doesn't instantly make you notable, nor does making a movie that turns up next to nothing on Google. --Kinu03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
SnickersNo vote at the moment. Would it be proper to merge and redirect to coitus reservatus? I'm no expert on this topic (*insert snickers here*), but if someone who knows more about this agrees that these are rather similar and linked topics, then I'd vote for that. --Kinu03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A poorly attested neologism with 144 unique Google hits found on Wikipedia mirrors, swinger sites and porno sites. Not used in the scientific literature, Google Scholar and Google Books don't have hits for the term. That includes the German and French versions Candaulismus and candaulisme. Pilatus03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't for things made up in school one day. Porno and swinging is popular; only 144 hits for a sexual practice is poor. Cambridge City Football Club has 2090 Google hits, and they play only Nationwide South! Pilatus03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's picked as an example for something that is not very popular or of regional interest only. Cambridge City are a regional club playing 6th league. I'd expect something genuinely popular to clock up more Google hits than that club. Pilatus04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Cuckoldry is when the wife actually has some form of sexual activity with someone not her husband; this is just exposure. Avi04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe cuckoldry requires actual sexual contact (intercourse etc.); this article describes a completely non-tactile phenomenon. -- Avi16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Avi is correct; cuckoldry is different from this. If a woman has sexual relations with someone other than her husband, her husband has been cuckolded. If a man shows people revealing pictures of his wife, no cuckoldry has occured, and only husbands can be cuckolded at any rate. Ergot17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am not sure if the name is the proper one, but deleting the contents on that basis seems wrong. If there is a more appropriate title, rename it. Reading the article also brought to mind the story of Queen Vashti in the Book of Esther, chap. 1, verses 9-12. The practice, whatever its name, is certainly not cuckoldry as no sex was to occur there and I don't think that the King was feeling as a cuckold in putting his wife's "beauty" to the eyes of the voyeurs... Carlossuarez4619:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is taken from the german book "Lexicon von Liebe" (1984) by Ernest Borneman. The term is older than cuckoldry, was applied to nudism and did not implied necessarily sexual contact,
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. (Without prejudice, so if it actually gets unveiled tomorrow and a famous manufacturer preoders >100,000 of them, come back then. :P) --Kinu03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to strong delete. To add to what Ruby has said below, it's pure crystal ball, not because the date of unveiling is today, but because presently it has next to no notability; what's crystal ball is its future notability, which is the standard for keep, and not whether it is a real product that's on store shelves today or tomorrow. Under that standard, specifically, Wikipedia's guidelines for brand name products, it is patently non-notable. --Fuhghettaboutit13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so much keying on when it's unveiled as when it's released (Fall 2006), because that's when we will see if it is notably popular. Ruby05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Exactly. One might say that the PS3 should be kept because it's from a notable company and the previous releases were notable, but this is created by the same person as the Furby, so one could say that this will, by that logic, be notable, since the Furby was. Rory09615:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to try one more time - The crystal ball aspect of this nomination refers to the notability of the product that is being advertised in this article. The product exists, assuredly, but it may flop when it is retailed this fall. Ruby12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising? I'm probably the person responsible for the majority of the article's content, and I assure you that I have no affiliation whatsoever with the company making the thing. I just think it's an interesting device, and as worthy of an article as the Playstation 3 or QRIO. Also, in response to the comment below. --NeuronExMachina22:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond here, at the latest delete vote: the item may not be sold, but it is already generating press coverage. The San Jose Mercury News alone has an estimated daily readership of a million. Melchoir21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Disclaimer: Bias (creator), at the risk of fisking; google hits aren't that accurate without good keywords, one hit maybe, but several references, not enough background? Add some..., and the playstation 3 point again. - Alec.N 12:04 7 February 2006 (UTC)
KeepI've checked this page twice in the last 3 days for information about this, if I'm interested other people are as well. Wikipedia is very useful to me as a tool to research random words/posts on the internet. I would like to be able to find what a pleo is and why it is important without having to sift through google.-pKD
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to what it was originally a redirect to (Syllogism). Ted is not the author, Twrigley is (well, an anonymous editor was the original author back in 02, but Twrigley is the one who made it into an article rather than a redirect). Rory09604:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or provide context. "Article" is a collection of links, all to different pages on the same site. No other content is provided. No information about the organization being objected to, no context. Csari04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Vanity/twaddle. Google search returns one hit to site which, appropriately enough, bills itself as "all the mediocre crap you've come to accept." --Fuhghettaboutit04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh... sorry, I'm a bit new to the wikipedia article creation thing. I didn't mean to delete the prod comment, I thought that a friend of mine was editing it. Anyway, thanks for making fun of my site Fuhghettaboutit...Elsaturnino04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I sort of violated "don't bite the newbies". Sorry. Articles about yourself are not really well received here. I'm not encyclopedic, neither are you. --Fuhghettaboutit05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I feel like this is an appropriate article. It is verifiable (you could try contacting the WKDU people and asking about mike drift and me) and we had a fair amount of listeners who were sad to see us break up the show so quickly.Elsaturnino05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete but create a neopedia wiki to transwiki these to as they crop up. Has anyone ever reviewed deleted neo/protologisms to see how many eventually made it into (I really love this phrase) common parlance? AdrianLamo ·· 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.
The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.
You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.
If verified, merge into List of YTMND fads, with a re-direct there (hope this terminology is correct -- this is the first time I've suggested such a thing), as it will then provide later researchers with a cross-reference from the "Safety Not Guranteed" tag. If not verified, delete -- Simon Cursitor08:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polite query :: by what criteria are you identifying the "sockpuppets" ? I ask, because the term seems to be thrown around on AfD like afrisbee without any hint as to how s-ps are identified or why, if they can be identified, someone doesn't just erase their entries. -- Simon Cursitor09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I can't confirm that any of the above are actually sockpuppets by the official definition, but that's because the votes here are the only recorded edits listed for some of the users. This implies that the accounts were created for the sole purpose of voting for this article. As much as I would love to delete those votes, removing votes is bad form. --Alan Au21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All-your-base this thing ain't, funny on borderline it may be but sure as heck not funny enough for its own friggin' article... and looks like meatpuppets got us again, too. Can someone show them some broom? And what was the magic code that summoned the handy red-bordered, huge-exclamation-mark-sign boxie again? I forgot, never used it myself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the sockpuppet allegations, I've appended a note under the name of each user with 25 or fewer edits (regardless of their opinion on the article). -Colin Kimbrell21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The safety of this page was never guaranteed in the first place... but the meme extends beyond YTMND and adding it to multiple articles seems pointless. Bah --147.126.46.147 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I claim ownership of the previous vote --Nick Catalano (Talk) 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It should be linked to from the various pages that have been vandalised by YTMND addicts. Whether at the top like disambiguation or at the bottom in some section. -- J Darnley23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let's not be hypocrites. O rly was allowe to stay around, why shouldn't this? Excuse me if the Wikipedia cultural elite thinks this is should be deleted, but I'm not buying it. --Tykell23:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google results for ("numa numa" -newgrounds): 798,000. Google results for ("o rly" -4chan): 492,000. Google results for ("safety not guaranteed" -ytmnd): 427. The difference should be pretty obvious, no? -Colin Kimbrell01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know, but it's clearly been enough to create a massive vandal attack on Wikipedia just for the humour of it. --Tykell02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those results are of now. Obviously when numa numa was started, it had little or no results. Just as this may have right now. --Zeno McDohl03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are lots of things that may become notable, the vast majority of which never do. Assuming future notability for things which are not currently notable is crystal ball-ism. If/when it does, we can make a new article on it then. -Colin Kimbrell14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes but considering it's new, you cannot say it's not notable, because search engines do not crawl sites instantaneously. --Zeno McDohl14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A direct quote from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." The burden of proof is on the one claiming notability, and if we can't verify this yet, we don't want it yet. After it becomes a verifiably notable meme, we can re-create a standalone article, if people think one is warranted. -Colin Kimbrell14:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're right about notability not being a policy or guideline, but many people here see it as a logical application of WP:NOT and/or WP:VAIN, which are. Furthermore, a claim of notability made within the context of the article needs to be just as verifiable as any other fact. The article states "this internet phenomenon has found many homes", and if that's not verifiably the case, it doesn't belong in the article.-Colin Kimbrell21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should probably mention that if this survives as a standalone article, it's probably going to need to be cut way back to meet with policies and guidelines. The whole "Investigation" section violates WP:OR, and the copyright status of the first image (Timetravel.jpg) is bogus, just to name two examples. -Colin Kimbrell21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, a list of fads is encyclopedic. Unfortunately, in-depth coverage of just one particularly lame fad is indeed NOT encyclopedic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolb (talk • contribs)
We have pretty extensive coverage of fads in general[5]; the more germane question is whether this particular fad is notable among fads. We have lots of articles about sculptures, too[6], but that doesn't mean that all sculptures are inherently worthy of an article. You have to judge each case on its own merits (or lack thereof). -Colin Kimbrell14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: To list of YTMND fads, as the safety of that page is guaranteed. The writer probably only did this once before, and didn't bring his own weapons. FireballX30103:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's well detailed, gives insight into the fad. If we're going to delete every YTMND fad, why not delete every Beatles song and put them all under "List of Beatles songs." Okay, that's a stretch, but still. Several Wikipedia users seem to have a bias against YTMND. After all, Brian Peppers is definitely notable, and his article keeps being deleted. Also, Colin Kimbrell, stop being a dick. And go ahead and check, you'll see I've made plenty of edits.--Josh08:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Colin Kimbrell keep listing the number of edits each commenter has made? Do you need to edit 100 pages to get into the Secret Wiki Adventure Club?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.56.11 (talk • contribs)
Because the people who advocate deletion want to make sure that the administrators ignore people who came to edit a particular article. I don't like it, you don't like it, but we just have to live with it. I had to deal with this once. Thankfully, my work was saved. Crazyswordsman00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because several people upthread had made allegations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and given that, I thought it'd be best if everybody's cards were out in the open. It also makes things simpler for the closing admin. Of course, I'd already mentioned this upthread here (down at the bottom), so if you really wanted to know, you could've just read the rest of the thread. -Colin Kimbrell14:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on both counts, though it's certainly not growing very fast. In the two days since I last checked, '"safety not guaranteed" -ytmnd' has increased to 472 hits on google, an increase of 45. The people pushing this had better hope it's a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. -Colin Kimbrell15:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but notability within YTMND isn't enough in-and-of itself; that's exactly why we have List of YTMND fads in the first place. We need outside sources of crossover to general popular culture if we want a standalone article on the subject. -Colin Kimbrell21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.It was an ad in a newspaper, and completely genuine. Yes, YTMND has picked it up, but it was a real event, and therefore a legitmate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.47.120 (talk • contribs)
Incredibly Strong Delete So Powerful It Overrides All Keep Votes On All Articles For Deletion For Every Wikipedia Site Existing In All Parallel Dimensions For All Eternity. "Safety Not Guaranteed" was not a true Internet fad beyond YTMND, and it didn't originate from YTMND.com either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.151.144 (talk • contribs)
KeepUser: Dr. R.K.Z Define "not a true internet fad", YTMND in itself is one of the most profilic internet meme sources on the 'net and has generated attention on other sites and forum communities. Peanut Butter Jelly started somewhere did'nt it? Keep, its' slowly becoming a fad on its' own merits
Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. There are many things that have been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia, and others who's questionability is unnecessary. This is one of those gray areas. Personally, I think this is fine (it was in a newspaper), but there are others who disagree and think more references are needed. Also, Wikipedia can't be the first place something is published. That would be "original research," which is illegal here. Sorry.Crazyswordsman02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Delete - Looking at the Google results, this is obviously not a popular meme, which is why they have tried using Wikipedia to spread the thing. I can't believe all the new users just spamming this keep for this. - Hahnchen08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Slang definition purporting to trace the evolution of an ethnic stereotype. If the term is widely used it is possible that there is an article to be written, but this one is trivial, POV, and probably offensive. Delete. bikeable(talk)05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Let's make this a paleologism at least as far as WP goes. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 7, 2006, 07:23 (UTC)
Do Not Delete This is a realistic term that thousands of people know. The information is absolutely true. And although it is a stereotype, it is one that is extremely common in South Florida. Please do not delete the article. No one here is from South Florida. They have no knowledge of the term - Unsigned comment by 168.221.143.68 at 05:36, February 7, 2006
Do Not Delete This article was very useful for my thesis on ethnic stereotypes in Miami. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia/dictionary which was able to accompany my research. This page was excellent, and should be kept for future research on ethnic stereotypes. - George H.
