Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WestchesterGuy (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 19 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 18 >

Purge server cache

February 19

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently funny word

No word is inherently funny, it is culturally constructed. This article is biased in concept and largely original research in execution. Plus, it doesn't include "pig" which I think is hilarious, but it does include "giggle" which is not even mildlly amusing, conjuring thoughts of vacuous gum-chewing schoolgirls on buses. If anyone can find me an article in any paper encyclopaedia, however big, on "inherently funny word" I will withdraw this nomination. Unless it's the Encyclopaedia Cruftannica. In which case we'll have found a copyvio. Survived VfD back in 2004 on the grounds that it was funny - as far as I can tel this is no longer policy, I checked WP:FUNNY and found nothing. Guy 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Based on some of the references, it seems like this article could exist, albeit in a possibly different format. The fact that funniness if social constructed, for me at least, increases the need for an article which discusses that, provided it can be referenced. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find the words in the list funny, therefore they are not inherently funny, therefore the article is false and it must be deleted. --Ruby 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything that is unreferenced should of course be removed, but the use of certain words as "inherently funny" by comedians (and the response of their audience) can be documented, and probably there is some more research on humor that can be cited to source this article better. The intro might need a complete rewrite, though. Kusma (討論) 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not as is. This article is one of the centerpieces of wikipedia's humour section alongside Unusual articles and List of unusual deaths, but it's a messy article and needs work. Somebody needs to give it a thorough cleanup. Add some sources, and delete everything unsupported by references. Night Gyr 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with ref's -Who said this word is inherently funny and what not. -AKMask 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for some reason the idea of this article gets under a few people's skin. But it's a legitimate concept to discuss. Unfortunately, it's also a concept that draws a lot of fly-by edits (I know something funny - let's add it!), hence the messiness. - DavidWBrooks 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether there is any such thing as an inherently funny word is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Otherwise one could make the same case for deleting Ghost. The point is that certain words have been characterized as being inherently funny, as the article documents quite well. Unusual articles like this are part of what makes Wikipedia cool. dbtfztalk 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and smak JzG will some inherently funny word like Pantyhose, bubbly or giggles... because he I feel he may have skiped a couple steps. You know, some wise men once said to me, if you think it need verifying, then put the verify sign on it. Don't just delete it. If you think it's NPOV then put that one on it too. And only delete it if you really want to. However I may be swayed for other reason to delete this. For example this may simply be an enumaration of several words. However considereing we have a definition for funny page,Funny little itinerant blip, Funny little ugly fat fellow, Funny wagon (what they will soon be putting me in if I continue leaving such odd comments to JzG and he continues on with a double standard, while they bring me to the funny house)... but then again maybe this will all be a Funny story from a funny man from Canada hey! That will add his french Funny foreign squigle when he write it in his funny book talking about funny business experiences with a guy name JzG. Or perhaps instead... keeping it all withinfunny fantasy that is funilly enough not the funniest joke but may add some smiles and funny faces. (Darn! I couldn't find inherently funny word though!)--CyclePat 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't verify a word being inherently funny, because funny is a subjective concept to start with. Oh, and pantyhose is not funny at all. Unlike trouser, which cracks me up every time (and leaves others utterly bewildered). See what I mean? Guy 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commnent prove it. And once you do. Add that fact to the article with you source. --CyclePat 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It a number of people lack the required sense of humour. But I doubt even they can deny that, for example, banana is a word used often in jokes and the like (without a suitable context, just because of the word and nothing else). Basically the word has to be trivial in meaning (and thus it's meaning isn't funny at all), it usually sounds "awkward" or "foreign" or plain silly. And if you mention it at one point in a conversation for no reason at all it should be funny. Replacing it with textdocument or something equally mundane should not be (as) funny. In any case, there's comedians who believe in them...there are plenty of other people who "believe" in them, and hence it should be pretty obvious that an explanation is required for those that come across it without knowing what it is. Not to mention many, many articles reference it for good reason. Rygir 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is neither Original Research - all of it is what other people have said are inherently funny words - nor POV. A fine example of a slightly off-the-wall topic being handles very well. Batmanand 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encylopedic and more of an opinion peice. TVXPert 14:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This has to be one of the five worst articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I hated it before it was brought here. There's no excuse for this kind of garbage. It's original research, it's stuff made up in school one day, it's not notable, it aims to be a how-to on stand-up comedy. This is a pile of reeking garbage that would make Satan weep. It makes this encyclopedia look like it was written by moronic nosepicking fourth-graders. I can't emphasize enough how bad this is. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. Siva1979Talk to me 15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research/essay format. not encylopedic. Ncsaint 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - this article is highly misleading. If the article can differentiate between "inherently funny words" as an attempt to be funny. There is a huge different between that and scholarly language and psychology journals stating that this concept is true. So, I believe the subject may have been broached by enough comedians to merit its inclusion as a well known joke... but as a truly scholarly subject I have seen no evidence yet... and if this article doesn't differentiate between the two then it's seriously misleading. gren グレン 18:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bad title, smells like original research, POV, and in general unencyclopedic. Renata 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. Rufous 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly valid article that may need some cleanup and verify, but in no way merits deletion. Turnstep 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR, WP:V. —Ruud 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how is any of this information useful/meaningful/relevant in a non-original research/POV way? None of these words are "inherently" funny except to English-speakers, anyways. What do I need an encyclopedia article to argue for the idea that the word "bassoon" is "inherently funny"? Incredibly stupid article (even if it were retitled "funny words" or "words used frequently by comedians.") Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Delete! or, alternatively, merge - sillyness. They're not funny, maybe some of the material could be merged to an article such as humour...But on its own... no. -- Greaser 06:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — but remove anything that is original research or unreferenced, of course. -- Jao 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept before, keep it again. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since a) this has been kept before and b) it's just perfect fodder for WP:UA and c) there may be good sources to support this, if not on academic level then on, um, some comedic level. Though, the article definitely may need cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but somehow this article needs to be 'steamlined' and broken into a few sub headings. Inherently Funny is a legitimate comedic concern and valid considertion for many comedians. Steve Allen has written on the subject and I recall Milton Berle mentioning it as far back as the 1960s. Cincinatti is a funny word, Dallas is not. Maybe "k" is funny by association: Shecky Green, Red Skelton, Danny Kaye, Ernie Kovaks. At any rate, the concept deserves some more research and citations. John Sinclair, Salt Lake City (har!)
  • Trivia: I have seen somewhere that Jimbo Wales locked this article for a few hours for the purpose of using it as a demonstration of Wikipedia on a TV show. (I'll be happy to try to source this if anyone thinks their vote is affected by it. It looks to me as if this is going "no consensus".) No vote from me. AndyJones 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Funny" is entirely a POV. If it weren't, "table", which I've always considered an extremely funnt word, would be on the list. :Denni ☯ 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Yesterday's Globe and mail, february 20, 2006, page A14, Section, Social Studies (A daily miscellany of Information by micheal Kesteron (MKesterton@globeandmail.ca)) cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:
"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."
Again, Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly have are opinions from people. (POV's) Inherently most articles are full of POV's. Does that give us the right to delete them? I don't think so. --CyclePat 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: perhaps, "table" is a funny word for you, but if you have not written a published book or can't find a published book on that subject (ie.: on the inherent funnyness of that word) than it wouldn't meet the wikipedia standard of inclusion based on the WP:NOR (Wikipedia No original research... and if that is or was the case then we should nullify this entire process, start an entirelly new deletion process with those accusations.) --CyclePat 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here, but there are no sources attesting to the inherent funniness of words mentioned in the article, "weasel", for instance, which, IMHO, makes most of this article OR. If this article is to be kept, it needs serious editing and sourcing. Denni ☯ 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit drastically. It should exist where 'Inherrently funny word' is a quote rather than a topic, as comedians have spoken on this subject and given examples. I suggest it should begin with something like 'An 'Inherrently funny word' is a concept which has been proposed by many comedians, including (etc), and featuring words like (etc)'. No word is inherrently funny, it's all relative. --Luke44 21:41 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep Interesting article, though per Luke44 and others it could use a little cleanup/organization. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice article.  Grue  21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article holds a great deal of information on a concept which clearly has been addressed many times in popular media, as seen in the number of sources it cites. It doesn't try to establish a deffinative list of all "inherently funny" words, although the opinion of profession commedians could probably be taken as expert opinion, and thus qualify for inclusion, as has been done. If someone feels that the article is trying to create an inherently incomple and potentially POV list, then it could be cleaned up, but since it is clearly a subject that has been addressed there is no reason to delete it. After all, there are articles on consipracy theories, alien abduction and pseudosciences that may not actually physically exist, but the idea is prevalent enough that in can be reasonable addressed. After all, all of these quotes are verifiable. I've read Dave Barry's piece where he claims weasel is an inherently funny word, for instance. He certainly qualifies as an expert, and thus it's not OR. Icelight 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a member of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I signed up for an account before, but I don't remember my user name or my password. I have to say that I have the exact opposite opinion on this article that Mr. Brian G. Crawford has. The argument here seems to be that, if this article concerns the subject of silliness, then the article itself must be silly. Nothing is empirically funny, at all, ever. It is -ALWAYS- culturally constructed. That is the nature of humor itself. The fact is that humor is difficult to analyze because you don't know whether something is funny until it makes you laugh. "Inherent funniness" is the concept by which something is simply considered funny, and therefore preferable to things that are not funny. In the satirical online game, The Kingdom of Loathing, the clothing choices for player characters are "pants" and "hat". I am not aware of an official stated reason for clothing being limited to those items, but it is my opinion that experts on humor will agree that "pants" and "hat" are the funniest names for articles of clothing. Certainly, some people may argue that "socks" is funny or that player characters should be allowed to choose "galoshes" or "underpants" or something similarly silly. In this respect, humor can be considered entirely objective. Some people may not find any words to be inherently funny at all, just like how I am fairly sure I have not laughed at an episode of "Seinfeld" at all, not even once. Those who want this article deleted seem to be convinced that humor is not worthy of intelligent analysis because of its subjectivity or its strong ties to the culture of those involved with both producing the humor and laughing at it. I myself firmly believe that it is because of these things that humor is a worthy topic of discussion. There won't be articles discussing in detail every form of humor in legitimate mainstream paper encyclopedias, because humor is a very difficult topic. However, if this article ends up being deleted (being edited to conform to a higher standard of quality is quite acceptable) it will severely hurt my faith in humanity. I just thought I'd throw in my own two cents. --65.13.17.229 07:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [Some guy named Dave][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moinho da fonte

