Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 24
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge and redirect. Mailer Diablo 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be non-notable, and vanity. I would recommend merging it with the Cyberkinetics article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MergeDelete per nom. hateless 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Two notes Just a quick reminder that a) Merge and redirect proposals don't need to be at AfD, and can be proposed by putting these templates on the respective articles {{mergeto|articlename}} and {{mergefrom|otherarticlename}}, and b) new proposals go at the bottom of the page. Thanks : ) AdamBiswanger1 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close. Err... this is Afd, not Afm... tmopkisn tlka 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the cyberkinetics page already has information on John Donoghue. No need for a merge. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Tmopkisn.-- Steel 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment do not speedy close. I have changed my mind and decided that it would be better to delete this article since the cyberkinetics article already includes all necessary information about John Donoghue. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom —Minun Spiderman 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-Notable vanity. --Cheesehead 1980 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I'm OK with redirect after that, too, but have no strong opinion. Medtopic 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge/redirect to Midnight Rx. --Ezeu 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this page and I am uncertain whether this page belongs on Wikipedia, whether it deserves a merge, or deletion. I have created this deletion page so that other Wikipedians could evaluate this page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to the relevant episode of the simpsons. I don't think this compound is possible, or at least the nomenclature is flawed because it would probably be ionic. But I'm certainly no chemist. AdamBiswanger1 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment read the article more carefully, i have mentioned the fact that this compound is impossible but still is mentioned in The Simpsons. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured. If you want, you can have the page speedied under Criterion for speedy deletion G7, so long as you created it as an accident or there was a misunderstanding about the nature of wikipedia. AdamBiswanger18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not want the page to be speedy deleted. I want it to be evaluated by other Wikipedians and I want them all to decide what to do with it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no need to provide articles for every detail of the Simpsons. -- Whpq 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the trivia section of Midnight Rx. As a stand alone, a gag from a show is absolutely out, especially one that would be trivia for that episode. As a trivia entry for the episode, it's probably ok. Geogre 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to source episode. It's a useful addition to the compilations of fictional medicines and fictional chemical substances, so I wouldn't want it to be lost entirely. --Pagana 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to source episode. It is an interesting analysis of the use of humour in the Simpsons and therefore belongs as part of the episode summary, but not as an article in its own right Adam Slack 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to source episode, per above. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it should be kept because there is enough information for a decent sized article and because there's a good chance that someone might want to look it up and find out what it is, and there's a better chance of them finding what they are looking for if it has it's own article.
- Delete: this is a fictional chemical mentioned in one episode of a cartoon - not notable enough for this encyclopaedia. Have merged Lithium bromide and Lithium carbonate parts + refs in with appropriate articles. Stephen B Streater 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are the author, you may tag the page with {{db-author}} or {{db|reason}} cheers —Minun Spiderman 12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology, I seemed to have not read your message, so lets go with Merge per above —Minun Spiderman 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, after merging the content. --Guinnog 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Adam and Geogre. Joe 01:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You do not have significant article contributions you have made to Wikipedia, besides adding afd tags.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abelani (talk • contribs) .
- Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The web site is notable. Searching Google for WikiTree -wikipedia -site:wikitree.org yields several thousand results, some of which can provide enough info to qualify the article for inclusion. It would be a loss to see this article go. I recommend updating it instead with the references available online.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abelani (talk • contribs) .
- Note - only 150-odd of those are unique hits.Vizjim 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. It is necessary to read what Google finds. Uncle G 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely true, and you'll note that I haven't voted here. Vizjim 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. It is necessary to read what Google finds. Uncle G 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - only 150-odd of those are unique hits.Vizjim 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think notability is also achieved through the ambitious and unique goal of the site. AdamBiswanger1 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)OK AdamBiswanger1 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Nah, there's a couple other sites like it, and some doof has been hassling the Wikimedia Foundation to sponsor something like this for years, getting in wars on Commons for uploading too many pictures of his own relatives. Phr (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Site may have ambitious goals and google results, but wikipedia is more strict on notability rules to allow articles on this alone. Hardvice 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Yomangani 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If Wikitree gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Phr (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Phr. Anomo 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's a pertty cool idea, but for me, fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:WEB. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient external coverage for a verifiably neutral article. Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above —Minun Spiderman 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. rootology 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A total of three new references and items for further reading have been added to the article since the discussion was started. Does it still fail WP:WEB? --Amit 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has gotten a little more interesting but the references added are weak. One of them actually states Wikitree is a Wikimedia project. If the article is deleted and later recreated once more documentation is around, the article editors at that time might want to request history undeletion (i.e. recovery of the old, deleted version into the article's public history) so that any useful info in the current version can be salvaged for use in the new version. Phr (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link besides the website itself is a forum post [1] and not only does that fail all wikipedia requirements, I think it's not even allowed to be linked (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. It's an article on a type of wiki, not an individual one. There's also a German language page on the same thing. de:stadtwiki Looks like the nom isn't paying attention and is putting AfDs up today willy-nilly on anything that has the word wiki. Mithridates 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. Appears to be a vehicle for external links to a bunch of related wikis linked in that article. At very minimum, remove all those links. Phr (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anomo 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assume everybody's taken a look at this link for example on how the German Wikipedia's written the article and arranged their city wikis? Considering the vast number of wikis out there on individual cities I can't see a reason to delete the article. I could go with a rewrite and removal of individual wiki references but I see no reason for a deletion. Mithridates 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and could add WP:NEO to that list as I can't find evidence of this term in general use.--Isotope23 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but remove the weblinks to individual city wikis, because they are all on city-wiki-center and this is not a weblink-collection. City wikis have attention in Newspapers, the german dpa had a big story earlier this year. If you would like, we can offer this ranking page in englisch to. (I'm one of the founders of allmende.stadtwiki.net - Allmende is an old German word for commons :) --Kawana 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but delete weblinks per WP:NOT a linkfarm. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but clean up, it is a growing type of wiki--169.229.80.226 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is as stated above a verifiably significant wiki genre. Just zis Guy you know? 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article is despammed now but no longer says how to find the city wikis for those cities. The individual city articles don't have them. And spreading those spam links across 10 articles (each with its own high-ranked Google hit for a bazillion keywords having to do with the individual cities) is even worse than having them all in one place. Anyway the current state is better than what was there before. Phr (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the articles weblinks carefully, there you will find the link to list of all city wikis. --Kawana 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. rootology 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please keep because DavisWiki redirects there — Donama 03:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)DavisWiki was incorrectly redirecting there. Also CitiWiki is a wiki software. This article (City Wiki) is trash so I don't care if it's deleted. — Donama 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment if this article is to be kept, it must be renamed to City wiki and be generalised more to explain the term is used for geographical info about all sorts of places.
- Good point! Anyway I agree with Donama that the article is weak. Phr (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this article is to be kept, it must be renamed to City wiki and be generalised more to explain the term is used for geographical info about all sorts of places.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company as per WP:Corp as noted by computerjoe in his 20-July prod that was inappropriately removed by article author. Valrith 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There really is no "inappropriate removal of a {{prod}}. All that means it that someone contests the deletion of the article. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It doesn't meet the corporate guidelines, and the copy is somewhat ad-junk. The article is also advertising. Geogre 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not your personal ad service -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable and ad. Dlyons493 Talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Reasonable as a company profile, needs a more neutral POV JeffMurph 12:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as required or suggested by WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:CORP WilyD 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although I think the pendulum has swung too far in terms of keeping out articles on companies. AdamBiswanger1 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:VSCA. I disagree with Adam; pendulum has not swung far enough. There is another solo watchmaking guy in Hong Kong who's really notable (made the first low-cost tourbillon watches in the 1990's at a mere $10,000 USD or so when European manufacturers were charging 5x that much) but I've forgotten his name. I'll try to research and write an article about him sometime. Phr (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have made the approriate changes to the page, removed any ad type fluff and have include more information about the company. The company does meet corp level inclusion be Wikipedia terms. NO, I dont make a Swiss watch or sell 5 billion per year, but that should not be the requiment and a 10K per month level is high. Information can be verified elsewhere by third parties. Please remove the delete notice - I am sorry for any inappropriate removal. Thank you. 10:45 24 July 2006.
- Keep Improved company profile that has a more neutral POV nneelsmith 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advertisement. Naconkantari 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. Mattisse 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Naconkantari - ad. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are there any sources available other than the company website? I can find nothing. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The brand really does exist, if that's what you're asking [2] [3] [4] (dialup users beware of many pics in first two links, but they are interesting disassembly reports). But article needs to document notability per WP:CORP and that might not be easy. I think the emergence of Chinese manufacturers of high quality mechanical watches is of great interest in horology and someone more into it than I am should certainly write about it, but Alpha's role in it is unclear and the current article is excessively spammy. Phr (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant something that met Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, not a forum. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there's stuff in the glossy watch magazines about the company but frankly I'd consider those magazines less reliable than Timezone. You'll never see a review like this (which caused an uproar in the industry) in any of those magazines, which are basically marketing outlets for the watch brands. Phr (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advert with itself and a forum as sources. Wipe this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear as to what the article is actually about, due partly to a bad choice in name; and only rap artists have been taken into account for the article anyway; which doesn't list its sources, if any. JD[don't talk|email] 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Superstrong delete not just per nom, but per it being a bad article. -- Kicking222 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral--The name is bad, but the article could actually be useful.Reppin the bay 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Utterly useless. Crabapplecove 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Misnamed, unsourced, and a-contextual. First week's sales of red socks on the corner of 86th and Lexington? Geogre 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per .Reppin the bay -- Librarianofages 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge...into...ahh...something then Delete Resolute 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom JianLi 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a good list, gives no real criteria for inclusion, and "it is not completely correct" (which makes me suspect OR - it's unsourced, too). Ambiguous name, but that's not a reason for deletion (since the article can just be renamed). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge merge the article into their respective rappers article--Ageo020 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Arbitrary year criterium, unclear exactly what the criteria are, unsourced GassyGuy 07:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI'm going to rename the list. If I can manage to verify the information, there should be no reason why it should be deleted. Remeber that our first goal is to clean up, and if that is not possible, throw out. AdamBiswanger1 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: The problem is that a clean up means 1) new title, 2) new sources, 3) verification, 4) explicit criteria. In other words, it's pretty much a total rewrite and page move, which is functionally equivalent to deletion. Geogre 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have to agree with you. I browsed on Google a bit and couldn't find anything. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a fine premise for an article, but unless someone can find something to satisfy WP:V, I'll change my vote to Delete. AdamBiswanger1 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it needs verfiability which is lacking at this point. If this is addressed, then keep. -- Whpq 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - This article is lacking any veritable sources or context. --Diehard2k5 | Talk 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why delete it? It's a good article it just needs more references and expansion. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Trivial, random, unsourced and U.S centric. It is not worth wasting any time trying to salvage it. Landolitan 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced, bad title, and basically useless. --angers 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above, plus complete cruftmagnet and uselessness. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete arbitrariness personified. Geogre has it, as ever. Just zis Guy you know? 13:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles about books. But articles about chapters of books are inheritently not-notable (unless the book is a Koran or Bible or something like this) abakharev 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and WP:NOT cliffs notes. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in this form: Having a discussion of one of Foucault's major talks is fine, but this really does look like a digest of the chapter, study notes. Foucault wrote a great deal, and this talk isn't really pivotal. Geogre 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you have a Merge suggestion? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom JianLi 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. (that is the book that this is a chapter of (not mentioned in nom). Frankly, no need to throw away good infomation, just put it where it belongs. says so after reading the article and finding the topic interesting —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep after reading arguments below. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is verifiable, well-referenced, and, with the addition of an adequate criticisms section, and other restructuring could easily be brought into compliance with the NPOV policy. Additionally, the article is notable because it demonstrates the role of Michel Foucault, Jean Danet, and Guy Hocquenghem in attempting to promote pedophilia, and relates the chapter to a pro-pedophilia petition that Michel Foucault had signed:
The article is quite useful in understanding the "intellectual" basis upon which pro-pedophilia movements that pose a continuing danger to public safety have attempted to justify their perversions. John254 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]The issue was brought to debate while a reform in the French Penal Code was under way in the Parliament. Many French intellectuals [1] - including Foucault, Danet and Hocquenghem - had signed a petition addressed to the Parliament in 1977 defending the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen.
- Keep. Does not violate any Wikipedia policies. If a "criticisms" section is added, it must of course likewise satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. --LambiamTalk 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Surprisingly deep coverage of a lesser work of a highly influential philosopher but This article is surprisingly good is hardly a good criterion for deletion. Article is long enough to justify itself. To suggest Philosophy of Michael Foucault is indiscriminate information is just plain nuts. WilyD 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WilyD and John 254. Wikipedia is Cliffsnotes sometimes. AdamBiswanger1 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Topic is encyclopedic as Foucault is a major philosopher. Article is well-referenced with no obvious fluff, and is split from parent article Michel Foucault because of size. Eagle's suggestion of merge to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 doesn't work because there's no article about that book at present. If one is written, then merging might be possible, though the article is maybe still too large for merging. Phr (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and hope that many similar articles are forthcoming. More important than the Dead Parrot Sketch, however much better-known that may be. Vizjim 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Foucault is significant, but this is a chapter. There should be an article on the book, perhaps, but Foucault is not at the same level as Hegel, and we haven't articles on all his works, nor on the level of Nietzsche. What is written is good, but it's far too summary, far too "remember this for the test," for my tastes. It's not actually localizing the philosophical themes. Just because Foucault is significant, that doesn't license misnamed, free floating summaries of his speeches. Geogre 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there should be any limits on articles that are in the realm of academics, even if the result is a disproportionate amount of information on a second-tier philosopher (it's one of my soapboxes that I use over and over). If someone wants to write 30kb on an obscure conversation regarding a famous philosopher, that's fine with me. What harm is there in this? When we sit at our computers and wistfully imagine Wikipedia in 30 years, don't we all dream of having so much knowledge on a such an obscure yet dignified topic? AfD is for deleting articles like "List of guns in Halo 2", not anything with such intellectual merit as this.