Unlikely — Same IP as last Do Not Delete comment. Can this 'discussion' be ended soon? — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 8, 2006, 16:28 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Just because you might not like the use of a term doesn't mean that it should be deleted from dictionaries (that's directed at you Orwellian 1984 delete crazy psychos). If we're going to delete this entry then the entry for the "n" word and bitch should have to go as well. This term is as much part of american encyclopedic history as any other coloquial term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.76.7 (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete The previous "Do Not Delete" edit has an excellent point. If the stereotype wigger is on Wikipedia, then there is no reason why this Chonga stereotype article cannot be on it. All this article needs is a little more editing and it will be acceptable. I see no reason why it should be deleted. - Simon H.
Do Not Delete This should not be deleted for the same reasons mentioned above. the use of the "n" word, or even the term wigger, this is indeed a stereotype but is not to be deleted because someone does not like it.
Do Not Delete!! In reference to the 1984 Orwellion bikeable. The fact that you counted the hours which this page had been in existence shows yours distatste for this entry, and your distant location in Boston probably adds to the distate which you dislpay towards this article. It just so happens that I researched wikipedia while this page was still under construction. If the terms "wigger" and the "n" word can be used as research items, than so should the term "chonga." -George H.
Note the excellent use of references in Wigger. If you can provide real, verifiable references to use of the word, and its importance beyond being a slang definition (since wikipedia is not a dictionary, and if the article could be rewritten as an encyclopedic discussion of a cultural phenomenon and not in the current mocking tone, then it might possibly be worth an article. I'd recommend starting with references. Just my two cents as a "1984 Orwellion"! bikeable(talk)20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW — Urbandictionary.com does recognize this definition. My vote remains delete as above, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But I thought this fact should be noted. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 9, 2006, 02:24 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE- this article has been very useful to numerous friends of mine here in south florida who are not familiar with the term "chonga", those of you that dont agree, dont know the term and have nothing to do it, but as for the youth of south florida this word has become very popular and has grown extensively. i plead that this article SHOULD NOT be deleted.--168.221.143.6817:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Gabriel F.[reply]
This article should not be deleted. It is, for all intensive purposes, similar to a stub. If anything, this article should not be considered for deletion: it should be considered for extension. References to the word chonga are difficult to find (in print, the internet, etc.) because it is not a word that has garnered world-wide usage. If you'd like references that you MIGHT be able to find, listen to radio station El Zol 95, a local station here in Miami. It's not easy to find references for a rather new term. Also, this is not a definitionesque article. If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. The way it stands now, everyone in Miami that I know that has seen the article (and in the past 24 hours, word has spread FAST) agrees that it is truthful and not in any way just a slang term with no relevance. This article contains the history, the evolution of said chonga, and is, in no way, offensive. If a girl is dressed like one, she knows what she's doing, and she knows what she's attempting to look like. If I wear a gold chain around my neck, 3 inches thick, with a spinner on the end, a thick Ecko sweater, and my pants around my ankles, you'd immediately say I'm trying to be "gangster" or "gangster-like". This is because I AM. You do not look a certain way without being able to be labeled. This is just a new label for a certain female demographic, primarily found in South Florida which has not found national usage yet. --Gmasterluis00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — All these people who want to see this article become encyclopedic (and therefore acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia) should focus their attentions on improving the article. Is is acceptable, encouraged in fact, for the article to be edited, expanded, and improved during the deletion discussion. The criticisms levelled above by the delete voters are common here. Many new articles suffer these same faults. Occasionally an article can be improved enough during the deletion process to cause people to change their votes. The faults noted above are somewhat subjective, but based on objective observations. Gmasterluis says If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. Articles should only be edited by people who understand the subject matter, the keep voters here claim to understand the subject, the delete voters clearly do not (from your POV). So the delete voters need to put their heads together and re-write the article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. And they need to do it quickly before a deletion decision is made. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 10, 2006, 01:39 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE!!! This article is extremely helpful to people new to South Florida who do not understand the term.
DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE IS VERY TRUE OF SOUTHERN FLORIDIANS AND IS NOT IN THE SAME LEVEL AS THE OFFENSIVE N WORD USED TO BRING DOWN AFRICAN AMERICANS. CHONGA'S ARE PROUND OF WHAT THEY ARE, SOME OF THEM EVEN PURCHASE APPAREL WITH THIS WORD WRITTEN ON IT. PEOPLE FROM OTHER STATES AND EVEN OTHER CITIES HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD, BUT TO US IN SOUTH FLORIDA IT IS VERY REAL. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BECUASE IT CALL HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND SOUTH FLORIDA'S CULUTRE AND PEOPLE.----HOTTEETS.COM
Comment — You're still missing the point. No one is claiming that this is not a real word. The issue here is the article in question, and it's appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Try reading the comments and suggestions that I (and others) have posted here. Take these ideas to heart, and work to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards. Coming here and bitching (you) HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD is not productive. And it won't do any good. The administrator that decides the final outcome of this discussion will not be swayed by TYPING IN ALL CAPS and moaning about how you don't understand us. The only issue here is the quality of the article. If you approach the phenomenon of "Chonga" from a sociological and cultural perspective, write an article from that POV, and write it at a level of quality commensurate with other articles, you will find that the word is kept, and you will win this fight. Read the comments by bikeable above and use those articles as a guide to improving this one. Bringing in a bunch of your friends to scream DO NOT DELTE is not going to help. (And, by the way, the term we usually use here is Keep. Not "do not delete") — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 10, 2006, 03:12 (UTC)
Comment This article just needs to be worked on. It has not been here for very long, and requires INTELLIGENT people to work on it. I've been working on it a bit, even though it isn't originally my work, and I am not someone with all the background info, though I can ensure everyone that it's all true and valid information. The people complaining, I don't agree with them, because they aren't making valid arguments. However, this topic should not be for deletion, as I stated before. We (people who are well aware of the term) are trying our best to improve the article and continue make it grow into a more encyclopedic source of information.
do not delete this article. it is hilarious and is very useful to people who do not know what a Chonga is. Everything in this article is true, i should know because i am a teen living in S. FLorida. But people who do not know what Chonga means can learn from this article. p.s. if you are intersted in seeing Chongas for yourself, go to International Mall or Santa's Enchanted Forest.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per all above. I'd say to speedy this as an attack page, but alas, it's not the entry attacking the person, but the website to which it refers. --Kinu05:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Tucker Max has his own wikipedia page, I think tourettes guy should have his own page as well.