From WP:PNT, untranslated for two weeks. Entry from there follow. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Story in Portuguese about a town. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:25, 3 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 deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakir kocabas

Untranslated for two weeks at WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

found in Category:Cleanup from November 2005 I don't recognize the language --Melaen 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
probably Turkish--Carabinieri 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Turkish. Appears notable. ColinFine 14:20, 3 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 Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny gotimer

bio of nn skateboarder, reeks of vanity savidan(talk) (e@) 00:12, 19 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 deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Animals

Original research. Also reads like a high school essay. And appears to be a copyvio OscarTheCattalk 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: verify: I wonder if this is just a case of verifiability... again! In that case add the verify unsourced template and see you later.--CyclePat 02:51, 19 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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie Joppru

But there is no importantance to him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above users and not listed at AfD; I've fixed the formatting and listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 19 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 slightly more in favour to keep than delete. A lot of the keep votes had alternate suggestions (keep with cleanup, keep or merge, etc.) but really we only debate keeping vs deleting. Improvements are up to the community. Ifnord 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Family of the United States

I'll be blunt. The article is redundant of Barbara and Jenna Bush, First Family, and Laura Bush, and not to mention, is unsourced as is. In addition, unless the author intends on writing a "First Family" article for Washington through Clinton, the article, as it stands now, is simply another Bush family article, making it redundant with Bush Family. I am not taking away from anybody's notability or anything like that, I am simply pointing out that this article is simply redundant with already existing, sourced articles. Jay(Reply) 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Jay --Ruby 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I completely understand. I am writing the Clinton section of the article right now, actually. The article is NOT intended to be a Bush family chronicle; I am trying to compile data from ALL of the First Families. I hope you'll consider not deleting this article. Thank you. History21
  • Keep/Clean-up Should focus on the institution of the first family, significant acts of various members throughout history, not one specific first family. But the institution deserves an article. -AKMask 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there has to be something there, at least a disambig or redirect, fight out on the talk pages or make a request for comment. Kappa 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename: To be technically correct I think it should be First family of the United States of America but that's me. Oh! and keep the content. --CyclePat 02:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Yay!!! It now appears as if this article will be kept, and of course I am very happy with that. For those who say it should be deleted, I can only state that the First Family of the United States has been a distinct institution for two centuries. Some First Families (in particular the Kennedys) had a significant inpact on the popular culture of the day. To those who support me in keeping the article, I must say that I agree with your assertions that more should be included about the security the First Family receives, the privileges they are privy to, etc. I would welcome inclusion of that within this article, because, frankly, I don't think I could cover it all on my own. However, I feel strongly that te biographical information as pertains to each First Family's time in the White House should STAY, and I will reinsert any biographical info that is unnecessarily deleted. The idea of a one-sentence summary of each First Family is a bit far-fetched. If people wanted mediocre knowledge on the topic, they wouldn't come to Wikipedia. We should be detailed. And for all the "editorialising" I have done, I feel that the article is very neutral. Based on my descriptions of two Republican and one Democratic First Family, can you really guess what my political views are? I note Clinton's infidelities and the Bush twins' binging in a purely factual manner. So, that is what I have to say, and I will check in here from time to time to see what everyone else thinks. Thank you. History21
  • Comment: If you continue to expand it the way you're doing (there's even a note on the page "NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE EXPANDED BY ITS ORIGINAL CREATOR." which I don't think is usual practice), it's going to be extremely long WP:SIZE. Not only is it redundant (duplicating material for people most or all of whom have their own entries on WP, none of which you've linked), it is internally redundant e.g. noting each person in a family "ceased to be First" whatever on a certain date. Schizombie 20:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have told you, I feel that this biographical information is important, and I intend to expand it because I know a good deal about it. However, I feel that others SHOULD come forward to help with more general information about the institution as a whole. I can, of course, research the Secret Service. Yes, yes, I'll do that. Alright, thank you all again. History21
  • Delete anything that needs to be said about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. Which needs completely rewriting by the way as is describes any country other than american as "foreign" which is a useless (and possibly offensive) term in an international encyclopædia. Jcuk 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What? It is a Brit, isn't it? And do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family? Honestly, the idea that the American First Family could simply be included in an article that describes the families of heads of state in general is itself rather funny. I mean, come on, I don't really think anyone is pretending that Cherie Blair yields the same kind of inflence as Laura Bush. The American First Family, whoever its members are at any given time, is the most powerful and influential family on Earth. Let me put it this way: if George W. Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. If Laura Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it. When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just illustrating a fact. I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married. And yet, EVERYONE knows about the American First Family. That's just the way it is. As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you? History21 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family?" ? no