- And regarding the style of the article, I have some qualms about the style being a bit on the OR side ("main ideas of the text"), but this can be edited and toned down to read like any other enlightened and neutral explanation of a text. I'll probably do it myself at some point today. So, although the organization is a bit superficial and non-encyclopedic, it can be changed to fit quite well in our encyclopedia. AdamBiswanger1 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Foucault is significant, but this is a chapter. There should be an article on the book, perhaps, but Foucault is not at the same level as Hegel, and we haven't articles on all his works, nor on the level of Nietzsche. What is written is good, but it's far too summary, far too "remember this for the test," for my tastes. It's not actually localizing the philosophical themes. Just because Foucault is significant, that doesn't license misnamed, free floating summaries of his speeches. Geogre 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This is a conversation broadcast on the radio. Where is any evidence this had any sort of broad implications beyond the initial broadcast? I've heard several nationally broadcast discussions of sexuality and law on morning radio broadcasts in the U.S. Should we start articles for all of those? Best case scenario for those wishing to retain this info would be to move this to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 and expand it beyond that one chapter. As a standalone article about a radio conversation with no evidence of any broader impact or implications it doesn't pass muster in my opinion (and Wikipedia should never be "cliff notes).--Isotope23 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, the large, pile of citations in the article to other articles (in 4 languages) about that very conversation, is evidence that the conversation got far-reaching attention. Phr (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I see it is by and large trivial mention in other works, one reprint (translation) and a mention in the context of a summary of “Politics, Philosophy, Culture”... which is where this article should be moved to if it is retained. I don't see any evidence that the "conversation got far-reaching attention..."--Isotope23 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose that many philosophical works recieve as much attention as, say, Oops, I Did It Again, but that certainly does not limit their notability, especially being that it is from a well-known and highly notable philosopher. AdamBiswanger1 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, the large, pile of citations in the article to other articles (in 4 languages) about that very conversation, is evidence that the conversation got far-reaching attention. Phr (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep Keep per WilyD, Phr and John 254. Very good article, notable subject, too bad its not Pokemon or it would never have gotten this many delete votes. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An Encyclopedia should cover all unique and relevant information on every issue. This information is undoubtedly unique and Michel Foucault is a renowned philosopher. His opinions expressed in this chapter are really relevant to the debate about "abolition of age of consent laws", once he brings other point-of-views that nobody else has thought of. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
- It doesn't matter if it's a chapter or a book or a whole collection of books. All information in Wikipedia should be subdivided into articles enough to show all different and relevant points of view. The relevance of this radio talk is evident. This should not be reduced or censored by any means, although (of course) it can be edited in other styles or lay-outs. Paulo Andrade 23:00 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
- Keep, wikipedia is not paper, and this is not pokemon. It's smart, well-done, and encyclopedic. Themindset 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To hide relevant information from the public is simply dishonest (no matter if it's right-wing or left-wing) and disqualifies the intentions of those who oppose the content of the text. One may not agree with Foucault, but at least one should agree that it is the right of other people to know what he said. My impression is that some people are desperatly seeking any motive to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others. I live in a country where a whole generation of intellectuals fighted against censorship during military dictatorship for over 20 years, so I know how it looks like. Paulo Andrade 23:45 July 24, 2006 (GMT)
- It probly isn't anything so malicious - english speakers in general are typically fairly unaware of Foucault's importance. In this discussion Foucault is called less important than Nietzsche, or Hegel - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - his philosophy is referred to as an indiscriminate collection of information - anglos just don't know much about him because he isn't as accessible as Hume WilyD 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it isn't really the place, but you cannot be seriously suggesting that Foucault even enters the same order of significance as Hegel, can you? Vizjim 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, realistically he probly lies somewhere between Hegel and Nietzsche ... but he's not been buried long enough to accrete the amount of influence that either of them have - importance is a different issue. WilyD 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it isn't really the place, but you cannot be seriously suggesting that Foucault even enters the same order of significance as Hegel, can you? Vizjim 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm, Yes, Paulo Andrade... I voted delete or move to Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 "to hide a piece of relevant human knowledge from others". How did you ever figure out my sinister master plan? Mwa-ha-ha! (end sarcasm)... Seriously though... read WP:AGF Paulo before making wild unfounded accusations.--Isotope23 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It probly isn't anything so malicious - english speakers in general are typically fairly unaware of Foucault's importance. In this discussion Foucault is called less important than Nietzsche, or Hegel - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - his philosophy is referred to as an indiscriminate collection of information - anglos just don't know much about him because he isn't as accessible as Hume WilyD 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WilyD and John254. I hope the nom isn't actually suggesting that only religous texts are worthy of thorough examination. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After looking at the talk itself, I've moved a little closer to Geogre's view that the article is mostly summary and could be made shorter, but that's just an editorial issue, the topic is still fine and deletion is not appropriate. Editorial issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, not afd. Simply moving the article is inappropriate since it's a split-out from Michel Foucault about the specific topic. Further editing at Michel Foucault might change that, but not something for afd to deal with. I'd rather leave it up to the article's regular editors who know something about the subject matter.
I'm not worried about having an article about a chapter of a book in and of itself. We have lots of perfectly good multi-page articles (e.g. Ozymandias) about 14-line poems. Also, we can't count on the talk being online all the time (for that matter, the reader might be using an offline copy of wikipedia), so having a non-copyvio summary of the talk in the encyclopedia helps the parent article considerably. See The Saga Begins for another example. Phr (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-The article is relevant, informative, well-written, and notable. I would hate to see such good information on an oft-repressed subject deleted. -Timzor 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One last information: in Wikipedia, Foucault has articles in 35 different languages, Nietzsche has in 55 and Hegel in 41. By contrast, Durkheim has in 31 and Baudrillard in 20 languages. I believe all of them are important. Paulo Andrade 22:11, 26 July 2006 (GMT)
- Keep this verifiable and well-referenced article per WilyD and John 254. Yamaguchi先生 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well how about this. Glad I stumbled on this as I can now eliminate the identical text from Age of consent reform which is one of the many places where our new pal has been busy busy. So I would say Keep and tag for cleanup, primarily a severe pruning. Its notable enough for an article (partly, as mentioned above, as another demonstration of why Foucalt is now mostly ignored); it's not notable enough for an article nearly this long. And yes, WP:PAW will get to it (sigh). Not necessarily this year, though. We have many busy busy busy friends. Herostratus 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Limit the content? What purpose does that serve other than attempting to ensure some sort of notability to information ratio that cannot be attained, and is in itself a value judgment? I say the most we should trim down is to the 30kb limit. AdamBiswanger1 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, because its encyclopedia, and after all it is just a radio talk rather than a large body of work. An overview, with links to the full text and related texts ought to be sufficient for researchers. But anyway that's a discussion for another day, on the article's talk page. Herostratus 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable site about fan-made games for Sonic the Hedgehog. I prod'ded this but it was removed. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would hardly call it "Non-notable". It's been around since the late 90s, is linked in several articles related to the subject matter ([Example 1], [Example 2]), and is rather large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.42.146 (talk • contribs)
- Check WP:WEB, please. Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete gamecruft. Artw 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I see no evidence that this meets WP:WEB, and is also gamecruft. --Kinu t/c 02:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable Gamecruft. Crabapplecove 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to encourage editors to avoid using pejoratives like "whatevercruft." For one thing, it's terribly vauge what exactly is "cruft" and for another it's slightly incivil. - brenneman {L} 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN JianLi 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete gamecruft. Take it to a game wiki. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While the site itself is not the subject of much discussion in magazines, some of the various artists who associate themselves with the site have had their works featured in Japanese and Australian magazines including the creators of Marioween/Blue Twilight and Halo Zero, both of which were either displayed in magazines or on gamespot. Also, the article promises to feature a history of the community concerned with the site, so clearly the purpose of the article is NOT advertising. Both of the titles I was discussing earlier are distributed through channels that aren't directly associated with the site and both titles offer reference to the site in question... which makes it qualifiable under part III of the notability for webcontent. --DimensionWarped 04:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User has 11 edits - all to this page. ViridaeTalk 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument.
--Ssbfalcon 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DimensionWarped admits that this site is not discussed, just people that happen to be associated with the site. You're supposed to be the ones arguing why the article should be kept. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless to whether the site is discussed at length or not, content created with relation to the site is distributed by largely recongnized media sources. That fits the rule. If you question that reasoning against deletion, then I'll have to question your reasoning for insistance that this isn't a notable site.--DimensionWarped 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DimensionWarped admits that this site is not discussed, just people that happen to be associated with the site. You're supposed to be the ones arguing why the article should be kept. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Glaber here, this article is still under construction and the history bit is not ready yet. So the article should stay other wise nothing. (the only thing I could do is reupload)
- To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument. My Arguments for non deletion: As mentioned, this site has been the launchpad for various notable projects as mentioned and is one of the most active fangame communities still around, and it has gone through quite a bit. Many other communities have come and gone, such as Zelda Fangames HQ and Megaman Fangames HQ, but despite the attacks on the site and its community which even took it down from the internet for a while, and demonstrates a fangame community which thrives on just that. Again, many have tried, but they have failed many times. SFGHQ again has a decent amount of success stories, such as the above mentioned games, compared to the other fan game communities, including the much larger Mario Fangame Galaxy.
--Ssbfalcon 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User has 13 edits. Either to the page nominated for deletion or to this page. ViridaeTalk 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadix here, it would be nice if you guys would at least give us a chance to put our article together some. SFGHQ is rich in history and remains one of the larger franchise Fangaming sites out there. There is also quite a bit of useful information that can still be put on it. -Shadixep 05:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wholly support the non-deletion of this article. As previously stated, the article is a work-in-progress and just because you, as a non-Sonic fangamer think the site is non-notable doesn't mean it actually isn't. It's THE most active Sonic fangaming site to date, the longest-running and is associated with the Mario Fangames Galaxy as well as the Sonic Stuff Research Group (when it was on Emulationzone.org) and also is rich in history. As far as non-notable goes, I think you haven't had a toe in the ocean that is fangaming and really either didn't research it at all or only had a little look at it. --Suspchaos 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It goes without saying that people involved with the site would believe that the site is rich in history. That doesn't make it notable in a general-interest sense. Claiming that those in favor of deletion "have no argument" doesn't help your case at all. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Though not mentioning your case at all and just saying the site is "non-notable" doesn't give you a case to argue either. We have mentioned few of SFGHQ's history which you have obviously overlooked in your quest to see this page removed. I must also mention, according to the WP:WEB that Kinu linked to. Our content has received awards from publications including Gamespot (it's on Gamespot which is a notable achievement in itself since very few fangames developed make it onto sites such as Gamespot or 1up. --Suspchaos 06:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already presented a counterpoint which nullifies your argument for the deletion of the article Lilithborne. --DimensionWarped 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It goes without saying that people involved with the site would believe that the site is rich in history. That doesn't make it notable in a general-interest sense. Claiming that those in favor of deletion "have no argument" doesn't help your case at all. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Longhair 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about it anymore. We're not going to fight a battle that we probably won't win. Just delete it. Enjoy your minor victory, Wikipedianals. --Suspchaos 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All that really matters is that it meets the criteria for notability. And it meets that criteria, so I really don't see how there can be any further argument on it. Atlus meets the criteria for notability simply for articles on games they produced. The magnitude-ignoring assumption there is that if a product of notability is affiliated with a group, then that group is in itself notable. And people, this isn't a bloody vote. It's a debate on notability. Either state legitimate reasons or don't state anything at all.--DimensionWarped 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete it. Everybody has their own opinions as to what and what isn't notable. And just because a few people (who interpret the rules incorrectly and to their advantage) find it useless doesn't mean it is. Perhaps you should just ignore it if it is so useless to you. It obviously isn't useless to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Not notable gamecruft. ViridaeTalk 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT. To 70.130.145.169 and DimensionWarped: there are guidelines on what can and cannot be included on Wikipedia, and we are following them to the letter. See WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure gamecruft, and NN --Bschott 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Guys, please take a look at this essay: WP:FAN. If you really think that an article can be written on your forum that doesn't fall into fancruft as defined there, please write it and stick it up. At present, the article is little more than unencyclopedic gibberish. Vizjim 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Whether or not the article meets WP:WEB (i.e. whether or not the required notability exists out there in the real world), the notability is not currently documented in the article. If the documentation exists and can be added to the article, we can revisit. Demonstrating notability is up to the article authors, who should put necessary docs into the article itself. Other editors are not expected to go search for it. Phr (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I support not deleting this article. Like many have said the article is under construction and the site is rich in history. -W.A.C. (7/24/06)
- Keep. It's oviously notable. Just search for it on Google! --Mark the Echidna 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that the article as of 10:11, 24 July 2006 is drastically different from the original article. If some of you are basing your arguments on the content of the current entry (which is about as unencyclopedic as I could ever imagine), consider just whether the topic alone merits an entry - regardless of whether or not its current incarnation is, as you say, fancruft. Workaphobia 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User has 2 edits. ViridaeTalk 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete gamecruft Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, definitely. However I would like to remind everyone here that "Gamecruft" or "Fancruft" is not a Wikipedia guideline, and is thus never grounds for deletion. The causes for deletion are WP:NOT and WP:WEB, not "gamecruft." Dark Shikari 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Leave it be. Don't you guys have other things to worry about? It's a fansite. Not a cult of any kind. What damage is this going to do Wiki? None! By the way, get yourselves educated. Furthermore, what is gamecruft? You guys never explained what the hell it is? SFGHQ is much bigger than you "deleters" think. Just do a google search. Sonic Stadium is a another big fansite. If you wish too, go to Moogle Cavern wish could be said to be the "sister" site of SFGHQ. Most, if not all the olde members of SFGHQ post there quite often.