Delete poor Google showing and Alexa rank indicate that this site has made no real impact. No references either besides the website link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. It is a legitimate explanation of a piece of history. This is not just a joke. It really did happen. A lot of people still talk about this character and event across Canada. Please reconsider. --Beastron05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While, this has been AfD'd before; looking at the google results for "Jay Zuckerman" sports; I can hardly find a mention of him. He may be the Jay Zuckerman mentioned as the author of a (highly non-notable) article, but that's only on the 2nd page, after about 10 or 15 other people doing a vast variety of different things. Unless a clear reference for this person can be found this should be deleted. And even if such a ref is found, importance still needs to be shown. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
From the actual Jay himself: JesseW and other Wikipedians, please remove the page. I've been trying to get it off here for some time now. I have no idea why it was voted on as "keep," despite my message I placed in both Editing Talk and the Vote itself saying to please remove it. Once I found out it's been up there around August, I've tried to monitor it and manipulate it from a couple of vandals (esp. one in regards to an untrue pejorative statement about leaving Texas Christian University. I am by no means a notable person and once guested locally (NOT NATIONALLY) on an NPR affiliate, not NPR itself. Thanks for bringing this to light and your consideration. I brought it to attention by asking for a speedy deletion just yesterday and it was immediately reverted by an admin to the previous update. I hope that you all will speedily remove the Wikipedia entry. JZ
Delete per Adrian, and agree what Adrian said that you don't own articles and don't have a right not to be written about if you don't want to. Stifle18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment:: I was going to list them as well but they have both competed in the South East Asia games. I am not sure if that is enough notability or not. --Martyman-(talk)05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:; I think theres no problem with that.165.21.154.112
Delete. School athlete with no record of participating in international events such as the Olympics, Asian Games etc needed as a minimum to establish notability as an athlete. Capitalistroadster09:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cortt has now replaced that article with the bio of yet another apparently nn Singaporean athlete (who, it seems, is a lover of slow, romantic numbers when it comes to singing). That's up for AfD; Delete this one as well. Tonywalton | Talk12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia is not a place for things you just made up at school one day. Also a "tradition" that is at most a month old is not really a tradition. Reyk06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the sort of thing lists do very badly, and categories do quite well. As far as ridiculously wide scope goes, "associated" with WWII is just about everyone living in one of the involved coutries in the 1940s (how many millions is that? At least 500? Mayeb closer to a billion?). Yes, I know, this should theoretically have only those notable enough for an article, but that's still shitloads (and I see redlinks and non-linkd people listed too). If we want a list of leaders and military commanders and the like we might have something, but any such list that includes the likes of Patrick Clancy has really bitten off more than it can chew. The only argument I've heard for why lists augment categories in cases like this is that lists can show who's missing. If there are important people closely associated with WWII who don't have articles, they are far better served with other articles and more specific lists. Not something that's so general it might as well be List of people with some sort of connection to water. -R. fiend07:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge. List should include only the most prominent people (Hitler, Churchill, the most prominent generals et al). Others could be divided to categories according to organiztion they belonged to (SOE, SS, OSS, French Resistance, etc.) - Skysmith11:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the page itself may be poorly organized, which in that case would require a simple clean up, a deletion for this reason alone would require the deletion of all the "List of people associtated with" lists. Has this been mentioned at the Military history wikiproject ? MadMax11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, it could be useful, but it needs to have clear inclusion criteria and a better name. I'm drawing a blank with regard to suggestions, though. - Mgm|(talk)12:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not listcruft by any means, but certainly something that categories can do far better and with less maintenance issues. Zunaid14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If necessary, create a category and categorize notable people. Having an association with the war does not make one notable per seAvi17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this list's name is all but open-ended and could/should include a very large proportion of those alive in the middle of the last century. Delete and replace with a category/categories. (If it's retained please rename to be more specific.) Sliggy20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like "List of World War II leaders." This list organizes people by country, includes birth and death dates, and summarizes their role in the war. That is exactly the sort of information lists can summarize but categories cannot. Durova03:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Advertisment and listcruft. I don't see why Wikikpedia needs such a list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colelction of information. DeleteTerence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHot Wheels has a list of notable models with more information. This one will never be wikified or expanded upon and is basically some sort of source information. - Mgm|(talk)12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this list violating any of things it says on WP:NOT. This list is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" as mentioned on WP:NOT. It is closely associated with the main topic of Hot Wheels. I see this list as being no different than each of the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG Booster Packs which lists every single card in each booster. This list just states the entire lineup of cars for one year. - Ultrabasurero
- Can someone please explain why this would be considered "unencyclopedic"? Ultrabasurero
- I've read "What Wikipedia is Not" around 3-4 times now, and still find nothing that would allow its deletion. Ultrabasurero
Strong Keep but rename to List of 2006 Hot Wheels die cast cars as better use of the trademarked term "Hot Wheels". This list does not violate the "What Wikipedia is Not". Just because such high-brow items such as List of Hitchcock cameo appearances and the various List of people on stamps of fill in the blankare considered encyclopedic does not make lists of items of interest to the toy collector/hobbyist as opposed to the movie buff or philatelist unencyclopedic. This list is not indiscrimate per the nom. It is pretty definite and defined. The criticism that it will never be 'wikified' or expanded upon is a prediction of the future that given the debate here seems unlikely; if I'm wrong nominate it again after a period, but remember that not every list is dynamic: some lists are all that will ever occur about the subject (e.g., List of Hitchcock cameo appearances and there won't be any more of them). The concern about all the data coming in at one fell swoop is not surprising and doesn't sugges copyvio; collectors of Hot Wheels (or nearly anything else these days) maintain lists of the available items that may be added to their collections and check (British: tick) them off once acquired. And last, this is not advertising any more than Hitchcock's movies or the Post Office is being advertised by the other approved lists. I have a remaining concern which may show that this will be a maintained list: are these the planned hot wheels cars, or have all these been issued. If that's so, this list might be better to be made into a table, with the planned cars and a check box on whether their appearance has been verified. And to anticipate those critics who complain that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", as you cast your stones on that account, please first delete all references to the expected return of Comet Halley, etc. Carlossuarez4621:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is not of any interest to you, does not mean it is of interest to very few people. There's a reason why Hot Wheels are consistently the #1 selling toy by volume. Ultrabasurero 22:00, 8 February
Comment, interest to very few people? what about List of Alfalfa Club members, List of Airwolf episodes, List of Airbus A320 operators, List of Allied warships that served at Gallipoli, List of Ainu terms, etc. just a quick perusal of the early section of 'A' lists... c'mon, the threshhold is pretty low and Hot Wheels cars seem to have a notable following. 4,700,000 google hits for "Hot Wheels" and somewhere north of 50,000 items on ebay [[9]]. Not necessarily high-brow, but either is a list of airlines by which planes they fly or a club, regardless of how distinguished its members may be, whose only function is a birthday party for a dead confederate general. Lists of basically trivia are the norm here and singling out one set of collectors or hobbyists over another is unfair. Carlossuarez4621:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This is a class project. It is not a licensed FM broadcast station. The article name is in violation of WP:NC#Broadcasting. It is a vanity page with little hope of becomming more. I would hope that once they become an internet radio station or a licensed FM station a new page is created, but until then I don't think that this belongs on wikipedia. The fate of this page has been talked about both on the article's talk page and here. I would encourage all editors to read what has been posted at both locations. —A08:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 0.1 watt station with no call letters is not yet notable. I could shout the news from a tall building and virtually as many people would hear me. Grandmasterka09:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd vote delete, but am concerned about setting precedent affecting other, notable unlicensed stations. While this station is probably nn, lack of licensing is not a bar to notability. AdrianLamo ·· 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that being unlicenced alone is not enough to have an article deleted. However it is a good metric that should be combined with others. —A08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Merge into Pasadena City College, minus most of the content as it is promotional fluff. I would think the station's staff's time would be more productively spent getting their own website up instead of editing Wikipedia. DHowell00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unlicensed microbroadcaster, dead link, not even a notable pirate station like Radio Caroline or Free Radio Santa Cruz. Try www.part15.us. Haikupoet03:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Lancer Radio is a 24 hour Broadcasted Radio Station. it is officially recognized by the Inter-Collegiate Broadcast Society it is also Registered with Sound Exchange. The Radio Station was officially recognized by the Tornament of Roses as an Official MEDIA/PRESS. The Lancer Radio was official recognized by the 2005 BET Awards and broadcasts Live the Pasadena City Council meetings. It was invited OFFICIALLY to the Inaugeration of LA Mayor Villagaroisa. Lancer Radio was recognized officially and was allowed to broadcast Live during a presentation by CA Gov Schwatzenegger. Lancer radio presents LIVE News coverage of National, Political, Sports, Gay and lesbian, and College News. Lancer radio also uses remote broadcast which many commercial radio stations do not have. lancer radio is not a class project. it is an independent chartered club which is student run. the website is up and running with in the next 3 weeks at www.lancerradio889.pasadena.edu. To consider Lancer radio as any less the Free radio Santa Cruz or Radio Caroline is idiotic. Lancer Radio is a well regulated radio station operated in accordance with FCC guidlines. Lancer Radio WAS formerly known as KPCS 88.9 Lancer radio has been broadcast for 20 plus years. it is has been officially recognized by the City of Pasadena, and the Pasadena Area Community College District. it has been invited by Schwatzenegger and Villagairosa to cover their event... and is an OFFICIAL MEMBER in good standing of the INTER-COLLIGIATE BROADCAST SOCIETY.. even many Licensed college radios do not have membership. Lancer radio has a fixed Location in a radio station with two fixed phone numbers one an official Contact Number (626)585-9285 and an Official request line at 626-792-6867.....it has talk showes and Music Programs with official recognition to air licensed music through sound exchange
Comment -- the FCC license is what counts, and the official standards for broadcast notability don't even consider that a given. WTBU would be an example of a case where I would say keep (though I'm biased, I wrote the article) -- major university, World Wide Web presence, perhaps most importantly Howard Stern's first radio gig. WVBC, across town at Boston College, wouldn't rate -- I went to BC and nobody on campus even knew it existed (not to be confused with WZBC, which is a major alt-rock station in the Boston market). And Radio Caroline and FRSC are notable for their own reasons -- Caroline for its years of influence on northern European listening habits, and FRSC for their stand against the FCC. Flea power stations are great. I want to run one myself. But there are other websites (such as the one I mentioned above, www.part15.us), where this information belongs. (BTW, my advice as someone with a passing interest in microbroadcasting: you'll get much better range on AM without the legal hassles of FM operation, which is really way too strict for its own good.) Haikupoet23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it hardly ever helps to show up on AfD and assert that anyone that doesn't appreciate your pet project is "idiotic" ... AdrianLamo ·· 06:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deleting, but those who expressed an interest in merging might consider following up on that. W.marsh23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong delete We are NOT supposed to be a collection of every single inanity that pops into someones head on any given morning. Avi17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete this slang word no body has heard of it because its a new word and is very popularly used, in the uk any way. And what are people on bout it doesnt say nething bout being for gamers, boontards