  • "When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it." Who?
  • "As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you?" They have it. Bush Family. Anything else that needs saying about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. --Jcuk 10:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whoa, There. This article is not about the Bush family, it is about the First Family of the United States, an institution far more influential than any other similar body on the face of this planet. And who are you to redirect this article into First Family when voting on it has clearly not stopped? Far more people voted to keep than to redirect, and I am reposting this. Give me one good reason why the First Family of the United States doesn't deserve its own article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by History21 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2006.
  • Comment: I agree it shouldn't have been redirected without this discussion being closed. History21 undid the redirect, and I've reverted it to the last most complete version prior to that redirect. The number of people voting to keep is not the sole basis of whether an article is deleted or not AFAIK. The main reason to delete it is that there are already articles covering some of the families and all of the individuals. Another lesser problem is a US-centric systemic bias overstating the importance of members of the "first family" beyond the President and First Lady. Another problem is length; if the article covers all the so-called "first families" as the intention was stated, it could grow to be about 40,000 words in length.Schizombie 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article, as it presently stands, is repetitive of quite a few already well written, adequately sourced material on Wikipedia. From what I see now, in an attempt to have the article kept, the author is adding unsourced, inaccurate paragraphs every now and again to expand the article - not good news. A majority of keep votes are under "extensive rewrite" or "rewrite completely." I am not saying that an article of such a title should not exist, for the institution is rather important. I am just saying that as it stands now, the current article under the title "First Family of the United States," per all the delete votes and keep+rewrite votes needs to be scrapped, and rewritten from a much different approach. Deleting the article removes the histories, to prevent reversion - a rewritten article under the title "First Family of the United States" would have no need to be reverted to what currently sits under that name. --Jay(Reply) 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we would just add a new section at the top. Kappa
  • Comment: We'll keep the anti-American nonsense to a minimum, shall we? While I'm sure that the hegemonic empire on your southern border causes you great pain, it is not my fault that our own officials carry more sway than your own, and acknowledging the fact is not "foolishness." Yes, the American First Family is known across the world. Is this really a surprise? Come now...think. History21 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just my guess, but I bet there's a significant percentage of Americans who don't know Mrs. Bush's first name, and I'd bet even money that at least half of Americans could not name the two (?) Bush juniors. Certainly, people around the world know there is a First Family, but beyond that, they are mostly blissfully ignorant. I'm not sure where your leap of interepretation came from that I was dismissing as foolish the fact that your officials carry more sway than ours. What I was dismissing as foolish was the statement that "everyone knows about the first family". Clearly, this is hubris. Denni ☯ 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "*It is a Brit, isn't it?"
  • "*When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it."
  • "When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES."
  • "I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! "
  • "I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married."
  • "Hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum."
    --Jcuk 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How's about using proper grammar? (Notice the apostrophe in "how's.") When referring to an American, we use capitals. Don't ruin a (I'll admit) fairly clever attack against me by using flawed punctuation. It just really, really upsets me, almost as much as the still silly assertion that the U.S. First Family does not merit its own article. By the way, I must commend you for using my own statements to demonstrate my "american [sic] nonsense," alluding of course to my own use of "anti-American nonsense." That was quick. Your astuteness however, does not make up for the fact that everything I said was true. Sorry. That it was true. For you, anyway. History21 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and another thing that really grinds my nerves: "hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum [sic]." should clearly have a question mark on the end of it! Oy, vey! Periods, my dear British friend, mark the end of a statement, and question marks the end of either a direct or indirect question ("How's about doing this?" It's not exactly a command, more of a suggestion, if you can even call it that). Okay, I feel better now. I wonder if I would get in trouble for vandalizing posts by making them conform to English language standards? Hmm... History21 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where is Roosevelt, or a, the other 20 or so families? -QDJ
  • Comment:Holy bonkers. I just typed that. Side note, how do you set up the link to your page and all? -QDJ
  • Comment: The absence of material on all the "first families" is not a reason to delete it, IMO. However, adding the missing families would not make for a reason to keep it either. It's still redundant, something that hasn't been addressed yet. How do you write about a president's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that man or the one on President of the United States? How do you write about a first lady's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that woman or the one on First Lady of the United States? How do you write about the significance of other members of the family as members of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the articles on those people? A more valuable endeavor, IMO, would be to create articles for the redlinked "Non-spouse 'First Ladies'" and "White House hostesses" from the FLOTUS page. Schizombie 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no The First Family is a significant institution by itself. As a collective unit, it is more important than any royal family could ever hope to be. And regarding Denni's comment that many Americans aren't familiar with our own First Family; I feel that any American who didn't know the First Lady and First Daughters' names would have to be almost clinically retarded. People in this country may not be able to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, but they're pretty well schooled on the members of the President's family. History21 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, improper nom, WP:SNOW Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Ioane