- "Cruft" is an old programmer/hacker term for something that is only important to a select group of people (well, actually it refers to old junk code in a program, but that's another story). So, "Gamecruft" means only gamers would be interested in this article.
- SFGHQ isn't a cruft in the least. What part of thew word SONIC FAN don't you guys understand? SFGHQ is merely a fansite.
- "Cruft" is an old programmer/hacker term for something that is only important to a select group of people (well, actually it refers to old junk code in a program, but that's another story). So, "Gamecruft" means only gamers would be interested in this article.
- Delete Fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Whpq 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you all should actually read WP:WEB and pay particular attention to section 3. I already stated that the questioned webcontent meets section 3 which means it complies with WP:WEB.
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most notable site for creating Sonic fan games and a rapidly growing community. The article will only have to be remade later when the site become even more popular.--Eraysor 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the event that this site reaches notability, I am sure noone will have any problems with it being remade, but until then... ViridaeTalk 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm torn on this one. This site has been around for an eternity and has been very influential in the creation of many notable fangames, but as a website I don't believe it's notable. Only 4,690 results from Google on "SFGHQ", the common abbreviation. Even less for the full name of the website in quotations. The fact that the article itself is a stub, and a rather bad stub at that, doesn't help. Also, note that you're going to get meatpuppets lured in from this forum topic here: http://sfghqmb.com/showthread.php?t=495 -MysticEsper 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would that link warrant putting up {{afdsock}} on this AfD? --NeoChaosX 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Funny. I don't see a single person who is for this article staying that has been as weak in explaining their stance as the majority of the opposition.--DimensionWarped 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would that link warrant putting up {{afdsock}} on this AfD? --NeoChaosX 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also WP:CVG#Scope_of_information for additional guidelines on how to write an article for inclusion in an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs)
- Delete, per WP:WEB. --NeoChaosX 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Meatpuppets? You know there are actual people behind this. God you guys are about as elitist as it gets. Call off the debate, just let the bums delete it.
- Comment I'm not trying to ruin anyone's parade, but policy is policy. Meatpuppets are highly discouraged, especially in cases of AfD discussions. I merely linked the relevant topic so it would be understood that there would be a lot of meatpuppets and why. If you'd like to consider that elitist, you may go ahead. -MysticEsper 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Policy dictates that the use of such a word is ill advised. If you want to talk about what is highly discouraged, maybe you shouldn't be partaking of the discouraged yourself. I'll assure you that no one from that topic is getting involved here unless they would do so upon their own personal discretion. It isn't some board full of nothing but pitiful flunkies.--DimensionWarped 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DimensionWarped, I have in the past been a SFGHQ member, and no offense to you or anyone else, but all forums, no matter the notability, have their fair share of "me too" bandwagon hoppers. Simply being linked from a current forum topic is going to lead to people seeing the AfD and clicking on it. I prefer all information to be put forth out in the open, so I linked the forum topic and explained the situation so everyone knows as many facts as there are to know. After all, if the site truly is notable, linking a forum topic and saying a few meatpuppets are posting won't make any difference on the consensus. I will note that I'm perfectly happy to change my vote if I see evidence to the contrary, but currently all I see is "A bunch of popular fangames got their start here", which I don't see as notable in of itself. -MysticEsper 08:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Policy dictates that the use of such a word is ill advised. If you want to talk about what is highly discouraged, maybe you shouldn't be partaking of the discouraged yourself. I'll assure you that no one from that topic is getting involved here unless they would do so upon their own personal discretion. It isn't some board full of nothing but pitiful flunkies.--DimensionWarped 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not trying to ruin anyone's parade, but policy is policy. Meatpuppets are highly discouraged, especially in cases of AfD discussions. I merely linked the relevant topic so it would be understood that there would be a lot of meatpuppets and why. If you'd like to consider that elitist, you may go ahead. -MysticEsper 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The next person to say delete per WP:WEB had better say exactly what the hell makes it not meet the 3rd potential qualification on WEB.--DimensionWarped 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these: online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. is it distributed by? ViridaeTalk 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess gamespot fits into the category of online magazine, though I'm not certain exactly. They do broadcast, but it would be hard to give them a specific label. There are also some appearances of titles in tangible magazines.--DimensionWarped 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these: online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. is it distributed by? ViridaeTalk 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not debating anymore, but at least when the head comes to evalutate and if it is decided to be deleted, we can get an informed reason as to why. --Ssbfalcon 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the fact that notable games may have come from the site and that notable people have been involved with it is frankly irrelevant. My last name is the same as previous winners of Scottish Chess Championships, but that doesn't mean that I should have my own article. The fact that the site is old doesn't mean that it's notable, either. This fails WP:WEB because no coverage has been about the site itself, only games that used the site as a "staging ground." There is no notability by proxy here. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Finally! A sign of intelligance! If we're lucky, we'll see someone else explain their reasons... --- End Of Transmission 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Couldn't the site meet the requires for being an internet publisher? It is "publishing" and responsible for the "distribution" of these games.Shadixep 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would a merger into the article Sonic Stuff Research Group be appropriate? --Ilascott 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB This is a fan site, not the official website for the show. No alexa rating at all. Just not notable. My vote would be Delete. Dipics 00:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I almost put it up for speedy delete when I first saw it. --KPWM_Spotter 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Just another fan site. There is no evidence that it has been mentioned by other media (meaning non-web), nor that it has made a contribution to the world in general. Fans can happily chat with fans. Geogre 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- fan site, WP is not a list of internet sites. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Geogre and Dipics AdamBiswanger1 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The music section of this website is information submitted by Music Supervisor on Kyle XY Chris Mollere. It is updated every week and so far the only place where a full list of music is listed. This is also the site with transcripts for all aired episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngo205 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Whpq 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Steel 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, nn-neologism abakharev 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable term. Never heard of it before. Not much of an article anyways. -Royalguard11Talk 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is two sentences and is unknown to people who didn't see the movie. -ScotchMB 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wow, a joke from a movie. Wow. Until someone can point to a 10 year history of the genre, it's just another case of someone seeing the movie and typing into a search box here. Geogre 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The genre (which has nothing to do with bestiality, contrary to this article) actually has a history that is at least 30 years old. We have a proper article on one aspect of it at Rishathra. Uncle G 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See, that's the problem. In science fiction, there has always been that "Kirk kisses the alien chick" stuff, and there has always been a form of science fiction novel that takes it further, but for those bordered by the terrestrial "interspecies" means either Clan of the Cave Bear or, much more likely, bestiality. Geogre 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not entirely clear what problem you're describing. Inter-species means between species, whether one is talking about science fiction or not. Arguing that there's confusion because to some this is a straightforward synonym for bestiality (which has the logical consequence that this article should be a redirect) contradicts your argument that this isn't such a synonym but merely a once-off joke in a movie. I argue that it isn't synonymous with bestiality at all, that the content of this article is based on a joke in a movie, and that thus there's no confusion. ☺
Further to the point about the genre: Read this. Uncle G 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not entirely clear what problem you're describing. Inter-species means between species, whether one is talking about science fiction or not. Arguing that there's confusion because to some this is a straightforward synonym for bestiality (which has the logical consequence that this article should be a redirect) contradicts your argument that this isn't such a synonym but merely a once-off joke in a movie. I argue that it isn't synonymous with bestiality at all, that the content of this article is based on a joke in a movie, and that thus there's no confusion. ☺
- "The problem" is that it is a term that means one things to science fiction fans and another thing to non-science fiction fans. To the one, it can be a genre. To the other, it's just a faux euphemism. Therefore, there's no way to keep it as a redirect to or parent of the science fiction "genre," because that term would be disturbingly inappropriate to people who think about real species. Geogre 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for it to be the parent of anything. The parent is sex in science fiction, which can gain a breakout article on the subject of interspecies sex should it ever need to. (It doesn't seem likely right now, given that the subject has roughly 1 sentence of discussion there at the moment. ☺) Uncle G 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. [Insert joke about "interspecies glamour photography" here] Silensor 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism from a joke in Clerks II. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOT a repository for one-shot jokes from movies for which no one over the age of 12 is going to bother searching. --Kinu t/c 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands. It does occur in Science Fiction (e.g the Ringworld series) so there could be scope for an article but it'd be easier to start over. Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not the place to catalogue every phrase from movies. JeffMurph 12:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -999 (Talk) 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom — and I immediately thought Rishathra, also. However, this is a dictionary pseudo-definition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt also mean beastility? Wow, you learn something new from Wiki every day. I expected an indepth article about erotic relationships of intelligent species in fiction. Somewhere all the half-elves have to come from after all. (Reminds, I hope that book about that alien and that woman arrives soon, it sounded fairly interesting and slightly raunchy.) --84.184.95.77 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I learn something from Uncle G every day. It's apparent that an article at this namespace could be appropriate. However, this one certainly is not, for the reasons listed above -- no need for a page for a movie catchphrase, and no dicdefs. Delete. Jacqui★ 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit. Keep, did you guys just search for it for the sheer purpose of deleting it? There are probably some other catch phrases from movies here, so I do not know what makes this one so wrong. I do think it could be edited in light of recent arguments, though.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 as Suisky. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NN-neologism, Delete abakharev 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also look into Suisky appartently deleted by three admins as a hoax, currently deleteprotected abakharev 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It looks like a definition. Is it enough to be transwikied to Wikitory? -Royalguard11Talk 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a protologism. It's not in English usage, so no Wiktionary. Geogre 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it can't survive there, and it's a definition, then it doesn't belong here. -Royalguard11Talk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NEO, article itself asserts its non-notability in the first sentence. Huh. Might be a speedy G4 it if it's similar to a version of Suisky. --Kinu t/c 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism and probable hoax. ("is believed to have been used by a servant explaining to the king what he had seen his wife doing with one of the Lords"). Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. AdamBiswanger1 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, protect from recreation, nonsense hoax. NawlinWiki 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete per nom and NawlinWiki. 1ne 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as simple, pretty much word-for-word, re-creation of previously deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's So Raven: The Movie). Please make use of {{db-repost}} for this sort of thing, rather than creating a whole new AFD nomination. Uncle G 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated for deletion before, but someone has recreated the page. It all seems to be fancruft or speculation; as was said in the first discussion, there is no evidence to suggest a That's So Raven movie being produced in the near future. LBM 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was recreated, then it qualifies for WP:CSD#G4. If it doesn't Delete Anyways for being not announced. Wikipeda isn't a crystal ball. -Royalguard11Talk 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's So Deleted Danny Lilithborne 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and protect against future resurrection. Crabapplecove 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, that's so crystal balling. Speedy G4 if appropriate. --Kinu t/c 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 speedy delete: Recreation without change of the fundamentals that got it deleted in the first place. Geogre 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Good use of the name, Kinu. -TrackerTV 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP is so not a crystal ball. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and protect from further recreation, that's so a recreation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's So Stupid!, I know we're supposed to be polite but somebody has got to stand up for quality on Wikipedia. There must be 1 decent article for every 500 submitted. I think every article submitted to Wikipedia should be marked for deletion, and then we could undelete the ones worth keeping. george 05:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as crystalballism. It isn't even in pre-pre-production. --DarkAudit 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP not being a crystal ball AdamBiswanger1 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 speedy Computerjoe's talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was to keep, and it's not comfy. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable IKEA product. Spam-like. Fireplace 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mind boggling that someone would create an article about a sofa. -Royalguard11Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. Kappa 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Show some references, some mentions of the importance, some usage other than the catalog. Otherwise, voting to keep is voting against the deletion guidelines. Further "notable" isn't a justification for an article. This is one model in the IKEA catalog. While the Billy might make it (as one of their oldest units and the first to be popular, and therefore the one that made the company successful), this isn't a Billy. Geogre 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Some usage other than the catalogue was in fact already in the article. It wasn't immediately obvious, I grant you. But it should be now. Uncle G 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- N.b. Uncle G and others have been rewriting and improving the article. I still can't quite change my vote, as I think 1980 doesn't really make this one of the Sofas that Made IKEA, but the article as it is now is vastly superior to the one that I and the above voted on. My vote now is a much weakened delete. Geogre 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after the rewrites. I'm still not convinced that anything new when I went to college is a "classic," but this is a well done article now. Geogre 11:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some usage other than the catalogue was in fact already in the article. It wasn't immediately obvious, I grant you. But it should be now. Uncle G 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as a notable product. Particularly in home furnishings, an industry where trends come and go like fireflies, it's extraordinary that this continues to be popular after a quarter of a century. Definately more notable than any number of products we have articles for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andrew Lenahan. -- Librarianofages 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Both notable and comfy. george 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be WP:OR: A more elegant solution is to feed a broom handle.... Also, being more notable than other products with articles is an argument to delete those, not keep this one.