If you are trying to think of ways to convince others and have them reconsider their votes, you really can't go wrong with personal insults. JIP | Talk12:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong delete All google links link back to this article (through answers.com or whatever) . This is most probably a hoax, as well as nonsense. Wikipedia is NOT for the creation of new ideas. Avi17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable neologism. I'd advocate renaming it "List of Bands that Kick Ass", but that's just me POV pushing good music and it would be listcruft anyway.--Isotope2320:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Delete: per nom. Notability assertion is that it's a great frat party house. Doesn't every frat house assert that? Nothing to back it up anywhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This essay should probably be deleted. As to whether the person is a notable enough artist, I'm not sure based on the Google results, but I'm guessing not. Grandmasterka09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's the transcription of an opening speech to the exhibition: E.Z.Genthe. —Quarl(talk)2006-02-07 09:52Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was created after attempts to place this information in the article Collapse of the World Trade Center was met with much opposition. After the creation of this article, the creator then tried to merge the article into Collapse of the World Trade Center, placing merge tags on each one [11], [12]. The article is a bad faith attempt to supercede concensus and may be a partial copyvio from sections of [13]--MONGO09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No actually, this article was a long time coming. It is relevant and meets criteria for Wikipedia Policy. It is a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Whatever MONGO might think is another matter. I'm sure most will agree that the article stands fine on its own. If anyone is interested in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article controversy, I urge them to read this. Talk: Collapse of the World Trade CenterSkeenaR10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the amount of material published on these events, and the number of theories presented, this is not a notable subject, and does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. - brenneman(t)(c)11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not spelling it out and bolding it, because this isn't a vote and my opinion is clear.[reply]
Wow. This is a narsty POV fork if I ever saw one. It has no place in Wikipedia, either. Delete. RasputinAXP talkcontribs12:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'm still bolding it and spelling it out, 'cause I know it's not a vote, but old habits die hard. :P [reply]
Keep: The article is badly POV, and would need to be rewritten if it is to be kept (which I doubt, given the number of deletes above). However, we can verify the group exists (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), it has gained some notability by being in the news (9 hits on Google news [14]), and a number of the members (as noted above) are notable in their own right. For the record, I think the claims by this group are absurd. I don't think that should influence my thought on whether to keep or delete this article. If we can have articles on obscure Pokemon characters, certainly there's room for a controversial group that's been in the news and has notable people in it. Just clean it up, stick to facts, and remove the badly POV elements. --Durin16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I disagree that POV is reason to delete; edit it. However, after being edited to make it NPOV it is no longer notable, so let's not bother. Carlossuarez4621:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles on other, fringe, political lobby groups. This should be rewritten into being NPOV. It is note-worthy, as they are challenging the norms of society in many respects. --GeLuxe22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally disagree with their opinions, interpretation, engineering, etc. However, no reason for WP to act like there aren't people out there who believe those things. Notable things can be consensus wrong, and still deserving of WP articles. NPOV improvements sounds like a good idea, though. Georgewilliamherbert02:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Info about this organisation deserve its own article. They have done significant scientific research that one day will complete our knowledge of what happened. A human08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those who say that what's in the article is already covered elsewhere don't actually understand the relevance of the group or what is now going on because of this group. I have my own issues around it, but the information is not, and will not be, redundant. Bov01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is seems to be some sort of fantasy alter-ego for the author; Google search only shows this name as user names on message boards. This has been tagged as speedy, but the author removed the tag, and recreated the article once it had been speedied. Reyk10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per Reyk. The few bluelinks around point to the wrong place. Also, the first line, is a prime example of a bad definition. - Mgm|(talk)12:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hey guys. Don't want to cause any problems here (I added the entry). Do what you need to do. I'm happy to change the entry (or have it moved to my userspace).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
tagged as speedy, but not really a speedy candidate. Much as I might want to support the British engineering industry (being a British engineering graduate) I find it hard to trace any claim to notability for this firm. No URL, Applegate listing is trivial and does not establish importance. Article as written is spam. CEMA usually means the Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers' Association, which is what most of the Googles return. Please prove me wrong or don the cape and tights and rescue it with some elusive proof of significance. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]11:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this article as a speedy delete due to lack of context. I'll vote for delete unless, as the above says, somebody can rescue the article. James08413:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An entry on a local fraternity chapter. Describes the current and previous frathouses in some detail but gives no indication that this particular chapter is notable in any way. Pilatus11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As learned from a previous discussion on this topic, local chapters of national fraternities don't get their own pages. --Kinu19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent article that should be reduced and used as the basis for a general article on the greek system at the University of Washington. -- JJay02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page should be deleted since the title Syedna is currently synonymous with Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. A page for the same already exists. This page Syedna Burhanuddin is a duplication and hence should be deleted Sbohra10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is a title that all leaders get (eg. if the new leader was named Ismael, and he would be called Syedna Ismael Burhanuddin) than this is a legitamate entry. If it only refers to the current 52nd holder of the title, it should be merged into that article. Avi17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Please consider expanding on your nominations in future. These days, all "not notable" tells us is that you think it should be deleted (everything on AfD, kept or deleted, is "not notable", apparently). Instead, consider explaining why an article ought to be deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Quarl. Yes, I know Quarl voted to keep, but my interpretation (and the previous detail on WP:WEB was that an Alexa rank of 10000 or better was generally required for website notability. Since the software is entirely web-based, I feel comfortable invoking that. Stifle10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, roughly 10K google hits in a fairly restrictive search for +AceProject +"bug tracking". No compelling reason not to keep. AdrianLamo ·· 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete I added the initial prod tag, which was later removed. It'd be nice if when this happens and the article is nominated for deletion, the prod listing automatically counts as a vote for deletion. Brighterorange17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparently non-notable song by apparently non-notable singer (whose Wikipedia article I have put up for speedy deletion as a NN bio). Appears to be vanity; creator's only edits have been to create these articles. Google returns only two results for the song and two for the singer. -- TKD12:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete... I guess. Aaron's link shows no hits on Google NEWS, but I get 3 million on Google web search. But looking at them, it looks like a lot of them are linkfarms. So there's some serious SEO action going on and it's hard to tell what the real deal is. So, as Zunaid says, without some 3rd party sources to verify it's hard to trust only google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byRodii (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An astrophysicist who on December 27, 2005 ... released a complete model of the physics of the universe in which we live. Assuming that the author David Ashley is not a sock puppet, this is not vanity. But the only link is to AFM's own article and it is probably too soon for it to have received peer review. So I propose that the model of the universe discussed can be dismissed as original research and that until the research is accepted by the scientific community, the named subject of this article is non-notable. I await comments with interest. -- RHaworth13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, he would be very notable indeed if his model were accepted. But that appears to not have happened yet, per only 7 google hits. --Fuhghettaboutit13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David Ashley16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) here. I'm a different guy, not a sock puppet. www.xdr.com/dash and you can see my
own separate page. I never heard of AFM until I saw the slashdot article. I spent the
time and read through the lectures. This is informed-layman level stuff. I'm still reeling
with the implications. However I modified the page to tone down the claims, using words
like "purported," and "If this theory is correct". My main reason for adding the page is
because it didn't exist. I think there needs to be one. My opinion is there is a good chance
the theory is going to prove out. Wikipedia can be an early source for information about
this fellow. And if the article here is deleted, I think someone else will come right
along and recreate it. At least let my effort be a jumping off point. Modify the article,
don't wipe it out of existence.[reply]
But that's crystalballism--if you feel strongly, go to article--->edit, copy text, and save it in your computer in word/notepad etc. When he is properly notable per WP:BIO, repost the article with appropriate changes. --Fuhghettaboutit
Delete for now as crystalballism. I knew it sounded familiar when I saw the name. Slashdot linked this a few days ago. Apparently the lectures/papers have just been submitted for peer review, so I think it is a bit premature to assert notability at this time. If his theories bear out and are widely accepted it would be wholly appropriate to add an article for Mayer, and indeed an expanded one at that. But for now, this fails WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)
In that case, I would suggest you copy this information to User:David Ashley/Alexander Franklin Mayer and then as the author of the article, you may use {{db-author}} to have the delete speedied. Should Dr. Mayer's theories be proven and have significant impact on the field, you will have all the data on your local user page to repost the article -- Avi21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment it's too bad that this article didn't include a link to the website in question. If it's the Dutch travel site fastminute.nl or the Italian airline-reservation site fastminute.it it might actually be notable. I don't think that it's supposed to be either of those, though. Ergot19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was marked for speedy deletion as a non-notable club. The website claims it is an industry body though, which to me is notable enough for an AfD hearing at least. Thryduulf14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen sandwiches with BSA accreditation notices (even in Switzerland). Google seems to have enough third party references to say it's verifiable. JPD (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Verifiable? Yes, unless it's an elaborate hoax. Notable? Only to the extent of explaining why such an organization would exist to begin with. --Lockley17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate organisation. The article quotes the website (BSA) which isn't hoaxed. The article should have more content as it is a bit weak as it stands but it is verifiable in principle. (aeropagitica) 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Get a brain, morans. Our Campaigns is a valuable political resource that is mentioned in several other "legitimate" articles. User:James Crews 10:46, 7 February 2006 (EST)
My God you are all nerds with no time on your hands Starblind, Sleepyhead81 and ComputerJoe's comments should be ignored because iliveinmymomsbasement.com doesn't rank them among the l33test Everquest players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byJames Crews (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2006.