who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 19 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 as short article lacking context and non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Mathwig

Delete:nn bio. But raised a smile! JackyR 00:47, 19 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 keep. Ifnord 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Treaudo

who — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 19 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 keep, seemingly improper nom, WP:SNOW. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.C. Brown

too little info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:49, 19 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus White

Who is this guy he is not a football player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep per related nominations, and endorse speedy closure with a few more speedy keep votes. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Abstain. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why is this a speedy keep when it seems to be about a non-notable PHD student who is a member of a band of questionable notability The Special Patrol Group? --Martyman-(talk) 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy. This is an article about a student who plays for a Aussie rock group who I doubt meets WP:NMG. I suspect the people voting keep think are discussing the NFL player. No Google hits at all for "Marcus White" "Special Patrol Group". [4].

Capitalistroadster 03:56, 19 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence Murphy

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Wise

Noted only for being a creationist and for teaching at a notable college --Ruby 01:09, 19 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 delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs

All of the articles on Beyonce's singles contain information about their most notable remixes and alternative versions. This article, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes, fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Beyonce's record label. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Extraordinary Machine 01:08, 19 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 delete. Shanel 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Leisure Coffee

No references, no google [5], unverifiable. Kappa 01:19, 19 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 delete and support moving all WP lists here. :) - ulayiti (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keepers of Lists

Somewhat well-known website, but does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria for notability Choess 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up! It's a frivolous and humorous suggestion, not a real proposal - GFDL prevents any such action. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 21 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 delete. Shanel 01:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Seager

Unverifiable see WP:V. Kappa 01:28, 19 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 keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stanek

  ATTENTION!

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 to be deleted. 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 upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

I don't see the sense in arguing over this page. Let's delete it, and move on.