- Yomangani 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I didn't consider one article (discounting the passing references in the other sources) to be 'multiple non-trival published works', so as far as I was concerned it was failing WP:CORP. However a little digging brings up a few articles specifically about the Klippan, and since the original research has been removed I have to change to a 'Keep'. Yomangani 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no ya don't No sofa models from Ikea, please. I think there's probably something like 25,000 Ikea products, and none of them are notable...even if I'm sittin on one now. AdamBiswanger1 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:CORP, the primary criterion for products and services is that they be the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their companies. The vast number of IKEA products will not satisfy that criterion, their only mentions being in product catalogues. However, this one does. There was a whole study published about how this specific sofa burns, for one thing. Keep. Uncle G 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the fire safety report isn't about this sofa in particular - in the report they use three custom built sofas based on the Klippan (probably because it is a common make) Yomangani 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is. It's about this very sofa with various different flame retardants applied to it. From page 12 of the source cited by the article: The IKEA sofa “Klippan” was used as the model for all three sofas. Uncle G 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The study is about fire safety regulations, not about fire safety in the Klippen model, and the sofas are based on the Klippen model rather than being the Klippen: Three different sofas were used for this study, all based on a standard, commercially available European model sold by IKEA (the “Klippan” model). This model is currently marketed with a mainly polystyrene rigid frame, but for this study a wooden frame was used because this is more representative of typical furniture on the market. I'd say this amounted to trival coverage (even if it wasn't a fire safety report). - Yomangani 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is. It's about this very sofa with various different flame retardants applied to it. From page 12 of the source cited by the article: The IKEA sofa “Klippan” was used as the model for all three sofas. Uncle G 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the fire safety report isn't about this sofa in particular - in the report they use three custom built sofas based on the Klippan (probably because it is a common make) Yomangani 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if this sofa really did make it as an iconic piece of design like the Barcelona chair, then it would be a keep, but there's one newpaper article about it. A fire safety test report doesn't count, nor does a mere mention of the product in the Kuwaiti Times. At best, merge into Ikea. -- Whpq 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference to the Kuwaiti Times is to source the previously contested point that the sofa is named after the place in Sweden. Not everything has the purpose of establishing notability. Sometimes a source is being cited for the simple reason of providing a reference for something in the article that needs to be sourced. ☺ Uncle G 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. 1ne 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Verifiability/references for this topic are not a problem. Here is a BusinessWeek story on the history of the Klippan. And here is one from the Scotland Sunday Herald. I'm sure it would be possible to find quite a lot more, especially if we count interior/industrial design magazines and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think the Sunday Herald article is sufficient to establish that the sofa is considered a significant piece of design. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sofa looks notabler and notabler with each of the references added, and if Lars Engman is the main designer of this sofa (and probably many other mass-produced and recognized pieces of furniture) and the current chief designer of IKEA, he should probably have an article too. I found some references to Klippan (commonly called a "classic") in a Swedish newspaper article database. I haven't looked through all of the hits, but the current head of IKEA Sweden, Jeanette Söderberg, declared Klippan to be her favorite IKEA product in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet (2005-01-22). According to an article in Aftonbladet (1998-09-13) on "why men like leather sofas", Jean-Pierre Barda, Swedish celebrity hairdresser and former member of Army of Lovers, had a Klippan in brown cowhide at home. up+land 09:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If it passes Geogre's notability standard then it certainly passes mine ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as the conflicted nominator. Some of the sources seem to be about the Klippan qua paradigmatic IKEA product, rather than qua itself. Fireplace 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above as rewritten by Uncle G and others. Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement and self promotion. Tagged with "prod" on 5/22/06; tag removed by IP user in the same region (Chicago) as the business is located. Diogenes00 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "more information will be added re benefits of home computer service" That's from his explanation for removing the prod. It's definetly just an ad. -Royalguard11Talk 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Advertising for a particular product. Decision tree diagnosis software isn't sold for a simple reason: it can kill people. Geogre 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete adspam. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Based on Hoover's, they have 2 employees and annual sales of less than $100,000. Sounds like WP:CORP failure to me and a bit of WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 05:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as advertisement. Dark Shikari 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - non-notable. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely more of an ad than an encyclopedia article. --Tuspm(C | @) 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious self promotion. --angers 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and its a pity that the author didn't realize that expanding his advert wouldn't help make it into an article. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete, no assertion of notability imho. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By its own admission, this topic is obscure. Simply put: no way is "an obscure in-joke in the early years of [a] Finnish computer magazine" notable. Not in the least. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (The only reason this article exists is for silly parallelism with exploding whale and exploding toad.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE
Cmon now...an exploding hamster? Get that outta here...Reppin the bay 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom. --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. After all, detailed obscure topics hurt no one. It is a valid topic. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chris —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to MikroBitti as that is the most approprate place for this. Crazynas t 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Chris, also pls define where it falls under WP:NOT I can't really understand where you're coming from, because as far as I can see it doesn't fit under any of the "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" catergories! -- Librarianofages 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind that that is not our only content policy. The verifiability of this article is also an issue. If, as the article states, the joke was never discussed or explained by the people who made it, who were the only people who understood what it was about, how can a verifiable encyclopaedia article on the subject be written? Where are the sources? Uncle G 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Exploding hamster and Exploding head and Exploding sheep. The rest of the exploding items are legit articles. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of in-jokes about computer gaming works for me. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I never heard of a hampster exploding because it was released from scotch tape, but at the Columbus, Ohio zoo I once saw an elephant blow snot out of its trunk while its handler was unchaining it. I hope that helps. george 06:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a place for obscure finnish jokes JeffMurph 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a place for obscure jokes -- GWO
- Delete Not a place for jokes. Vizjim 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS That is a joke. Vizjim 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the joke, which has stopped being used, has not reached any degree of prominence outside that sector. AdamBiswanger1 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as silly. -999 (Talk) 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a humour site. Landolitan 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even close to being encyclopedic material. --angers 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
As I understand it, it's some random joke used a couple of times in some magazine hardly anyone in the English speaking world has heard of?-- Steel 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- "I've never heard of it." isn't an acceptable argument at AFD. But "It has never been documented, in any language." is. Uncle G 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I shouldn't have worded it that way, and there are plently of things on Wikipedia I have never heard of, but I don't put them all up for deletion on the grounds of "I've never heard of it". I'll strike out that, but it's still a minor (and per above - obscure) joke which is hit by WP:NOT indiscriminate info. -- Steel 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've never heard of it." isn't an acceptable argument at AFD. But "It has never been documented, in any language." is. Uncle G 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete come on. Take this to Uncyclopedia. Stormscape 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Obvious. Naconkantari 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need this page? Seems like nonsense to me ScotchMB 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - extremely unencyclopedic. Kalani [talk] 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete No questions asked. Lorty 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, useless. Voice of Treason 01:53, 24 July 2006
(UTC)
- Very speedy delete Nonsense.Reppin the bay 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick... Speedy Delete! --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per db-group. So tagged. Fan-1967 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy A7 as article about group with no assertion of notability. Could possibly be an A1 for lack of context. --Kinu t/c 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable A7. -Royalguard11Talk 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete about as unencyclopedic as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DS 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed without comment. a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB Lorty 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -ScotchMB 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails also WP:CITE --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, hosted on Blogspot usually translates to failing WP:WEB. Look at the three entries as well... ooh. WP:SNOW candidate. --Kinu t/c 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, not much of an article. -Royalguard11Talk 02:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not your blogvertising service. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable blog. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Bribe some one to rip your homework up when you're not home. Why, that's clever AND hilarious! Not. george 06:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Rubbish!! Why not speedy delete?
- Delete with fire. Then put the ashes in an old mayonaisse jar, roll the jar up in a carpet, throw the carpet into a river and launch the river into the sun. Repeat as needed per WP:SPAM et al. WilyD 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MrDolomite. --DarkAudit 13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Numerous notable blogs are on blogspot--Atrios.blogspot.com, SusanPolgar.blogspot.com, etc. But this isn't one of them. Phr (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it in a fire with great prejudice. Dark Shikari 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Double extra delete. Plus everything written above. Mithridates 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Funny, but Non-notable blog. (I went to the website and it cracked me up!) Chipka 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The blog actually does get a lot of visitors. I guess not enough. 11kowrom 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Tuspm(C | @) 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --awh (Talk) 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This looks like a snowball --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --nkayesmith 07:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DS 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CORP ranks almost 3 million on Alexa; spam links to this company have been placed in other articles. Rklawton 01:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Thanks for beating me to the punch. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:CORP, looks like WP:VSCA. Not sure of speedy status, though. --Kinu t/c 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Whichever Way You Want per above. -Royalguard11Talk 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete speedy or otherwise. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could have sworn we'd already deleted this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion. However, does everyone realize that the O.J. Simpson carchase was eleven years ago? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The retro movement described in the article appears to be purely speculative. Unlike other retro movements, this one is not widely considered to have occurred. Also, the references to events in the future are bizarre. Originalbigj 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CITE --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I saw this page a few days ago and said to myself, "This is a horrible page. Why does it exist? I should AfD it." But, me being as ADD as I am, I forgot after about fifteen seconds. -- Kicking222 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Yeah, what is this predicting the future, "Pokemon will die in 2010"...Definitely gotta delete. Reppin the bay 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Deep thoughts, man. Let's, like, imagine that, like, people are going to be buying wide ties like the 90's nostalgia for the 70's. That would be so cool! When the 90's nostalgia (other than nostalgia for the US presidents) hits, and when it is past tense, and when it has been discussed elsewhere, it will be time. Otherwise, this is IR (idiosyncratic research). Geogre 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, what is this? Crystal ballzzzz. --Kinu t/c 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would think to have an article on a retro movement, that time period should be at least a decade away. Come back in 4 years. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The gold standard for nostalgia is Happy Days. This T.V. show from 1974 was a nostalgic look back to 1954. Then, in 1978, Fonzi jumped the shark but that's not my point. The point is, you have to wait 20 years to look back on a decade. I mean, if they are still selling Pokeman Cards, then it isn't nostalgia, its just a continuation of the Pokeman thing, which I don't get by the way. Take the Viet Nam war for example. They were still fighting it hot and heavy in 1973, but that doesn't mean it was a nostalgic throwback to the 1960's, it was just the war continueing on. In fact, to reminisce about the Viet Nam war we created M*A*S*H, which was purportedly set in Korea but was really about Viet Nam and you know it. george 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I like the line talking about 1990s Adult Contemporary music continues to be played on workplace radio stations; notably Detroit's WNIC. I think that's by force and not by fad, you don't hear alot of new Celine Dion or Kenny G stuff anymore, and most music today I wouldn't consider "office-friendly". Also, these points;
- Many bands from the 1990s such as Green Day and Smashing Pumpkins continue to record music in the 2000s.
- Sonic the Hedgehog is remade for modern game consoles.