I hope you will consider keeping this entry. OC has more useful information for researchers than Fark.com, which also has a Wikipedia entry. Several other Wikipedia.com entries reference the election returns at OC. Unfortunately, psephologists do not have an organization to rate websites - the only competition to OC would be politics1.com. I realize you need to use objective criteria in making your decisions, and if you decide to remove the entry I will understand. Chronicler317:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3[reply]
Delete as alexa, although not extremely reliable does not have any statistics for the site, the article does not give any sources for the facts, according to Google only 13 sites links to OurCampaigns [18], and as the article stands right now it does not pass WP:WEB. Bjelleklang - talk17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a proud member of this website, and registered merely to get across to you the point that OurCampaigns is a legitimate website. A valuable political resource with no real peer in its category. Like I said, several other "legitimate" Wikipedia articles point towards the site, so having this entry merely makes Wikipedia more complete. I've often thought of personally making the OC entry, but it seems users like those above spend far too much time finding information to delete. If anything, your wisdom should be put to use in other entries where there is inaccurate information, or entires that are considered "stubs" should be expanded. This would be of far better use to the "Wikipedia community" than trying to delete all incoming information that doesn't meet some rediculous criteria. If the arguments you all were using to delete it were true, why should we have an article on artist Van Gogh? Surely, selling only one painting in his lifetime doesn't make him a notable artist, does it? I should say right now that I do not represent the bulk of the OC community, I've always been known as the "iconoclast" and "troll" of the website because I use humor in a way to get a point across. Of course, I am reminded of some "no personal attack policy" above. If you feel that you are being attacked with the phrase "GET A BRAIN MORANS" you obviously are uncultured in the political realm, nor do you have a sense of humor. User:James Crews
Your vote may be discounted if you only registered to vote. Also, the manner in which you've composed yourself really hasn't done your POV any good. ComputerJoe08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as Wikipedia links OurCampaigns pages as data sources, it should dignify the site with a page. Anyone who takes the time to inspect the exhaustive database at OC will realize that it is the single most comprehensive and accurate election database on the web. The number of users is irrelevant; any election that happened in the United States in the past century is covered. User:NyBob85
comment. can you verify your statement that "As long as Wikipedia links OurCampaigns pages as data sources, it should dignify the site with a page"? What pages? And, be polite, it will do wonders for your argument. --GeLuxe22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, this is the creator of the site. Sorry about some of the comments from a couple of our less politic users. I also didn't put my users up to this, they decided it on their own. I undertand that my site does not quite meet your policies for inclusion, and completely understand if you determine not to include it. I thought it would be helpful to provide some information to come to your decision. I'm not looking for advertising or a huge burst in traffic right now, because our server could not support it. We rely on the slow growth method. We are an extremely data intensive site, in some ways similar to Wikipedia by being a collaborative user effort. Because of this, we have a million or so virtual pages driven by a database. Many of the sites like Alexia and Google have limited information on us because I instruct them in the robots.txt file to not crawl the site. When several search engines try to crawl a million dynamically driven pages every few days it can bring the server to its knees. I am working on something to address this issue, but it will probably not be available for six months to a year. You can see the site statistics directly at http://www.ourcampaigns.com/stats if you wish, that show us getting between 1,500 and 4,500 unique visitors a day, 17,000 pageviews and around 40,000 hits. Those numbers increase sharply around election dates. We have gotten some press, some minor exposure on television news, but those are a bit out of date. We are a different enough site that we don't quite fit into categories for site competitions like best of blog contests as we are not a blog. We may not be a media sensation, but we are a very good data resource for people. Again, thanks for your consideration and if we are not accepted we will try again once we meet your criteria. Entropist01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the polite manner in which you've composed yourself. I hope you consider editing more pages on the Wikipedia, I'm sure you'd make a great editor. ComputerJoe08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LISTEN Why are you Wikipedia regulars so hard headed? Listen. This was not a move for advertising. As Parker said, the last thing the site needs is a tremendous influx of users. Several articles point towards OurCampaigns. Why is the only criteria for entry into Wikipedia popularity? Are you seriously telling me something must be "popular" to warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia? How popular is the field of quantum physics? Not very, but it seems to have an entry. OurCampaigns doesn't deserve an entry because it is "popular" and listed on nerdy statistical websites, but rather because it is an expansive collection of political data maintained by every day people, much like this place. The only thing is, we are far more open minded towards data entry. You won't see anyone on OC complaining that the Slovakian presidential election wasn't "popular" enough to warrant inclusion. Excuse the "personal attack" but take your heads out of wherever they may be and look at the site before you actually judge in favor of deletion. This is supposed to be a community of intellectuals, not bickering teenagers concerned with popularity. user:James Crews
Entry to the encyclopedia is on the basis of notability. For websites guidelines for this are listed here. Regarding your personal attack, wikipedia has policies covering civility and personal attacks. Neither add any strength to your arguments, and arguably undermine them. --pgk(talk)17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am ready for one of the Wikipedia regulars to remove the entry. This has been frustrating for a lot of people, and I don't see any reason to let it continue. The last comment by Turnstep was rather discouraging - on the list of topics not found interesting by a lot of people are anti-heroes and Goat Head Soup. There is a difference between popularity and significance. The chronicling of USA's election returns in one place is not popular but is significant. Goat's Head Soup is neither. Chronicler323:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3[reply]
Comment to above: AFD procedure is to list an article for 5 days. Also, popularity is not the only issue, as you state yourself, but I believe that if something is significant enough, it is usually also reknown by quite alot of people. The site might be famous sometime in the future, but as of right now, alexa doesn't even have a rating for it [19]; google returns 51 pages when I searched for "A collaborative political resource" [20], and 881 when I searched for ourcampaigns [21], with most of the hits going to various collections of links. Bjelleklang - talk02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about non-notable company (only around 670 Google hits for "NIC International", most of them refering to other, unrelated uses; 16 hits for "NIC International Ltd."). Reads like self-promotion, very POV and includes unnotable information (Quotes section, etc.). Delete. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, as non-linear exploration is a non-existent neologistic game genre (it can be a feature of several genres including adventure and RPG however) and its description closely resembles Action-adventure gameArru23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but do something about it, such as rename to something like "exploration (video game genre)". I'll admit that the term "non-linear exploration" was badly-conceived, but I think that this type of game is definitely a distinct sub-genre. The gameplay is definitely significantly different from other action-adventure games like Super Mario World and Super Mario Land 2--mainly, gameplay is continuous and features exploration. Some of these exploration games might not be very non-linear in overall their sequence of events--Metroid Fusion and Castlevania: Circle of the Moon come to mind, where path C must be taken before path D can be pursued, and so on--but the gameplay is nevertheless not subdivided into stages/levels, nor is it linearly arranged--you fall, climb, go right, go left, this way, that way so that you can find your way through the game. ~GMHtalk to me20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "exploration" is part of many game genres, particularly the adventure-derivatives mentioned. Genres described in Wikipedia should exist (being recognized by more people than just yourself) before, check out WP:NOR. Also, if you are proposing a new genre, it helps if you can give more examples since your original article circles all around the Metroid and Castlevania series. Those two game series are especially mentioned as action-adventure games! Their gameplay is different from the early Mario games because those are platform games, not action-adventure. Arru14:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have a distinct sense of deja vu here like this article, or a similar one has been to AfD before... This is basically a neologistic term for the Morrowind style videogames. Even if it renamed to List of games that allow non-linear exploration, it still is in my opinion an unnecessary list.--Isotope2317:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Linear gameplay to Linearity (computer and video games). I don't think non-linear exploration is a defining genre of video games, but describing gameplay as non-linear or linear is a mainstay of game terminology. It is not a neologism, but a different term used when talking about linear or non-linear gamplay. We should have all these articles talking about the same thing redirect people to one article instead of a bunch of stubs. The demiurge21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree about the term "non-linear exploration", problem is the contents of this page is an attempt to define a genre based on two game series (Castlevania and Metroid) and this term. I guess some part could go into the linearity article though. Arru22:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Russian outsourcing company with 160 employees. Advert. Biography articles have also been created for various employees, which should all also be deleted on the grounds of non-notability. Tempshill21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Small company but well-known and notable for achievements, useful entry. Executive biographies non-notable, their insertion may be grounds for removal of entire entry?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, Artist was signed to a major label (warner Bros.), has won awards from such notables as Bowienet for his website SaphinScape. His website has received as many as 20,000 hits a month. Jeff Saphin has fans in many countries (Germany, Japan, France, and of course America). has been featured on "Radio America" (a 1/2 hour national broadcast hosted by Buddy Hackett's son Sandy), received rave reviews in The Village Voice (notable enough?), 1st release is STILL AVAILABLE, His Self released CD is also available and should not factor into WikipediA criteria, especially given the current climate of the music business. These, and I agree with the first * Keep : if people are buying Google ads tied to your name, you're probably notable. they are, and Saphin is. 24 pages on a QUOTED "Jeff Saphin" Google search, and that's not a common name. (Telecon)
Weak keep as barely meeting notability standards. But yikes! That article needs a cleanup, badly. At least I managed to shrink the giant image... Turnstep20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have known Mark and the crew at IBC for many years...they are truly some of the best designers in Canada and well deserving of a listing here. Leonard Brody— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.95.89 (talk • contribs)
Don't Delete Busse was a professor of mine last year. His "publications" seem to have been updated to "articles" on the entry, though that issues really depends on your definition of "published" as his writings have been featured on ihaveanidea.org, tompeters.com, if.psfk.com, coudal.com and his blog site is considered a significant voice in the design field, named best in category by Applied Arts Magazine. That's uh, notable I'd say. And he's currently the VP of the GDC and nominamted to succeed Yves Rouselle as President of the GDC/BC this spring.Charlie11123:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Busse’s qualifications have been questioned by means of the authenticity of his “Publications,” he is in fact in accordance with three of the stated criterion:
1. "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Mark’s design firm is top notch on a worldwide scale, his clients blanket the globe and stand by his product. Not only is he an internationally known Communication Designer (with awards to back him in print, interface design, and the current highly acclaimed blog.industrialbrand.com), he is also a valued member of the Vancouver art scene, having sold paintings locally and been recognized as a legitimate critic in regards to his degree in Fine Art.
2. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Mark has been actively involved in Canstruction Vancouver in support of the Food Bank since its inaugural year, he is a credited script editor on at least three indie/student films (A Beginning, Eating Crow, and Mega-force), and devotes innumerable amounts of time to the success of the non-profit Canadian Society of Graphic Designers.
3. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." A collaborative effort from Mark and Ben from IBC Published Fall 2005 in Graphic Exchange “Why should you have a blog?” in circulation throughout Canada to a lot more than 5 000 individuals. Mark’s interviews of Santa Monica’s Mike Goedecke of “Belief” and Toronto’s “Ze Frank” appear as padding on the IBC blog, but are anything but blog entries. These articles are for the betterment of the creative mind; they dive deeply into strategy, philosophy, and process, where these individuals’ mantras are made accessible to the general public. It is true that some of his articles appear on sites such as if.pfsk and blog.industrialbrand.com, but the fact that they may fall into the category of blog entry is only remotely valid, since the traffic and dedicated readers of these sites far surpass that of most published writers, as does the quality and content of the articles Mark writes.
In accompaniment to the above stated, Mark is on the forefront of Canadian Communication Design; he is a mentor to up and coming designers, he is an instructor at Vancouver Film School, and he is a keystone in the city of Vancouver though charitable contributions and the network of greatness he represents. I can see how some find it reasonable to consider Mark for deletion; however, he represents a new breed of writer/artist. His contributions may seem miniscule to those who are not active enthusiasts of digital culture, branding, design; this is his legacy and an understanding how influential he is may not surface until more people gain insight into his life.