I propose deleting Robert Stanek page to end controversy, and move on to other pages. My vote to delete the rest of the Robert Stanek pages as well. Eakers4 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it all, and lets move on to more important stuff. Eakers4 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I agree. It's not worth fighting over. It is a shame wikipedia seemed to be a cool place, but everyone's so hateful. Next thing you know they'll be yanking the Chris Paolini pages. Soulrunner 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and previous AfD held today. Moe ε 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Changing vote to Keep per Alkivar's vote. Moe ε 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep guy is himself notable, his [FICTION] books are not. He has worked for 2 major publications and has clearly made a name for himself as an astroturfer.  ALKIVAR™ 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this is where I get ambivalent. On the one hand, he's not a major writer, as far as can be determined. On the other hand... at least three admins here have said "oh, him" or words to that effect, which does suggest he's got at least some recognition... Shimgray | talk | 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly suspect that the user nominating this article for deletion is a Robert Stanek sock, as is Soulrunner. Now that the Ansible controversy is mentioned on the page, there is a reason to keep it. Stanek may not be notable for his fantasy novels, but he is notable for his suspected shenanigans. Zora 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Alkivar. This person has apparently done something real (ie, contributed to the shelf on the computer bookstore that will, in immortal words of _why, crush us all one day) besides being just loud and notorious. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. If it stops the bickering. Jnb27 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why wasn't this deleted already? 4.230.105.246 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Enuf already Bcbuff 04:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 4 edits total to Wikipedia, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tired of seeing it. Agreed 69.213.249.15 should be banned along with 69.216.236.40 at the least. This kind of crap shouldn't go on at wikipedia. 172.156.172.88 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry I should be honored, I guess... Mind enlightening me as to just exactly what I've done to merit being banned? Please be specific, and cite exact transgressions. 69.213.249.15 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not being on the dfcsociety.org web site isn't definitive - it does require that you be in the society to be listed there, and there is a fee for membership. As proud as he seems to be of the award, though (since it seems to be mentioned prominantly in every bio I've seen), you'd think he'd be a member. There is a list available from another group of DFC recipients, but it requires proprietary PC-Only software to access. Someone on a PC might want to check it out. It's at [6] 69.213.249.15 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated in the AFD for Ruin Mist, Stanek is an oddment. Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Wikipedia are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. Ironically, if this article is kept, it should be for those very reasons, but should be rewitten to reflect the fact that his only "fame" is through this astonishing spamming campaign, for which he (or someone who is a big fan of his) has far more talent than he does for writing fiction. In some areas of fandom, the verb "to stanek" is starting to mean "to overhype junk writing ("e.g., to say "Tis Perry Rhodan book is brilliant" would be to stanek). If you're looking for some references for all this, BTW, I can proffer [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]... overall, I'd favour a delete, though On second thoughts, the gratuitous self-promotion is probably worthy of an article - but if it is kept, it may need serious edit-protecting to stop the Stanek supporter(s) from bowdlerising it. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (vote reconsidered and changed Grutness...wha? 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep as per Alkivar. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - so many anons wanting it gone makes it rater suspect. Note to other admins: If this keeps on getting keeps from real users we should speedy keep it. gren グレン 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is it that content disputes get dragged into AfDs? The article is a mess at the moment, so fix it. The subject of this article seems to me to be notable, so what about the article is against the policy? Batmanand 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zora. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable online jackass/thug. Monicasdude 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a biography on a non-notable author for a vanity press who's too dumb to know that Slavic languages are not Romance languages. Batmanand, if you feel so strongly that it needs kept, I suggest you try to fix it. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Fiction shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 5/5/2005, 5/27/2005, and 6/2/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 7/1/2005, 6/2/2005, 5/27/2005, and 5/5/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Kids shows the books one or more of on the bestseller list on 6/24/2005, and 6/23/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Mystery shows one or more of on the bestseller list on 9/2/2005. 4.154.208.199 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's the feeds at Audible. So this is audio books. rodii 19:49, 23 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 redirect. Shanel 01:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Save The Manics EP

Delete, article already exists at God Save the Manics Davis "Suede" Hurley 01:36, 19 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 already redirected. Shanel 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship in the World Merit Badge

It's not clear what this article is about. It's ungrammatical. Nothing links to it. Bcrowell 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is fine with me. I'm not quite clear on how it can have text and still be a redirect, but I'm happy with any solution that doesn't just leave it as a dysfunctional, unintelligible article, which it no longer is.--Bcrowell 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My text is meant to be temporary, just to let people at this AfD know what the context is. I expect it to go *poof* as the article is redirected. -- Jonel | Speak 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that redirect, User:Jonel :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:09, 19 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 delete. Shanel 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diamond sea


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK railfan jargon

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19&oldid=40224151"