- Bands and video game franchises can last more than one decade? I never knew that, my mind has been blown! (faints) Nate 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Terrible. JeffMurph 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Try to assume the mind set of someone who would type in 1990s retro movement. They may be wondering if such a movement exists or not, that question is itself an iterestig and evolving question and should be covered in an expanded issue. There is also a theory about retro movements that they are the emotion responses of new parents to the pressures of adult life looking to reconnect with the existence of their childhood, that is retro is by its nature an effort to return to a more infantile state. Someone who was 13 years old in the mid 1990s is still a young adult and probably not yet old enough to turn conservative. A fuller discussion of if there is a 1990s retro, if one evolves (it will in about 5 years, they always do) and its history would be a breakthrough article for Wikipedia, the first time such a fine grained social event could be followed publically. Its the kind of thing Encyc Britannica could never do. Also having lived through the time I notice the kids are now waring 1987 retro, so we can see 1990s retro soon. Anyways I fail to see the damage this does if someone just edits it some.--Rhooker1236 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How on earth can you pinpoint "1987 retro"??? Are you being serious? Cultural things aren't THAT well defined that we can say "oh, that's 1973 retro" or "That's 1981 retro!". --Rehcsif 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - besides, you admit yourself that we're talking about "if one evolves". It hasn't yet, so there's no need to write about it until it has. When it does, then it's a useful topic. BigHaz 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is lame. Furby's are 8 years old. Tamagotchis are 9. These toys took a few years to dwindle away, so we're talking maybe things 5-6 years old are now "retro"?? Check back in 15 years and then we can maybe write this article. I knew a guy when I was in college in 1990 who had an Atari 2600 in his dorm, but we didn't call it the "1980's retro movement"... --Rehcsif 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: How on earth can he tell what will happen in the future? --awh (Talk) 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. While I admire that this page is well defined. The 1990s just aren't retro yet. Sure there are nostalgic teens and adults from the era, but the '90s just aren't that retro yet. This article will make more since in the tweenz (2010s). By the way I am very nostalgic towards the '90s. The '90s rocked! (Tigerghost 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:NOT a Crytal Ball. --Shane (talk/contrib) 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper Bugs, but allw for recreation when more info is present.- Never mind. Weak Keep. It won't harm anyone and it won't take lonbg to find out about the plot, characters, etc. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands now, as unverified. Article claims "is filming" but all the cited sources just say "has been signed to appear". Need actual verification that it is filming, not six-month-old articles that say it was going to. Every source I can find is dated in March, with not an update since. Fan-1967 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no inherent value in an article about a movie with "no release date and no announced plot". If indeed more information becomes available regarding this then it can be recreated, but as of now it's just crystalballism. DrunkenSmurf 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as "empty, no content." What is there is that there is a movie, the production date nobody knows, about a thing no one has heard, that will be released nobody knows when, but here is a title. Borderline pranksterism, and we ain't aint-it-cool-news.com. Geogre 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once the movie is actually announced by IMDb or a film company, then it should be created. As of now, it's all speculation. Not a crystal ball. -Royalguard11Talk 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't go by IMDB. They have a really bad record on movies "in development" that never happen. Wait at least for cameras to roll. Fan-1967 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete any article which contains the phrase "upcoming movie with so far no release date and no announced plot". -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete to the Ground, crystal-ballism for film that hasn't even begun production yet. None of the links are to reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now maybe recreate the article when (and if) more information about the movie becomes available. --Tuspm(C | @) 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was lies. DS 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article, "Term desinterism was used for the first time in USSR in 1964". Only problem is, with zero GHits, it doesn't seem to have been used by anyone, at any time. Looks like Original Research and Neologism. I also can't find any references to "Golden paprika" that don't refer to a color or a spice, so total hoax is possible. Author has no other edits. -- Fan-1967 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.Very likely a hoax. Crabapplecove 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nomination was worth a chuckle. Danny Lilithborne 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The word should actually mean grave robbing. No evidence that anyone has used such a term, much less that it stands for a recognizable economic practice. Geogre 11:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, grave robbing would be "disinterism", although I believe the usual term is disinterment. This one just doesn't seem to mean anything. (I even tried possible Spanish variants like Desinterismo or Desinterisma because of the Latin American references in the article. No hits.) Fan-1967 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right! I missed the "de" for "di." Des-inter? De-sinter? Whatever it is, it isn't. Geogre 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, grave robbing would be "disinterism", although I believe the usual term is disinterment. This one just doesn't seem to mean anything. (I even tried possible Spanish variants like Desinterismo or Desinterisma because of the Latin American references in the article. No hits.) Fan-1967 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a list of incidents nor even a list of links to them. It's mostly a collection of links to various dates and various types of craft. Crabapplecove 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This may need to be re-written (a little) but does appear to be an important list. -- Librarianofages 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Just becuase an article is in need of improvment, does not mean we need to delete it. I would suggest putting {{cleanup-list}} at the top of this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Just needs cleanup. Penelope D 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Slap a cleanup tag on it, it looks like a worthy topic for an article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs some cleanup JeffMurph 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if we deleted every article that needed a cleanup ...well WilyD 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's maintainable, a category wouldn't do (some of the incidents don't have sufficient information to write about on their own), and there's enough information and sources available to make this work well. Captainktainer * Talk 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep of course. Deleting articles is reserved for cases in which the topic is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The topic and list is most definitely appropriate, and while it could use cleanup, there is nothing wrong with the article per se. Dark Shikari 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - re-write to make it an important list. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is important. Creating a harder than deleting 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see how proper cleanup and citing of sources is possible, and given the length of the list, I doubt anyone is going to try to verify and source all these claims anytime soon. The topic is not appropriate because "incident" is too vague and subjective a term. What is an "incident" as far as this article is concerned? Crabapplecove 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this please the topic is appropriate for wikipedia Yuckfoo 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus, much less a language translator. Crabapplecove 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an extremely useful list, no where else except WP are you likely to find such a thing. -- Librarianofages 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please share with us, then, to what extremely useful use you would put this list? BlueValour 03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Librarianofages. The stength of wikipedia is the diversity of topics it covers. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Interesting, but not remotely encyclopedic. Probably belongs on the German Wikipedia or some sort of language conversion wikia Resolute 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't even know if the Germans will take it, but good of you to offer it to them, Resolute. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge i Think its interesting. maybe should put the said exonyms for the places in the 'places' article itself. --Ageo020 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Works fine where we have articles, but our coverage of Latvian geography is still spotty. up+land 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The German names of places in Latvia (like Libau, Mitau, Jakobstadt, Kircholm) are often used in older publications, not only in German. Anyone who has read anything on Northern European history is likely to be aware of this. They are found in the traditional names of battles such as the Battle of Kircholm. A conversion table like this is quite useful. I could imagine having this transwiki'ed to an as-yet non-existent onomastic Wikimedia project eventually, but for the time being I think it should stay. up+land 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Find it a better home Useful information within scope of Wikimedia umbrella, but not in the right place or format as an en.wikipedia article. Keeping for the time being per Uppland is a reasonable idea. Phr (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, transwiki to Wikibooks? -- that would give tons of scope for expansion. Look at the talk page of Gdansk to see how messy this city-renaming problem gets. Phr (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MrDolomite. Cannot see how this is encyclopedic. Alternatively, transwiki to Wikibooks or a more appropriate location. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Steve 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP is not a Latvian-German dictionary. BlueValour 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. 1ne 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a terrible article anyway, but the whole idea seems based on opinion and Original Research. What constitutes a "spoof" is often largely subjective. (What If #36, for example, is most definitely not a spoof, because there's nothing humorous or satirical about it.) Crabapplecove 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not a list of every parody of every item ever created. I don't even know if a comicwiki would let this fly. Course if they did let it fly, it would need a cape. :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are we allowed to link to WP:NOT and say that "WP is not.." whatever we feel like, even when it's not explicitly listed on that page? Can I say that WP is not a tuna fish sandwich submerged in a bathtub full of mineral spirits? -- Plutor 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My apologies for misguided humor, I knew which one I was thinking of when I commented. The correct justification for my comment is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list per "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not" -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was also a poorly composed joke. I knew which explicit rule you were referring to. Apologies all around! -- Plutor 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My apologies for misguided humor, I knew which one I was thinking of when I commented. The correct justification for my comment is WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list per "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not" -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with swipe (comics). MrDolomite is right they are not spoofs, rather they are often an homage. The list isn't necessarily Original Research because there are forum discussions that document swipes (see links at the end of the swipe page). Journeyman 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Save—I think the list is notable and interesting, though perhaps homage is a better term. I don't like swipe, because that implies that it was stolen or copied out of laziness. Ragdoll 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Journeyman. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to have small sub-sections for the swipe page for the covers that have been homaged/copied so many times that the amount of swiping itself is notable, as FF#1 certainly qualifies. However the article as it is isn't enough to justify its own article. --SevereTireDamage 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It either needs to be completely redone or, IMHO, deleted. It's nonstop opinion throughout {"very strange", "it's great", "sounds like", etc.) and reads very much like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere else. The statistics almost certainly were, and are therefore a copyright violation. Crabapplecove 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have tagged it with {{move to gaming wiki}} if I have seen that article lately. The information does not fit Wikipedia, the simple list of planets could go in Meteos, while all the extra information may go to a gaming wiki. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, Move to gaming wiki per ReyBrujo. There is no need to delete potentially useful infomation, just put it in the right place! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to main article then rewrite and condense. Noting some of the wilder characteristics (such as for Gravitas or Hevendor) would be useful for the main Meteos article, but comprehensive stats are things for a gaming wiki (or Wikibooks?), especially when the game itself mentions nothing about these stats and they can only be derived experientially. --Stratadrake 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (With move to a gaming wiki if any want it) I wouldn't call using statistics a copyvio, they're simple facts that can't be written any other way. That being said... simple stats about video game levels pretty much violate NOT a game guide, as do the personal opinions and suggestions. I don't really see any need to merge - there doesn't seem to be any info that would be useful, except in a guide sort of way. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Move to Wikibooks. I did contribute to this article, but let's be honest- it's more appropriate for a strategy guide than an encyclopedia, and a strategy guide is what Wikipedia is not. --Sonicrazy 02:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
Wikibooks does not accept game guides anymore. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, delete it. It has nowhere to go, and I've stopped working on it anyway. --Sonicrazy 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Crabapplecove, sans the copy vios.SuperDT 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of this article is to draw attention to one company, also nominated for deletion. All but one of the external links are to pages about or written by one of TrustedID's founders. Finally, this article was created on 2006-07-22 by User:Citim who also created the TrustedID article. Citim has made no contributions to WP other than creating these two entries and editing Suze Orman to add another link to TrustedID. Both articles are VSCA and should be deleted. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup this is a rather interesting topic. It just needs to be expanded in a non-baised way. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting and useful JeffMurph 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the TrustedID article should definitely go, this seems to be useful. Obviously failing WP:OR at the moment and the spam links to a non-notable company should go, but the article could be saved with a little attention. - Yomangani 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have learnt a lot reading these articles on credit freeze and so will a lot of other people. I agree that this is very interesting and useful. chrissy45 12:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rework and remove advertising Xenocidic 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a valid topic. AfD is not cleanup. Jacqui★ 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a valid topic, useful in helping prevent identity theft. Yamaguchi先生 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it was lifted from a website. First person viewpoint, some POV... TrackerTV 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This was lifted from Byrdinstitute.org, 4th paragraph down. This would be a speedy under A8, but this article is older than 48 hours old. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above AdamBiswanger1 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unverifiable and likely original research. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is an uncencyclopedic list of non-notable characters in a minor fictional universe. It is unfortunate that the "prod" of this article was disputed, as this clearly should be deleted. Johntex\talk 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL "minor fictional universe". Kappa 02:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Crabapplecove 02:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. Circeus 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MrDolomite???mon, er -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is not original research. I took the time to check the nomination. What we have here is a article about Digimon (perhaps merge with that article?) A potiential source is this "encyclopedia" - That does seem to be unverifiable. Another option other than delete would be to move this to a gaming wiki. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While Megchan's original encyclopedia is a reliable source for the Japanese TCG, the exact origin of this concept, which is as far as I know not part oif any mainstream digimon series, is unknown. Digimon fan sites commonly copy data from each otehrs and this kind of tends to spread virally. Circeus 04:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't cruft I don't know what it. It is useless, unencylopedic and something nobody is likely to search for - and those are the reasons that are on the talk page@ Buckner 1986 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wonderful show, but a yearly list of the background music heard on it is way too granular. Maybe an overview article on the music used on the show and its international versions throught the year would be better, but would likely still be borderline for many. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oh, the cruftastic humanity of it all. -- -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete... as much as I love TPIR, this is way too crufty. WP:NOT the right place for these random tidbits of information... there are plenty of fan sites that do a better job than this. (For what it's worth, it's not so much about the music used in 1976 per se as it is about the music which was introduced then, since it's the same cues that they use on the show now.) --Kinu t/c 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Twigboy 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cruft, cruft, and more cruft. --DarkAudit 13:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete such an awesome list, though. lol AdamBiswanger1 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – More appropriate for a fan site, IMO [[Briguy52748 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without actually providing the sizes for the reader, this is unproven Original Research. It's also just plain goofy. Crabapplecove 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At first glance I thought that said "list of Wikipedians by size"... --Kinu t/c 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That would be a frightening list indeed (especially if it included pictures) -- Librarianofages 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's what I read first time too, and I thought, Unverifiable! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect into meta:List of Wikipedias. No need for duplicate, and meta site is more up to date.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Basically the wikipedia.org front page converted into an article, but with less info. Talk about a waste of time. Resolute 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, redundant to the Wikipedia front page, in a less useful form. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Piotr. --Metropolitan90 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as probably a redundant article MLA 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Piotrus on the assumption that cross-namespace redirects are appropriate. MLA 10:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the page is unique, it has links to the articles about the wikipedias. No other list has this. --° 09:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category:Wikipedias by language fulfills that purpose. GassyGuy 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and as (ironically) unencyclopedic material, and because (even if they're doable) I hate the idea of cross-space redirects. -- Kicking222 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Resolute. The only way to expand it would be to add useless trivia and what might be useful is redundant with Cat per GassyGuy. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete snce there is no real encyclopaedic subject underlying this; plus, it will change daily (or not, in which case they are cobwebs). Plus it's almost by definiition WP:OR. Oh, and it's listcruft :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to meta:List of Wikipedias per Piotrus. Yamaguchi先生 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page does not assert the notability of its subject and has no citations. It has only 496 google hits. It seems to be a non-notable author who wrote a few books during his life time. Cowman109Talk 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[5], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[6]. Bwithh 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO. I only found 2 ghits. One was Wikipedia. Alphachimp talk 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For a topic this old, internet hits mean nothing, you have to go for print sources. It's easy to forget but for a long time there was no such thing as an Internet, and lots of stuff from the pre-Internet world has not yet been "nettified". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairnie for a more recent example with limited Google hits, but that's now shaping up as a very good article. Note:
no vote(changed below) from me re this specific article for now. Phr (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For a topic this old, internet hits mean nothing, you have to go for print sources. It's easy to forget but for a long time there was no such thing as an Internet, and lots of stuff from the pre-Internet world has not yet been "nettified". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairnie for a more recent example with limited Google hits, but that's now shaping up as a very good article. Note:
- Comment - I added this page. This author clearly meets the Wikipedia citerion for biographies: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". OK, he's a minor literary figure, but he was published, some of his archives are held in Cambridge University Archives, and he was reviewed in serious national newspapers ("The Onlie Begetter", TLS, 1936; "Spread no wings", Times 1937). Are we to purge Wikipedia of all minor writers and thinkers? That would remove one of its strengths - coverage of the unfashionable.Mark Nesbitt 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if verified, Per Mark Nesbitt -- Librarianofages 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if he's really the same one who wrote The Onlie Begetter. The article doesn't mention it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keepper Mark Nesbitt. Also the number of google hits is not 2, Alphachimp, using less restrictive search terms, I got [501. (note google hits are not reason, by themselves to delete an article. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually its just 35 hits if you use quotation marks[7]. (not that 500 is impressive) Bwithh 04:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENTGoogle hits mean 0, what are you talking about? -- Librarianofages 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to shout. Google hits aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do mean something to different degrees depending on topic. It can especially useful when you're using Google Scholar and Google Books too. Bwithh 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep : Ok, sorry about the google hits, should have put the "'s as above. Since this is an interesting disscussion I ran some searches on WorldCat. Here is what I came up with: The onlie begetter and Spread no wings. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mark Nesbitt seems to be working on his family tree, which is okay if the subjects are sufficiently encyclopedically notable minor thinkers and authors. Unfortunately I don't think this author is.