Mark Busse’s Wikipedia page sits in a very infantile stage, it only shows crumbs of his story and appears quite vain. Revisions are needed, but it should definitely not be discarded.
Comment. Good on you mate, but I personally fulfill half of that stuff, and my non-notable teacher fulfills the other half.--Ezeu21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep In response to Deathphoenix's note, the band were formed in 2003, not 2004. Their first EP was however produced in 2004. I'd like to draw to the user's attention that the Wikipedia page has recently been updated with details of an upcoming European tour. This covers the WP:MUSIC requirement under point three of 'international concert tour'. --User:itsmeltc 19:46, 2 February 2006 (GMT)
Delete They are playing in Germany and while technically playing in another country would satisfy WP:MUSIC in letter, I don't think it does in spirit. Playing in one other EU country just doesn't really cut it for me. I live near the Canadian border in the U.S. and I know quite a few American bands who play in Toronto, Windsor, etc. Technically that could be considered an international tour but in reality they are no more notable for having played several shows accross the border than they were before those shows. I need to see a stronger case for inclusion.--Isotope2317:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per itsmeltc. An American band going over the boarder to Canada would be something like an English band going to Scotland. Technically a different country, but not really international. Going from England to France, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Denmark (for example) most definately would be international. We haven't quite got to the "United States of Europe" just yet. Jcuk20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per Isotope. By your standard, Jcuk, going from American Samoa (a US territory) to Western Samoa (30 miles west and similar to a passage between England and France via the channel) would be international. While the EU may not be the "US of Europe" just yet, in geographic terms it's no different than a band going on an eight-state tour (and two of those states are Canadian provinces). I agree they meet WP:MUSIC in letter, but I'm not convinced that it's strong enough to keep.--み使いMitsukai20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this band have two self-produced CDs "at the production stage", and the proposed show(s) in Germany. Whilst I wish them the best for the future — and look forward to an article when they have made it — they're not there yet. Sliggy20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The article reads: Kolkata city has many densely populated outskirts region. Period. That's a bit too short, and not really useful information. Robert Weemeyer11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now a decent stub. I removed the speedy tag. I was aware of Dwaipayanc's good history, but as the article had been like that for a month and a half I thought perhaps it had been abandoned and forgotten. --Malthusian(talk)09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have left a message for Dwaipayanc. It might be too late as it has been nominated for speedy. In any case, it should be expanded so that it has some context. Capitalistroadster00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like an encyclopedic article, and why do I always read these in my mind in an Apu Nahaseemapetilon accent? JIP | Talk18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete No clear evidence of notability in the article and searching around I find reference to several essays and some speaking engagements, but nothing that really meets WP:BIO.--Isotope2317:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Not something that could be turned into one. They couldn't even be bothered to capitalise the names. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Oh please. ListSpam at its worst. I'm thinking about listing the Dallas TX, phonebook, BTW. Care to join me? Avi19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sounds like a fascinating person if this is anything but a non-notable biography, but my disbelief that anyone could have done all that before the age of 21 is backed up by the fact that the only google hits for this guy appear to be a blog and the same entry mirrored in several languages. Francs200016:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is not a hoax! I use the damn algorithm every single day for my work with Oracle. It has serious problems in form as well as mathematical syntax. The 1,000 fold compression is only the result of billions of calculations per megabyte; totally impractical for any application, but tempting enough to consider research. I decided to post its existence on Wikipedia because of its limited exposure on the web. Thanks Wikipedia, in your hunt for perfection you are attacking a mathematical marvel.
Dr. William Mossberg
Senior Theoretical Mathematical consultant
Oracle Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmossberg (talk • contribs)
Bona fides, please. "Dr. William Mossberg" gives 0 google results [22]
Thousand-fold compression, huh? Delete until this can actually fit my entire porn collection on one floppy disk. --Kinu02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Why do people still consider an alexa rating at all relevent? Alexa only claimed to have 10 million total downloads (IE ONLY), most of those are probably uninstalled or removed by now. Alexa has not been a popular search engine for years.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete This entry is mainly about local graffiti artists and gangs (most of which don't even sound real). Maybe, someone having a laugh?
These are real graffiti artists in Birmingham. I know this because I live in Birmingham and have seen these tags on walls.
Delete we have graffiti artists in California too, but most of them aren't notable or encyclopedic. delete unless article cites sources and shows notability. AdrianLamo ·· 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is only useful for p33p0l 0n dA 1ns1deeeee. To the ones of us with real lives (as if I could talk) this is completely unencyclopedic cruft. JIP | Talk18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Vanity, unverifiable, possible hoax, and COMPLETELY unencyclopædic. Oh yeah, and just plain st00p1d. Avi19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page. (It's possible it was created by the vandals themselves, but it's still masquerading as an attack page.) --Allen00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A schoolboy agonising over his own sexual orientation by the sound of it. I would condemn it as original research but there is no research in it. -- RHaworth18:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I edited to remove people's contact information & email addresses (Isn't there a policy prohibiting inclusion of that data?). Can this be speedied so that some unfortunate teacher whose email remains in the article's history pages doesn't get deluged with spam or hate-messages. Carlossuarez4622:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's rather sweet though, looks like the kid's trying to make a good article. Still, delete, obviously. -- ConDem04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Hoax. No relevant Google hits - and the author had the bare-faced cheek to ask me why I deleted it! Just to cover myself, I will say: or nn-bio. -- RHaworth19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, really not a hoax. I'm sorry if it looks like one but it really isn't. Delete it if you must but it is real.
Delete unless proved to be not a hoax. I have to say in its favour though that it is a hell of a lot more NPOV than the version I deleted earlier today. Thryduulf19:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for wasting your time, I don't think i'll be able to find any information in reputable articles or anything so you may delete it - sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr 34 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 February 2006
Not much comprimise is there? Come on I'm not lying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr34 (talk • contribs)
One of the core principles of Wikipedia is Verifiability. If something cannot be independently verified then it will be deleted, regardless of whether it is true or a hoax. Follow the link to learn more. Thryduulf20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for at least accepting it might not be a hoax - you should get rid of it as the article can't be varified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr34 (talk • contribs)
The west-midlands transexual alliance asks Wikipedia to keep the Amy Street article!
I dont care wether its deleted or not but it seems like theres alot of people who want it to stay
What losers would go that far just to offend someone =\ just my opinion *Shrugs* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.208.242 (talk • contribs) , (IP's first edit).
Good point! But that still doesn't count for making the article true, as we can't find any complete evidence to back up the article. I give up! Just delete it guys, theres nothing that we can do. Its local intrest anyway - not like anyone outside Birmingham cares!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - I would like clarification. Is this article about Cullen Hightower or Cullen Tower The article is entitled Cullen Hightower; however, within the text the article refers to Cullen Tower. James08419:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be a bad rewrite of this: [26]. I'm leaning delete as not WP:V as I don't really consider an uncited bio on conservativeforum.org to be worth the bandwidth it takes up. Searching around the web the only other biographical info I can find is blog replicants of the conservativeforum.org spiel. Unless someone can point me to a better cited page...--Isotope2320:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Hoax (Wolfenese?!), not notable, vanity, and the misspellings to boot (North Shore Youth Symphony Orchestra should be contracted NSYSO, not NYSO). So, just toss this. Avi02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Moreover there are no google hits for any of the unique names of people, institutions, or unique terms such as "murphyism". Ltbarcly19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, no suggestion of notability in article. Being mentioned in media doesn't ensure long term encyclopedical notability. (I have objection against media being used as such arbitration tool.) Pavel Vozenilek01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that this article has no reason to exist. The factual information that exists in the first paragraph is already covered accurately in Demographics of Bulgaria. The second paragraph appears openly POV and xenophobic, without adding any valuable information in my opinion. It also has no pages linking to it. Therefore, I believe it should be deleted. --Mathwizard123219:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus on the talk page. It's a potentially valid topic, but since none of the persons who've expressed their concerns on the talk page seems to have been willing to do a proper rewrite since last October, I think deleting is best for now. Of course, as it now stands it's entirely unacceptable. Lukas(T.|@)20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Both were tagged for speedy deletion by User:Rmhermen as nn-bio but talk page claims this is story is being covered by news agencies. Bringing it to AfD instead. My personal feeling is that murder victims are not necessarily notable. howcheng {chat}19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tragic... but not notable. This has garned local media attention in the Boston area but has not been nationally reported in the U.S. Unless someone can demonstrate that this has been widely reported in the U.K. I lean towards deletion--Isotope2319:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This story has been covered unrelentingly on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. Saying that it has not been nationally reported in the US is grossly inaccurate. Monicasdude20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "unrelentingly" is a case of hyperbole. I've seen a passing story about it on CNN. I've seen nothing on MSNBC. I don't watch FOXNews because it's not really news. I don't spend 24 hours a day watching the news, but this is not something that has been reported on the level of Natalee Holloway. Again, I hope they catch the bastard that did this, but it's just not any more notable than the dozens of murders that happen every week in my home town.--Isotope2320:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was working at home (sick) yesterday with TV news in the background, and it was covered by CNN Headline every 30 minutes. I switched to MSNBC later in the day, and they ran virtually identical, relatively lengthy segments three times in three hours. I wish the comment was hyperbole, but it got about 100 times as Bush's much-needed program to increase the costs of college education in the US. Monicasdude21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the case will re-emerge undoubtedly when a suspect is arrested and tried. If we've forgotten it a year from now, then nominate again. Carlossuarez4622:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Pilatus says, is this going to be an iconic crime in a year's time, or even a few months' time? No. Non-notable. If it becomes iconic later, it can always be recreated. Tearlach02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- perhaps not the most notable story, but notable at least in New England and the UK, not to mention a very weird case with some interesting twists and turns in the investigation. Haikupoet03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that I voted for the deletion (or said was not notable) of "an international news story"? The question here is two people, not the international news, redirect to Neil Entwistle would be adiquate for both. Djegan23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the wonderful things about wikinews is that it can cover these types of cases - which are undoubtly prominant at the moment; this prominance is not in question. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia and until the full facts are known and come out (as which they will undoubtly) I think it is best, as has often has being on wikipedia, not to write articles based purely on headlines and halfacts. Djegan23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both articles must stay. The suspect is very important, but the victims are the most important part of the whole thing. The articles give a little bit more info about the victims, I think. Fanficgurl 3:41, 10 February 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.
There already is an article on the higgs boson, to which this article adds nothing. The article is a composite of several forum articles from the reference in the articles. The article also does not make much sense. Salsb19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't offer sufficient explanation for the non-expert to grasp the essentials of the concepts under discussion. An article on the Higgs Boson already exists, so there is no need to replicate the information in an opaque manner. (aeropagitica) 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm neutral about this, as I don't think the tool is popular enough to have an article here saying more that can be found on its own homepage. OTOH, I don't see any particular reason to remove it either. Is it seen as advertising? What I can say is that it is gaining more and more popularity as Microsoft progressively increases the number of "hard-coded" programs bundled with its OSes. Probably most users find nLite when searching the Internet for a way to remove Internet Explorer. In any case nLite is already cited among external links in many Windows related or installation-related articles on Wikipedia such as Slipstream (computing), Removal of Internet Explorer and even Windows XP. In the end it's not a totally marginal software product, though nothing as popular as, say, Winzip either. --Gennaro Prota01:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. iTap and T9 are probably the two most deployed phone entry systems. A side by side reference comparison can be a useful tool for choosing between them (proof is, there are other good side-by-side product comparisons in Wikipedia). I'd say merge with predictive text or expand with comparisons to the other existing systems - maybe with a table format. Diego Moya21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I actually think this article, iTap and T9 should be merged into one article, perhaps something like 'mobile phone input methods'. This way the two stubs and this offshoot could actually be a useful and robust article instead of little blurbs.Pdurland19:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Third, the 'producerism' article is an attack on that above mentioned system of economics and its proponents, grouping them as one and the same on all issues which is dubious to the extreme. For example, Buchanan is a Conservative on social policy, but believes in a mild form of the old American System of Hamilton and Lincoln, whereas, Perot's ideas and those in the Reform Party are in line with the American System of economics mostly but he and the Reform Party are neutral or progressive (in some circumstances) on social policy. These men and party's and their philosophy overall are not interchangeable and conflict on social policy and therefore do not hold to a unified system such as 'producerism' at all.
Fifth, I am an educated man holding a degree in Political Science and History with particular concentration on American History. I have never heard of the word 'producerism' either in my field or in sociology before, except here and on a website linked from here that is quite odd and does not contain a DEFINITION of PRODUCERISM that fits the men and the philosophies already mentioned making this article even more suspicious! The 'producerism' page wishes to give a negative impression to anyone who believes not in laissez faire Adam Smith economics (Austrian School) or Planned Economy Communist economics (Marxist School) but in Traditional Capitalism or American System (Philadelphia School) of economics as practiced by our nation prior to the 1970's, by associating it with such things as Nazis, Fascists, Communists and other negative groups whose sin was Tyranny (see below).
Sixth, and this is a problem on the Fascism links as well...Fascism's main point is rule by an elite or single man combined with private ownership of corporations (sometimes less so as in Fascist Italy that was more Socialistic in nature). Like Communism, it is a TYRANNY, not because it attempts to regulate the economy in this way or that (as many philosophies share the same traits depending on belief see Association fallacy on Wikipedia) but because of its restriction on individual LIBERTY (the freedom to do all you wish to do so long as no physical harm is done to others) or invasions into ones private life. Not understanding this causes confusion and allows attackers of any belief system to try to lump different political philosophies through a GUILT BY ASSOCIATION technique trying to discredit them.
Seventh, an article in Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, simply description with true example etc. It should not be made up stuff, (any 'ISM could be proposed then!) in order to attack people like Mr. Larouche (your personal page states your crusade against another 'ism Larouchism? Everything isn't an 'ism!) or Perot or Buchanan or by association some of America's Founder's like 1st U.S. Treasury Secretary Hamilton or America's Father's like President Lincoln who believed the same way as the before mentioned men on economic matters. READ Report on Manufactures, Harmony of Interest for historic examples of the American System or traditional capitalism practiced in the USA to see primary sources. You may also check out the Wikipedia link to American System) which I've also been editing to make it accurate and up to date on facts, though it still needs improvement so as to be neutral in points and to add links to the historic examples and primary sources available on the web from credible sources like Universities.
"""It does not follow the FIVE PILLARS. Guilt by Association is not Truth nor Fact. Lumping different people or groups together no matter the fancy word used for a purpose to discredit what someone does not believe is as wrong as the Nazis blaming the Jews for all of Germany's evils or for controlling the banks through Guilt by Association techniques!"""
Comment Northmeister, next time you might want to try brevity in explaining things here, as this is somewhat overwhelming, IMHO. In any case, I do agree that the page does violate all that you've mentioned, and it would take a valiant and lengthy effort to rewrite this into something NPOV. Delete.--み使いMitsukai20:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both. The articles are well-referenced and supported by citations. Both terms are clearly defined and enjoy academic use, with conspiracism somewhat more common than producerism. I don't follow the logic connecting the two pages, or urging their deletion. Tom HarrisonTalk00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you see who created both pages the connection is obvious that both are self promotions of his theories and who he connects them to and not objective in the least.--Northmeister01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Producerism. I did not create the page on producerism, contrary to the false claim by Northmeister. The term is used in political science, history, and sociology, not as a guilt by association canard, contrary to the false and hyperbolic claims by Northmeister. Academic cites are listed on the page. Conspiracism. A term used in academia, and popularized by Mintz, an academic. This is another attempt by a fan of convicted criminal and crackpot Lyndon LaRouche to delete material that is critical of the type of conspiracy theories and dubious right-wing populist economic theories promoted by the LaRouchites; such as their idiosyncratic analysis of the "American System" political tradition. Academic cites are listed on the page.--Cberlet04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both pages have cites to known marxist oriented (see their links for proof) and left wing political sites. I am NOT an advocate for Lyndone LaRouche except as to prevent character assassination from Cbert and synarchists like him, where does that come from? and personal attacks like that with no proof is not right for a forum like this? If you see the so-called "academic" links on the producerism and conspiracism page they are from the same site "The Public Eye" an advocacy site, not an academic site or credible source, and other authors listed write for that site. Some articles listed have nothing to do with the topic but talk of 'Populism', yet are listed as if they speak of Producerism in word. I do not make links to political sites or advocacy and neither should those links be listed as credible, they have an axe to grind just look at his diatribes against people he calls 'Right Wing'. Calling me right wing is like calling Marx a Capitalist, give me a break. Guilt By Association folks is not Facts and he does it again towards me, trying to link me to LaRouche. Check the site of his out you will see its marxist sentiment. --Northmeister14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please make sure that you have fully read and fully understood Wikipedia's NPOV policy. While the articles in question may be biased towards a particular point of view, it is not correct to attempt to remove information quoted from verifiable sources, no matter how much you believe that those sources are in error and unfair. Wikipedia's neutrality does not mean that controversial topics cannot be addressed, or that controversial opinions and point of views cannot be presented (if they are notable); it means that such views must be attributed to those who hold them, and presented fairly, without asserting that any particular view is right. - If you hold an opinion that conflicts with the text, and you can come up with your own sources that back up this different opinion, by all means, go ahead and add this dissenting viewpoint to the article. If you believe that the article is biased and favors a particular viewpoint, go ahead and remove the bias; please read the NPOV tutorial on how to do that. However, you should not try to prevent significant viewpoints from being presented, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. 62.245.80.25120:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the creator of the Producerism article, not Chip Berlet. Politically yes I admit I am left-wing but I consider myself sympathetic to Producerism. I don't think the article is biased against it. For some reason it has been targeted by the LaRouche people... I have no idea why. Who has any idea why they do anything? Probably they have some feud with Berlet. Mjk235703:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No sufficient reasons for deletion have been provided. -Will Beback 04:53, 10 February 2006
Keep No reason to delete either article, I fond them both well written, sourced and informative on a particular aspect that is not widely known today but nonetheless important in socio-politics. Piecraft12:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See the talk page on Producerism for more info on my objections. So far people wish to keep, and I am willing to keep that one if it is fixed or explained better. On the Conspiracism I have this to offer for your consideration:
As per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so-called "experts" are not to cite themselves and avoid neologisms.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Googling for emz "back on wall street" gives no hits. "Back on Wall Street" also does not appear in an IMDB search. This seems like a hoax. Note that an anon, perhaps the author, has also placed a {prod} tag on the legitimate article Wire rope. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (Also, if the author did indeed put a {{prod}} on it, can this be speedied as author's desire to delete?) --Kinu00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No... I'll clarify. I was observing that an anon (who I assume is the original author logged out) removed {{prod}} from here, and then added {{prod}} to a totally unrelated article. It struck me as retaliation, but I won't assume that. I asked about it and his response was "my bad". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unverifiable vanity autobiography. I've tried the (not verified) tag, but the author just keeps deleting it. No evidence of published works or independent coverage; Googling Clark+Smith+xenocentrism turns up only 1) this article and 2) a website of neologisms that doesn't even trace the word to him. Delete as WP:BIO. Melchoir20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio. So he has a few ideas. So do the other 1000 people in the office complex where I work. And neologism? Amateur neologism is the last refuge of the terminally absent-minded and lexicographically-challenged >:) Avi21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and non-notable, unverified bio. Also recommend the terms he supposedly coined be transwikied to wiktionary and deleted.--Isotope2321:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. But wait, "It is home to some of the most talented gamers in the UK, including the likes of 1.6 pro Tomor." OMG!!! No, wait, no. That means nothing. --Kinu07:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - 1) article is meant to be *about* the dossier, not just a repository and 2) isn't there an issue with fair use material on wikisource? (unsigned - was Thparkth)