- I found three entries in the Cambridge University library catalogue[8] (which is a legal deposit library[9], with minimal selectivity in what it archives - rather the library tries to catalogue all publications so its not a mark of distinction to be in the collection). The catalogue has a timeout feature, so direct links to searches won't work, but anyone can use the search function. I could not find "Spread no wings" in the catalogue.
- Of the three I found - one title is a privately published book under a pseudonym, another is a book also printed under a pseudonym which had a print run of 250. The third is probably Nisbet's most notable book, The Onlie Begetter (1936), in which the author theorizes that the Mr. W.H. (the "only begetter" (i.e. patron, I assume) of the sonnets) to which an 1609 edition of Shakespeare's sonnets is dedicated is William Herbert, 1st Baron Powis, rather than William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke who was and is considered to be the most likely candidate. This theory is probably why the book received attention in the Times Literary Supplement. (But we don't know how it was received).
- However, I can't find any relevant hits which discuss a connection between Powis and Shakespeare (searching for "William Herbert" and "Powis" and "Shakespeare" and "sonnets") in Google[10], Google Scholar[11] or Google Books[12](the national biography hit discusses William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke - the Powis mention is elsewhere on the page and is unrelated and not the right Powis anyway. and the biography dates from 1911.).There are 4 hits for "Ulric Nesbit" likely related to Shakespeare on Google Books[13]. Zero hits on Google Scholar[14].
- In comparison, there are a substantial number of hits (658 pages on Google Books; 157 hits on Google Scholar, 765 hits on regular Google) which discuss the relationship between Shakespeare and William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke however[15] [16][17]. The wikipedia article on Mr. WH also lists 5 other persons aside from Pembroke who have been discussed as likely candidates for the mystery Mr. WH. - but does not include Powis.
- All this leads me to believe that while Ulric Nesbit's WH theory about Powis may have made a minor splash at the time, he has had little or no lasting impact on the Shakespeare scholarship, even in his own lifetime. I think Ulric's theory should be mentioned in the Mr. WH article, but he is not notable enough of a scholar for his own article Bwithh 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable enough for inclusion. JeffMurph 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bwithh Originalbigj 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mulling it overif this is the author of The Onlie Begetter (but if so, why isn't that in the article?) there's multiple hits for Ulric Nisbet on bookfinder.com. The Onlie Begetter was published by Longmans in 1936 and republished by Haskell House in 1970 and 1982; that there were enough readers to keep it marketable for that long is evidence of minor notability (unless Haskell House is a vanity press--I have a slight suspicion of that but haven't checked it out). However, there's also a 2006 print-on-demand edition which I'll guess is connected to Mark Nesbitt; if it is, then the article has a tinge of WP:SPAM to add to the WP:VAIN already evident. Phr (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Haskell House seems to be a small specialist publisher dedicated to reprints of "scarce scholarly books".[18]. Now known as MSG-Haskell House[19]. Can't find website for the company Bwithh 10:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sigh, no I'm no relation to him and have no connection with him. I was a committed contributor to Wikipedia who likes to release to the public domain pieces of research that I do for other purposes, if they seem to fall within its scope...Mark Nesbitt 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on Bwitth's link to MSG-Haskell which looks a legit press (at least these days). ("Scarce scholarly books" is actually what sounded to me like "vanity"). If The Onlie Begetter stayed in print for 46 years in the pre-POD era, that's enough notability for something like this. Mark, if the article stays around, it would be good if you could update it with something about the book. (added:) Also, thanks for the clarification. Phr (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the above comments. 496 google hits is fairly decent for a subject who died a decade before the internet became commercially viable. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're not parsing your google search correctly. There are currently 23 google hits for for the term "Ulric Nisbet" (taking out wikipedia hits)[20], and 16 hits for "Nisbet, Ulric"[21]. Bwithh 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bandcruft, vanity, and a great deal of patent nonsense. Crabapplecove 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could almost be Speedy A7. Extreme POW, calling fans unnapretiative, saying where everyone is now, no sources at all. -Royalguard11Talk 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverified WP:V & it is not clear if it reaches notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC. As per Royalguard11 it could almost be speedy deleted (CSD A7).--blue520 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7. Also as nonsense and attack. --DarkAudit 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete indeed. Not only bandcruft, but pointlessly inflammatory (ref to "catching homosexuality from a toilet seat"). --Pagana 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mostly nonsense, definitely nonnotable. NawlinWiki 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Icono_aviso_borrar.png/25px-Icono_aviso_borrar.png)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. Rje 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable publication. No Google hits. There seems to be some little notability assertions (organizing 1st Organizational Assembly, 1st Torch Cup Debate, etc), enough to prevent a CSD:A7, but not for AFD. ReyBrujo 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or moveto West Negros College (WNC) Confirm the lack of seach engine hits, but this is a university newspaper, and it contians infomation about the college as well. link to the university, for anyone who is interested. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment OK, it's a university newspaper- shouldn't it get more than ZERO Google hits? Not even one? -- Kicking222 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Yeah you do have a point, looking in the university's webpage agian, which is here, does brings up 2 hits for the term. None that I can tell are actually about the magazine. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, it's a university newspaper- shouldn't it get more than ZERO Google hits? Not even one? -- Kicking222 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one or merge as per Eagle above. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete current article. Redirect WP:NN article name Wesneco Torch, The to West Negros College, which does appear to be WP:N. Content can be moved to a section there. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep You don't delete a publication by an African American College. The purpose of an encyclopeida with all the aspirations of Wikipedia is to perserve and promote inforamtion. I mean shit who is running this thing? There are already 10,000s of people a groups pissed off by their treatment at the hands of Wikipedia, are you really going to delete the small references to an African American College Journal? Are you really stupid enough to call it non-notable. Your just openings the door to claims of rascism. Wikipedia has a high profile, you should all be more professional than that, things like this make the news and how the hell are you going to defend a massive Klingon language section when you delete this. Duh. Just leave it, if anyone wants to search on Wesneco Torch they can get the hit. --Rhooker1236 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We delete lots of things. It is the assertion that we should keep an article because of the racial backgrounds of the subject that is racist. Please argue per our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please explain how an encyclopaedia article on this publication can satisfy our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research criteria. The article cites no sources. Please cite some secondary sources, independent of the newspaper itself, that discuss this newspaper and that therefore can be used to write a verifiable, non-primary source, encyclopaedia article about it. Uncle G 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "I mean shit who is running this thing?" That would be Jimbo Wales. - CheNuevara 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article cites no sources, and in fact not only can I find no sources on this newspaper that are independent of the newspaper itself, I can find no sources at all. This article is unverifiable. Even were it to be verified that the newspaper existed, a previously unpublished history of the newspaper would be original research. Already published sources that give that history are required. Delete. Uncle G 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to AfD, Wikipedia is racist, fascist, communist, anarchist, anti-American, elitist, and generally bad. In light of this, I ... still say delete as unverifiable. - CheNuevara 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and fix. 88.218.55.227 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. I can't find anything about it -- not even evidence that it exists. In contrast, I can easily find enough information to verify that the Klingon language exists. --Carnildo 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:V and likely WP:VAIN. WilyD 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete It fails WP:V, and pretty much any other reasoning for keeping/deleting a page is immaterial if none of the page's info can be verified. -- Kicking222 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yep, fails WP:V and everything else said above --JRA WestyQld2 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Carnildo. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable individual or, at best, very minor notability. (Not even a particularly well-known name in the sex-positive movement.) Article reads like a vanity piece. Only 620 unique Google hits when Wikipedia is excluded. Iamcuriousblue 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — non-notable, owning a small business and being involved with the chamber of commerce is insufficient notability for WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete could be a poster child for WP:BIO and/or WP:VANITY. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- though I'm familiar with Airs, when I saw this article I wondered whether she was notable enough, and I think she's probably not, absent further information (especially given that Grand Opening went under rather than becoming something bigger). Catamorphism 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When chcking on the notability of Kim Airs and Grand Openings, I came across this mention that Grand Opening had been bought out be Good Vibrations. That probably mentions some mention in the GV article. I'll add it soon. Iamcuriousblue 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure what happened with that, though, as the new Good Vibes isn't in the same space where Grand Opening was (unless Grand Opening moved at some point), and they're not using the Grand Opening name at all, so be careful if you mention that (and don't believe anything the Herald says :P) Catamorphism 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Really, not even close. TedTalk/Contributions 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although I do support the deletion of this article, doesn't it meet the criteria for speedy deletion as a biography of a non-notable person? --Tuspm(C | @) 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I only do speedy deletion tags when its really really obvious that an article is patent nonsense, obvious vandalism, or something along those lines. If there are doubts about notability, I prefer to run it through an AfD to make sure there's consensus about the lack of notbility. Speedy deletion is a bit unilateral, usually the opinion of one tagger and one administrator, and I've seen perfectly good articles thrown out because two people happen to make the wrong call. Iamcuriousblue 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed deletion might have worked here, though? Catamorphism 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a new one to me. Iamcuriousblue 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Better to be safe than sorry, right? --Tuspm(C | @) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed deletion might have worked here, though? Catamorphism 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She seems non-notable from the article, especially the poor sourcing (owned an adult shop, now out of business, and joined some organizations) but I am curious about the Playboy mention. She apparently was the subject of a one-hour HBO special[22] (source is crappy gossip-like column on Boston.com) and the amateur show is mentioned in Daily Dig[23]. There is more... it seems she is at least somewhat notable. I am wondering if a cleanup might not be more appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At best, those programs make a case for the notability of the "You Ought to be in Pictures" event, but I really doubt even that's particularly notable. (Hard one to Google test considering since there's an old movie and popular song of the same name.) I haven't seen any of the two cable TV programs in question, but it sounds to me like these were just brief parts of a larger TV episode. Iamcuriousblue 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm neutral on whether this stays or goes, but I wanted to clarify: her store isn't out of business. At the beginning of 2006 she shifted it to online-only. FreplySpang 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if you click through the links on the Grand Opening site, you quickly end up on www.sextoysex.com. If you go to the front page of Sextoysex.com, you'll see that its an online business with an affiliate program. If you go to their generic "Lesbian Front page", you'll see that the Grand Opening site is just that site plus the Grand Opening banner. If you click through the copyright information on the bottom of the Sextoysex.com home page for ownership information, you'd find that its run by a Dave Levine, through his company Convergence Inc. It goes without saying that none of this makes a case for Kim Airs notability; quite the opposite, in fact. Iamcuriousblue 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The population estimates released by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia has no listing for any settlement with this name in the country. However, there is mountain by that name, one of the 10 or 20 tallest in Ethiopia, located in the northern Amhara Region. Lastly, according to my map Mt. Abuna Yosef is 390 km north of Addis Ababa, not 320 km. Once all of the mistakes are removed from this article, there's nothing left to salvage. This should probably be considered a speedy delete, except I can't figure out a suitable category to justify this act. llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Um, you could fix the mistakes instead of removing them. Then you would have something to salvage. Just a thought. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said above, if I take out all of the mistakes, there won't be anything left; & is it simpler to move an empty article -- or delete it & write an entirely new one? (I'm not trying to be snide here; I would apply be bold here & just delete the article & write an entirely new one were it not that "being bold" has acquired a bad reputation recently.) -- llywrch 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and correct. Seems simplest to just turn this into an article about the mountain. Dlyons493 Talk 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Even if it is corrected from town to mountain, it doesn't make it. The 10th-20th tallest mountain in a country that isn't known for mountains just isn't notable. TedTalk/Contributions 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article and let llywrch write the real one about the mountain. But that article should be kept. We have articles on dozens of mountains and hills in England, and Ethiopia is known for its mountains and highlands. (Modified comment) up+land 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or just overwrite with good data. Ethiopia is known for highlands; it is part of why it was never conquered by the Moslem expansion (I don't know the proper name) and never colonized by European powers during the Scramble for Africa. GRBerry 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, trans-wikified already. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been transwikied, any reasons for it to stay here? (No more bongos 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete not a known slang. should keep it in wiktionary itself. --Ageo020 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as dick def. It lists a definition and other dictionary-type information and I don't think it could expand to include more. However, saying this is not known slang is not true, as it is in wide use, although the width of its use may be greater than the length of time it's been common. GassyGuy 07:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree it's a dickdef Dlyons493 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TedE 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll be sad to see this article go. Believe it or not, choad is a rather important concept amongst the younger crowd, and if they can't come to Wikipedia for an explanation, they'll just end up on some crappy slang website. We wrote an article on Tag (game), I think we can manage choad. --Cyde Weys 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article about a thing, a children's game. The thing that an article this title would be about is already discussed by the article under its English language name of penis. And people who come to Wikipedia in the mistaken belief that it is a dictionary are presented with MediaWiki:Noarticletext, which encourages them to search Wiktionary, whereupon they will find wikt:choad, which is well on the way to being a proper dictionary article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about just redirect to Penis then? --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article about a thing, a children's game. The thing that an article this title would be about is already discussed by the article under its English language name of penis. And people who come to Wikipedia in the mistaken belief that it is a dictionary are presented with MediaWiki:Noarticletext, which encourages them to search Wiktionary, whereupon they will find wikt:choad, which is well on the way to being a proper dictionary article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Samir धर्म 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this India-related? It's only India-related in the sense that Indians have penises too. --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's India-related inasmuch as there's a folk etymology for this word that has it supposedly derived from Hindi. Wiktionarians have discussed this in detail (Wiktionary being the place where etymologies of words are researched, discussed, and written about). See wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Oxford Hindi-English dictionary (R. S. McGregor, Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (May 22, 1997), ISBN 019864339X) on the subject, or even Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where Amrish Puri uses the hindi word with aplomb, much to the chagrin of Indian parents everywhere. It's one of the filthiest hindi words and the translation is quite coincidental. That's why it's related to India related deletions -- Samir धर्म 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What that dictionary says has been analyzed in depth and found not to support the folk etymology. Again I refer you to wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was directed at Clyde. I'm not commenting on what the etymology is, but just saying that there's enough to suggest that it should be added to the list of India related deletions. As an aside, I also see no analysis in depth on the wiktionary page, just commentary from one user who doesn't speak the language. Agree that it's not enough to definitively support any theory on etymology -- Samir धर्म 04:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What that dictionary says has been analyzed in depth and found not to support the folk etymology. Again I refer you to wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Oxford Hindi-English dictionary (R. S. McGregor, Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (May 22, 1997), ISBN 019864339X) on the subject, or even Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where Amrish Puri uses the hindi word with aplomb, much to the chagrin of Indian parents everywhere. It's one of the filthiest hindi words and the translation is quite coincidental. That's why it's related to India related deletions -- Samir धर्म 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's India-related inasmuch as there's a folk etymology for this word that has it supposedly derived from Hindi. Wiktionarians have discussed this in detail (Wiktionary being the place where etymologies of words are researched, discussed, and written about). See wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this India-related? It's only India-related in the sense that Indians have penises too. --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary I thought the word was Spanish but yeah, it's a dickdef I was familiar with. Appears a few times in Love and Rockets (comics) if I remember correctly. Phr (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expend some effort in AFD discussions. Please actually check Wiktionary before nominating something to be transwikified. Wiktionary already has an article on this word, and indeed had it 6 months before Wikipedia had this article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already in Wiktionary as stated in the nom. I mean that's the right place for it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Phr (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what "Wiktionary" means. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. Uncle G 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already in Wiktionary as stated in the nom. I mean that's the right place for it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Phr (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expend some effort in AFD discussions. Please actually check Wiktionary before nominating something to be transwikified. Wiktionary already has an article on this word, and indeed had it 6 months before Wikipedia had this article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, although this word was commonplace in my highschool days, and we had a friend we called "the choadster". I don't know why... AdamBiswanger1 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn dictionary entry. --Tim1988 talk 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not Urbandictionary.com. Jimbo68 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary More of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. I don't think it should be deleted because it is a known slang (has been used in some TV programs) it's just not used too often. --Tuspm(C | @) 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as already present in Wiktionary and not suitable for inclusion in encyclopedia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commissioner of public works for Region of Peel in Ontario JChap (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Though I'm sure the Affiliated Brotherhood of Public Works Commissioners Union may object. :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't think that being Commissioner of Public Works by itself meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Delete vote also extends to the redirect Mitch Zamojc, Commissioner of Public Works, which violates Wikipedia convention. Also check out Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario, as part of possible walled garden. --Kinu t/c 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This very brief summary allows the linking and expanding to other areas, such as the Association of Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario, allows the linking to other new areas for Wiki such as Ontario Clean Water Agency and so on. The man is winning North America Wide top 10 Awards, is Chair of governing boards that serve Ten Million people. Propagation of knowledge and ability to link and expand to make new connections and nodes of other articles are important features available only with Wiki and one of the main advantages of an on-line encyclopdia. Wiki needs to link up to other areas and the Top Level Award winning people in Public Sector Administration should be part of the scope in the spirit of expanding Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs)
- Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of medium-ranking civil servants/public officials. People can start their own separate MandarinWiki if they want to wiki-catalogue the labyrinth corridors of medium-level governmental power Bwithh 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Commissioners" at top level highest ranking civil servants that answer only to an elected council. They are appointed by elected representatives and cannot be fired from their jobs with cause ro without cause like other employees. They do not reach these possition by atrition and are equivalent to Chief of Staff of Government. They have more power than elected officials and are usually in power for life. These possitions should be properly categorised and Wiki Categorized as the of top escelonce of power.
- Delete Non notable civil servants don't make a wikipedia article. --Ageo020 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Bwithh. --Metropolitan90 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A public works commissioner is not an encyclopediac position. Claims of notability are made, but no outside sources provided. --DarkAudit 13:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. OzLawyer 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Whpq 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment some parts of the article are word-for-word copies from http://www.peelregion.ca/exec-office/mitch-bio.htm --DarkAudit 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- a guy with a management job. Even CEOs have to meet criteria to be included, and this is no CEO. --Gary Will 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, does not meet WP:BIO. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment made some significant additions and expanded to link to new articles created and pending. I have other material I am putting together if you all give me half a chance to put articles together.WikiWoo 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete manifestly fails WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Nandesuka 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Unfortunately, that's exactly what this list is (it even says it is). The list was apparently split off from the Tartan Day article, but that might not have been the right thing to do. Suggesting deletion: yes, it's a notable holiday, but the main article has enough information already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Tartan Day. -<small>(<font color="blue">t</font>|<font color="red">c|<font color="gray">e</font></small> 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article. Merge what's valid into main. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a bunch of links without giving any info on the celebrations held in the respective countries. I don't think it should even be merged into the Tartan article.--Ageo020 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's useful but not Wikipedia material, do not merge, there's too many links for one article. I'd suggest the article creator create a webpage with these links then link to it in Tartan Day. Lurker 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge back into Tartan Day. Not sure if WP:POVFORK really applies here. Medtopic 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge back into Tartan Day -- but not as a list of links; use the links to source a paragraph about the celebration of the day. Jacqui★ 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable list. --Guinnog 17:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I created the article as a way of getting the links out of the main article. I should have just deleted them at the time. Sorry. --Guinnog 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Naconkantari 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO and definitely reads WP:VAIN. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, possible WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Ageo020 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per slamdancing nom. SynergeticMaggot 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly an upcoming Fox reality series. No relevant search results except Wiki and mirrors. Author (MCcoupe7 (talk · contribs)) also created a bunch of articles on upcoming Disney series which have been Prodded, but this one already was Prodded, so it needs AFD. I've never heard of a "planned" series with 30 episodes in the can, and no press. Likely hoax. At the very least unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as crystal balling, possibly a hoax. --Kinu t/c 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, some call it crystal-balling, some call it a hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -Bordello 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I Call it Nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Might be more willing to believe it if there was any information. Besides, what major network would air an episode called "WTF"? --Transfinite 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some call it crystal balling... in WP:NOT list form! -- Steel 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by a user who was clearing out a trivia section from Harpy and didn't write the material. He has no attachment to the article and considers it "drivel" as he indicated upon discussing the prod which was removed by a different user. As I stated in the prod, article appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and a synthesis of data that results in original Research.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The title could be changed to Harpies in Popular culture instead of the above title. Maybe merge it into the Harpy article itself--Ageo020 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's where the material originally resided. It was removed from there as inappropriate by the article creator (see Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations for handling Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles--Fuhghettaboutit 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the title is WP:OR and there's not much evidence the article is anything else. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, it's WP:OR Lurker 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. BigE1977 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rofl... what a name. I thought for a minute it would be an article about those harridans who line-drive you out of the way at linen sales. Um, Delete ... sheesh. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and expand Harpy entry The article is pointless and should be deleted. For the record - take note of the awful writing style. However I think there is some use in expanding on the use of Harpies in modern culture in the main entry, as long as its not just another list.Adam Slack 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:CORP. ghits: [24]. Alexa for site 904,210. — NMChico24 04:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:CORP. --Hetar 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP.--blue520 05:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per above. I hate it when we need to do this to delete ex-prodded spam. Picaroon9288 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per above. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been around for a while and has not conformed to WP:WEB
- Reasons for failing WP:WEB
- 1. No other sources other than information from IFSZ(No News Articles, Other Web Sites, ect)
- 2. No Inpedenant award given.
- 3. Has not been distributed via a site that is both well known and independent of the creators Aeon Insane Ward 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertising article. the main article InvisionFree Network is enough--Ageo020 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:WEB, reads like poorly written WP:VSCA. WP:NOT a place to talk about how your web forum is the best, especially when it's hosted on Invision... --Kinu t/c 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I removed the "staff members" and "elite membership" sections which clearly did not belong in an encyclopedia, but what's left looks like some quotations from a web forum, not an encyclopedia article about it, and there are WP:WEB problems in any event. --Metropolitan90 06:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Since it fails WP:WEB, WP:VSCA, and WP:NOT I won't even bother mentioning that it's a poorly written fluff piece. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- as above, though the first thing I thought of was WP is not a web hosting/blog especially in light of this line "We have set up the ability for our dedicated members* to have their very own ifsz.com email address". — MrDolomite | Talk 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont Delete I am going to fully re-write this article, I do not believe it should be deleted. I know this site. I have the original article saved, just incase you need it. (Did it. Too late though. I'll do some more later) - User: Iced Kola
- Comment I know this site as well (I have been a member since 2003) and the Article Totally fails WP:WEB, it is Nothing against the IFSZ but has to do with Notability. Aeon Insane Ward 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dispite the redo this article still Fails all WP:WEB Criteria. Aeon Insane Ward 04:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by Grutness. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a first-person view. I messed up the formatting, but this is NN and speedy! TrackerTV 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per nom--Nosmik 04:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article does not establish notability (and yes, I use to listen to K-Rock before it became Free FM but simply stating he was a DJ there does not establish notability).--Jersey Devil 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found this doing Random Article repeatedly. -TrackerTV 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Reads like personal ad: "Ive been looking for him ever since." Fan-1967 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy A1, I'll go out on a limb and say "no context" on this one. --Kinu t/c 05:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- correction - speedied. Grutness...wha? 05:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
self-referential, move to meta
- Transwiki to meta or maybe to project space. Phr (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a nomination. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and the best way you can help AfD be the Best AfD It Can Be (yeehaw!) is to actually give reasons for your nomination, and refrain from treating it like a vote, and straighten your tie, this isn't high school. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep since it's a term which is thrown around a bit here, it might help to have an explanation handy domestically, rather than at another wiki. BigHaz 10:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The place for handy explanations of internal jargon, like (say) Geogre's Law, is Wikipedia:Glossary, not the main namespace. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that meta is still a wikimedia project and we can wikilink to it without needing an external link; e.g., m:exopedianism. In fact "[[m:walled garden]]" is less typing, and maybe more clearly labels the concept, than "[[walled garden (wiki)|walled garden]]">. Phr (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Meta is not an appropriate place for this. "Walled Garden" here refers to wikis, not Wikipedia. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, Uncle G's right: "it would be handy to have this in a glossary" is not a good reason for keeping the article around. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to project space. Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy! Have you actually read the article? You were on my C-list, dude! (sorry) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I have (and linked it occasionally). The encyclopaedic content seems to me to be functionally equivalent to Walled garden (media). There are really two things going on in one article, one describing linked and exclusively self-referential articles, the other being the usage described at ~(media). What is wrong with advocating move? That said, having it in the glossary would be satisfactory I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy! Have you actually read the article? You were on my C-list, dude! (sorry) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not truly self-referential; something like this could also be an article in the Encyclopedia Galactica. --LambiamTalk 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination reason is bunk: this is not in any way self-referential. There are plenty of websites, and even wikis, that aren't Wikipedia, so an article discussing a phenomenon on certain websites (particularly wikis) is entirely appropriate. There's no good reason to delete this thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the slightest evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable in the usual sense. It's just internal jargon. We already have a whole wiki just for stuff about wiki culture, namely meta (or there's project space), either of which still seem to me like more obvious places to put the article. Phr (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll say again: Wikipedia is not the only wiki on the Internet. Neither meta nor project space have anything to do with wikis that aren't Wikipedia, and nor should they — however, there's an argument that some aspects of wiki culture should be discussed in main article space. Please realise this. Once you have become fully Enlightened on the sheer number of wikis that aren't Wikipedia (search Google, if need be), feel free to come back and talk about "notability" and "encyclopaedic". And when you do, please tell us why you didn't bother to mention all this in your nomination. Nominations are the core of any AfD discussion, and they need to be good. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the slightest evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable in the usual sense. It's just internal jargon. We already have a whole wiki just for stuff about wiki culture, namely meta (or there's project space), either of which still seem to me like more obvious places to put the article. Phr (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We are still required to adhere to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And whilst I agree that the reason for deletion given in the nomination is invalid, the original research problem is a valid one. I've looked, and whilst I can find sources that discuss walled garden (media) and (of course) walled gardens, I can find nothing that discusses the wiki-specific concept that is propounded in this article. This article appears to be original research, the promulgation of a new, wiki-specific, concept that hasn't gained traction in the world at large. Delete. Uncle G 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All three articles on things called "walled gardens" are pretty small and pretty similar. I think they could benefit from all being merged into the one article, and would be willing to do this later. There is still the issue of nothing being sourced, but so long as we can agree (I know the bits I'm familiar with are unobjectionable, and Uncle G's a fairly cluey chap too, so he could look over it as well) that it's all true, we could merge the content together and bung a "need references" sign in. How would that sit? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what I've found has been source material for content that fits in walled garden (media) (I've added some further reading to that article.), which is in need of attention to bring it nore into line with what sources actually say walled gardens are. The third paragraph of this article is actually dealing with the walled gardens discussed in walled garden (media). It's no loss to lose it from this article, since that paragraph came from walled garden in the first place and in fact should, according to what the actual sources say, have been moved to walled garden (media) rather than to this article.