Keep - In order for fair use to apply, it seems as if the scans of work need to be used in a specific way. Summarziation, English translation, and description of a newsworthy item seem like fair use (and appropriate for Wikipedia content). -- Vanitas22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translation is not fair use in itself. However, translation as part of an activity to educate, report the news, or pursue research, can certainly be fair use. I believe this is what we have in this case. -- Vanitas23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least for now. When the scans have been translated, they will be summarized and probably be fed back into the parent article, so as not to run afoul any copyright. After this has happened, there's time enough to consider removal/moving of the page. I object to the fact that this page has been nominated for removal after only a couple of minutes of its creation. Azate03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't transwiki to Wikisource which doesn't take fair use, or to Wikinews which is creative commons, so keep per Azate. Stifle18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is of significant interest and very difficult to find elsewhere on the web and throws considerable light on a subject of major international interest. What are the arguments for deleting???? GregLondon21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. It is better to allow people to see the actual images rather than spreading tell-tale stories about them. The images should not stay indefinitely, but they are relevant at the moment. --Valentinian22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Absolutely keep! These documents are probably going to prove very telling in light of recent developments concerning publication of the caricatures in question in Egypt as early as Oct. of last year. Netscott05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is OK for us to use such a large chunk of the fair-use info and not OK for the source, I vote keep. If it is possible to transwiki - lets transwiki, if it is a copyright violation for us, then delete of course. abakharev06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netscott. The dossier may turn out to be as noteworthy as the cartoons. (The article has way too many images. Those should be transwikied to wikisource.) --PeR07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important historical document. It is often blamed as the most important igniter of the crisis. It is a unique place for people to judge its content Claush6611:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move out of the article space. It can't be moved to wikisource because of copyright reasons. However it's a work in progress and is being used to help translate from the arabic. The images may be on dodgy ground - but I expect a strong article on the dossier to come out of the work User:Azate and others are doing. Once the article is done I suggest we delete most of the images. Secretlondon12:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is quite possibly historically significant, considering continuing revelations as to the purposes for which it was printed and the questionable origins of three cartoons associated with it. At the least, until the article has been fully translated and is better understood, it should not be deleted, and Transwiki to another medium is apparently problematic. Richard 129.244.23.1313:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previous arguments. An extremely relevant piece of information: I shall try and update some analytical/explanatory content using the BBC Special report on this matter due to be broadcast on Radio 4 tonight. --KharBevNor14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is quite possibly historically significant--Sheherazahde 14:13, 9 February 2006
Keep. Current version does not even resemble the page submitted for deletion: [48]. Should be at least renominated for deletion before deleted. --KimvdLinde16:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per normal AFD rules a article on the dossier itself is not only approprate but I think required. The rest is content dispute which belongs on the talk page then if it can't be resolved on WP:RFC. Dalf | Talk23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom, Isotope23, and Avi. 2000 total posts since last year? There are forums that reach that level in an hour. Despite no set forum standards, this seems hardly notable. --Kinu00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Non-sensical biography article with no coherent claim to notability. - Haukur21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong delete Too bad it isn't nonsense, then it could be speedied. But not every guru-in-his-mind-only can neologize on wikipedia. Yahman! (Which means to bring clarity, to accept and extend proper wiki entries to all those in need, to send strength to all wiki editors and to all admins, to accept the sysop that is in us all, all things deletionist.) Yahman! >:) Avi21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I was the one who originally {{prod}}ed this. Article has slightly changed in tone and context since then, but basic rationale still holds, which was: "Ultra-humane in this context may be a neologism for this concept. Google cannot verify this usage. Article may also be based on original research and have an anti-meat industry bias. (NOTE: Same user crosslinked article from Chicken.)" Have to agree with sentiment that this is a hoax as well. --Kinu21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Borderline notability claim per nom, so this can't be speedied. Reeks of vanity; non-notable regardless. --Kinu00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is part of the WikiProject Webcomics. While this article is borderline on notability, I do not see it as a vanity article. While the trivia section is a substantial portion of the article at this time, I think the article has potential. Andrea Parton01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not yet prepared register an opinion one way or the other about this article, but I would like to point out that being tagged by webcomics wikiproject isn't a notability statement. Mainly it just means the article is webcomics-related.–Abe Dashiell(t/c)01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be non-notable, unverifiable. Regarding WikiProject Webcomics, EVERY webcomic article is part of this project. -- Dragonfiend14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this article was nominated for deletion, it has been improved. And clearly, Jennifer Diane Reitz has created two webcomics worthy of Wikipedia articles, so that is another factor to consider. Reitz is also well known among the transsexual community, giving her another area of notability. I think there are plenty of other people with Wikipedia articles who are no more notable than Reitz, so I think that with some improvement, this may be a very good article. Andrea Parton00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. More than likely advertising. Alexa rank for this page: none; for the page linked from there: 345,563. --Kinu00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep for the fact that "brown people" have brown or light or dark brown skin and being famous like r kelly or chris brown or someone like that. MaoJin21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC) no racist battle i want again.[reply]
Speedy delete Oh yeah, this is speedy-material. And to choose as examples people who are reknown for their fight to destroy the color barrier between races adds insult to injury Avi22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
nn series of short films. Zero Google hits for '"gorilla killa" "Erik Hohenberger"', '"gorilla killa" "Aaron Marine"' or '"gorilla killa" "White Crow"'. A grand total of 175 hits for all iterations of "Gorilla Killa" by itself, and I can't find any that refer to these films. User:Zoe|(talk)22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I used Proposed Deletion on that but the creator removed the tag without discussion so I guess it comes here. This is another neologism from some web forum, as far as I can tell, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Would need some evidence that this has been formally defined and used in reputable publications, and could be more than a simple dictionary definition. W.marsh22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Though I hate to see the author's hard work go to waste, the page is a breach of WP:NOR. Evidence from firsthand conversations is irreparably ingrained into the article, and cleanup issues are clearly not going to be solved. Deltabeignet22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per nom. Is there anything of worth (i.e., cited and relevant) that can be easily merged into the supermarkets' respective articles? If so, I might consider going for that. --Kinu00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of family history cruft makes me reach for my revolver. As Deltabeignet says, the source citation is inextricably mixed with original research and online genealogical scrapbooks of doubtful reputability by Wikipedia standards. Tearlach02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A great article could be written on the subject, but this is not it. It isn't wiki-formatted, and it looks like it was cut-and-pasted from elsewhere. Finally, the "Books by Sybil Leek" section is clearly some sort of advertising-related abuse of the wiki. -Seth Mahoney23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, It looks very like copyvio from somewhere, but the many Google hits on it are all various ebcyclopædic sites. Not a bad article at all, apart from the silly list of Sybil Leek publications. I vote weak keep though it needs a good deal of cleanup and verification that it's not a cut 'n' shut job promoting Silver Ravenwolf or somebody similar.Tonywalton | Talk23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't agree that it is well-written, but I'm also not the final authority on that. At the very least, if it is kept, it needs to be edited for NPOV, heavily sourced (with sources other than Sybil Leek), and a section needs to be added commenting on fundamentalist Christian witchcraft mythology. -Seth Mahoney00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What happened here is that James P Sullivan (talk·contribs) cut a terribly-written section from Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created this article and pasted the cut material into it. I notice that authorship history was lost in this. If this AfD results in a keep vote, GFDL history compliance needs to be sorted out. One day someone will write a Sybil Leek article and the bibliography might be handy, but most of the text here is very low-value. Jkelly00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like it can be improved, but Jkelly brings up an interesting point: what happens when articles are cannibalized, broken into smaller parts, Frankensteined vis-a-vis the GFDL? Happens on WP all the time... Carlossuarez46 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Delete the others have convinced me, particularly this adds little to Witchcraft. Carlossuarez4621:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Questions that it may be worth asking are, will this article ever be cleaned up? Are there people currently interested in doing the work? If no to either, it may be better to just delete and leave a red link for that time when we have someone who is interested. -Seth Mahoney00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to say "merge to Witchcraft," but since it's already in the edit history of that article ([49]), there's no need. The people working on that article can use it or not as they wish. If it doesn't even merit a section in Witchcraft, it certainly doesn't merit its own article - AdelaMae(talk - contribs)02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reason Julian Malt00:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)I feel that the first essay, having been innapropriately titled, has every right to be re-submitted to the archive with a more suitable name. If you would like to provide a more justifiable reason for why it should be deleted please do so. However, i fell that this will be in vain as it is a very good essay. Please note that this is a serious point![reply]
Keep assuming it is factual, with a few citations and cleanup of prose, wouldn't this be the kernel of a proper article? If it isn't factual, someone should *edit* it rather than delete it. The NOR command is not a substitute for just adding citations. If someone(s) have the idea to do it, they should. Carlossuarez4600:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete quote:"Strudel Haus now employs over 1,500 people and has net gains of over 1.3 billion dollars annually." - doubt it somehow, but if true why are these cheapskates using WP for free advertising? Camillus (talk)23:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. Seems like self-promotion at this point, and I can't seem to verify any of information contained within, which seems like it should be verifiable if true. I am, however, against deleting this - or any business' page - if it's written in a neutral and verifiable manner. -- Matty j00:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero Google hits for "strudel haus" "jeff strauss". Probably doesn't meet WP:CORP, likely V and A. ("Strudel Haus by Jeff Strauss is not a restaurant"... then why are there pictures of restaurants? *scratches head*) --Kinu00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a POV rant with a title that appears to be the writer's own creation. Whatever relevant information there is in here is already in other locations. Delete. Matty j23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No one has described this as a scandal and I've never heard Fortiergate before seeing this page. Wikipedia isn't a forum for partisan rants. Delete --SFont23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awful neologism. The supposed 'scandal' is entirely the author's invention. Suitable commentary on the appointment already exists under appropriate articles. Peter Grey06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone can revive this once the term actually has been seen in a publication. In the meantime post information on Fortier's entry. Kelvinc12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is blantantly slanted, describing a supposed "scandal" that has not been referenced in a single media source. Tettyan13:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. And can I just say I've had quite enough with people suffixing -gate to random words to denote a scandal? Bearcat23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I think the Conservatives are about as accountable as an other party (i.e. not) and that this Fortier move of theirs is dirty pool, this particular article is simply a POV rant and the term Fortiergate hasn't been used by the media I've been watching. --Dogbreathcanada02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by the way, references to "Fortiergate" show up in various articles about the new Canadian Cabinet, PM, election, etc... (pardon me if my terminology is off) someone who knows should edit such references out. Carlossuarez4600:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Your suspicion is correct. Can't access page directly, but take a large block of text and google with quotes you find this page [51] with google summary results showing page has exact text. Copyvio and per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
09:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
(talk) 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)