Whilst in the wiki world there may be a concept of a set of self-contained pages that are cordoned off from the rest of the project (Indeed, they do this very thing at Wikinews.), I have found no independent secondary source material that addresses that. I haven't found any source material for the concept in this article. Uncle G 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what I've found has been source material for content that fits in walled garden (media) (I've added some further reading to that article.), which is in need of attention to bring it nore into line with what sources actually say walled gardens are. The third paragraph of this article is actually dealing with the walled gardens discussed in walled garden (media). It's no loss to lose it from this article, since that paragraph came from walled garden in the first place and in fact should, according to what the actual sources say, have been moved to walled garden (media) rather than to this article.
- Move to Wikipedia namespace to comply with WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a worthwhile entry, and it talks about wikis in general not wikipedia. It definately needs sources to back it up, but the best way to achieve that is to keep it until someone can find sources for it.Adam Slack 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to Walled garden (media); I heard of this concept before I ever heard of Wikipedia. Not a self-ref, but I'm at a loss for how to source it without referring to another wiki. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to WP namespace. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, don't move to wikipedia:namespace or eta because it is not a wikipedia or even wikimedia specific concept, it s a wiki secific concept. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO, WP:NN chef ... I am AfDing this at the suggestion of another editor (See edit history for details) ... deprodded twice DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources. The article doesn't name any of the restaurants she owns or cookbooks she has written, which would be helpful in verifying this information. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Metropolitan90 Spartaz 08:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for a star chef, I could find very little of her through Google, and after having written 6 best-selling cookbooks, I can't find any cookbooks for an Allison Joseph on Amazon.
- Delete unless sources regarding the "best-selling cookbooks" are added right quick. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of verifiable sources. Willing to reconsider if references are provided. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a modification for Half Life 2 which has not been released yet, and therefore could not have achieved any sort of notability. See: Wikipedia:Notability StukaAce 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another unreleased HL mod? Basically the article just lists a bunch of people working on it. DrunkenSmurf 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with with Drunkensmurf -- Whpq 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, article on a completely non-notable mod, I shall strike down upon thee with great vengeance and fuuuuuuuuuurious anger! Seriously, it doesn't get more insignificant than this. -- Kicking222 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- POV essay abakharev 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, we have a better article on capitalism, we don't need this POV version. This also looks like someone's term paper. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for being an essay (thus WP:OR applies) and probably crossing the POV barrier too. BigHaz 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, it is my article. As an article on Varieties of Capitalism did not exist and the concept by Hall and Soskice is important in the social sciences I thought I'd add it. Now if for some reason it might not be good that is obviously ok and for you to judge, but I yet do think that the article might be interesting for people that work in this line of social sciences research. Mulgul
- Delete I'm afraid it falls under the realm of Original research. Thanks for your contributions, though. AdamBiswanger1 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer. Extremly POV. I think we might have speedied it once before. -Royalguard11Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Delete per nom. -Royalguard11Talk 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You know, if you actually got nominated for a grammy, I would have expected the top google page result for your acomplishment to be mentioned somewhere other than Myspace, but maybe that's just me. Irongargoyle 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It was speedied as db-empty, but AMG and google turn up nothing.--Chaser T 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete If this enrty was ever added before, it wasn't by me Rodney Libby, IT Director for Holiday Inn Southfield, His name was spelt wrong on Kid Rocks page and had an empty link. I can try and get more information, please let me know thanks
- what is extreemly POV? Here is a single page referencing the Grammy Nomination... http://www.deanguitars.com/jon_kott.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)
and another
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2826435/a/Para+Siempre.htm
http://cdreviewsonline.com/june2006.htm
http://news.surfwax.com/music/archives/Smashing_Pumpkins.html
ALL 43rd annual grammy nominees:
http://www.salsaweb.com/music/articles/43rd_annual_grammy_nominees.htm
Bob (Robert) Kaeding was an aka for Bob Ebeling:
http://compras.univision.com/Downtown-CDs_stcVVproductId2935930VVcatId403860VVviewprod.htm
- Comment Should we count that as spamming the AfD? -Royalguard11Talk 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too much information for you to handle? What is your affiliation with Wikipedia & The GNU Free Documentation License Entities(GFDL) Royalguard11? In trying to edit a Wikipedia article, you may encounter edit warriors?
- Comment These links seem to verify the claims, but I don't know if we should include producers and engineers. I'm ignorant about their notability in the music world, so perhaps a regular editor to music articles can advise. Unrelated to the merits of keeping, I'm quite annoyed that this IP apparently tried to impersonate me by copying my sig. This may have been an accident, but it doesn't look that way. If it was intentional, that is very uncool.--Chaser T 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As for the POV, which I missed, the whole article reads like a praise of the subject. If it is kept for some reason, then it needs to be seriously rw. -Royalguard11Talk 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on a listing much like other bio listings. Thanks for your help.
Rodney Libby (user:Rodnuts)
- Delete. Apparently Rob Ebeling (not credited as Bob) was one of 11 recording engineers/mixers who was credited under the Grammy nomination for Album of the Year for Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP (along with Eminem as artist and five producers including Eminem) [25]. That's an accomplishment, but I don't know that he necessarily qualifies under WP:MUSIC by being one of eleven people receiving a tertiary nomination for a Grammy. If the article gets a significant rewrite before the AfD is over, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete The grammy nomination was a very very smal portion of this individuals accomplishments. --69.33.172.2 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete So you are saying that the guy that recorded Eminem and Dido's "Stan" is worthless to this culture? What about the guy who taught Kid Rock what rock is. What about the guy who completely produced Tantric, Remy Zero, Rufus Wainwright, Dead Meadow, etc..... --69.33.172.2 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (RODNUTS)[reply]
- Please stop putting your recommendations in boldface. While AfD is not a vote, you have already stated your boldface recommendation for this article. Nobody has said Ebeling was worthless to this culture. Furthermore, you currently have more in this article about Ebeling's work with Ethan Daniel Davidson than his work with Eminem. The Grammy nomination may be a small part of Ebeling's work but that is no reason not to explain what he was nominated for. --Metropolitan90 05:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please add any info you find, I am trying to get everything I can. I thought this was a team effort?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.172.2 (talk • contribs)
- WP is a team effort, but people understandably don't want to put effort into something that they think should be deleted, which I still do because of notability concerns, not to mention that none of this is verified, which is required by a core policy. Sorry.--Chaser T 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and in the unlikely chance it isn't deleted, a complete re-write is needed. Stev0 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ...the bias is obvious: A musical prodigy at age 6, Ebeling has been displaying natural talent ever since. Eventually mastering nearly any namable instrument, he became an indispensable part of hundreds of studio recordings, live acts, and a looming figure behind the scenes of uncountable musical entities. Not only that, the article is poorly written and formatted terribly.Gregmitch 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - wholly unsourced. BlueValour 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DS 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag removed by anonymous user. Unsourced neologism at best, patent nonsense at worst. 0 google hits for supposed internet slang. "One who is bored and has nothing to do"? Hmmm... :-) Irongargoyle 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as something made up by someone who was bored, tired, and/or sleepy one day. Fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Coredesat. I don't think it quite squeezes in as patent nonsense (if only there was a mention of otters with briefcases). Yomangani 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy G1. Patent nonsense. In any case wikipedia isn't a dictionary. -Royalguard11Talk 17:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think it fits under the "patent nonsense" category but it definitely does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. --Tuspm(C | @) 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short list with entries already covered in List of Blasians. Crumbsucker 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated for same reason:
- Delete both, unnecessary lists. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Punkmorten 10:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Landolitan 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List of blasians is enough --Ageo020 23:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, speedily, because Memory-Alpha's license prohibits commerical reuse, which is specifically allowable under the GFDL. As such, the article remaining here would constitute copyright infringement. It can't be merged ("delete and merge" is impossible even if this were GFDL text, but anyway...) due to the license issues. Dead, anyway.--SB | T 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been lifted from Memory Alpha where it should have stayed as it's not notable in the least. Philip Stevens 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There must be limits to how much of this crufty stuff is permitted in wikipedia when there is already another entire wiki devoted to ST. It seems to have been a significant plot device in another episode, so perhaps some of the contents from the MemoryAlpha page can be used there when that page is created.--Chaser T 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We're not Memory Alpha. It's there, we don't need it here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge Delete Artilce and merge whatever can be salvaged to the Klingon Article Aeon Insane Ward 13:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. Nothing can be merged - Memory Alpha's copyright restrictions are incompatible with WP. BigDT 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I have blanked the article and tagged it with {{copyvio}} so that mirrors will not pick up on it. BigDT 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Unexceptional web forum, delete. --Peta 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I do not see any problem with this. This is not just a forum, it's an authorative website and one of the best sources for progressive rock (and metal) on the web. We are always pleased to make the necessary changes and expand on this entry. Also, we have removed a lot of the original content since the original deletion status was applied, because we deemed it trivial and unnecessary. >>> I've made further changes and the entry now sits with me more comfortably. I've also noticed other websites/forums have wiki entries here >>> I'm not sure what kind of sources Wine Guy expects us to use... surely the website itself is proof enough? All the information contained in the article can be found on the website itself. Therefore I do not see any issues here. If Wine Guy (or anyone else for that matter) can confirm to me what kind of sources we are supposed to be using, I will be happy to add them >>> Tellier-Craig, as far as I can tell, has also not made any other contributions to wikipedia, besides his/her comment, so why has their comment not been commented on, like the others? Just curious. --Geck0 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Apart from I dont see any problem, this is one of the most important website for progressive rock. As google already cited is as the first result if "progressive rock" is searched. Imoeng 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs to have some of the ad-centric content cleaned up, but this is a very useful site for information about progressive bands, albums, and sub-genre definitions. The reviews and band bios are pretty extensive and that part of the site is a pro-bono service of the members, not unlike Wikipedia itself.Sheriff Bob Moore 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sheriff Bob Moore (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- Delete Seems like an advert for a website. If people want information on ProgArchives, they can go directly to its website. JeffMurph 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm a member of that forum and that site. As wonderful as the site is, this entry here lacks.I find the Wikipedia entry of the Archives kinda sloppy and uninteresting. A generalization that pretty much serves to nothing.Very short, simple background. Section "Community" goes very casual, explaining general things. About the collaborators, decent stuff, still rudimentary. Features that express details (something not really important, in my opinion, of a view over the concept of Prog Archives. Miscellaneous things that serve the same thing. In my opinion, not the best way to highlight, within the archives of this site, the Progressive Rock website, forum, concept etc. >>> I see modifications were made, just want to add to my opinion, that there is already an extensive definition of "Progressive Rock", the one given here is half-copied (first paragraph), half easy interpretation. Some sub-genres go repeated for the second time. Also, "Community" section and "The Forum" section are practically the same thing. Tellier-Craig 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete generic web forum. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Typical forum vanity, as usual no reliable sources or evidence of media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. Listerin 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Tellier-Craig. -Royalguard11Talk 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: This site is the best reference that we have in the net to keep alive one of the most artistic expressions of Rock music. 200.4.234.111 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 200.4.234.111 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- Keep Whoever said it's a generic forum got to be kidding. The forum is just a small part of the site, I mean, if there are entries on sites like Ebaumsworld or Something Awful who also have extencive forums along with regular content, PA must stay. Plus it's an extencive informatione resource, not just an entertainment site. -The Miracle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete. This article makes no reference to independent (third-party) reliable sources, and until it does, it fails WP:V and must go. --Wine Guy Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Come on, the fact that we don't appear in the news shouldn't ve a reason to delete. We're not advertising anything, we're just prog rock enthusiasts promoting music through this wonderful resource, a completely non-commercian information database. The owners of the site have nothing to do with this article, it is NOT an advert and not meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete. Non-notable forum. *drew 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would probably be willing to concede notability ... but there isn't a single citation in the article. Thus, it is presumed to be origina research. BigDT 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any evidence that this is anything more than a couple of wild and crazy guys messing around in their local supermarket car park. --Spondoolicks 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Silly but not particularly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete* This sport is well known and played frequently at the University of Western Ontario. It has been widely discussed (not in the most favourably of lights) in the student-run paper The Western Standard, which unfortunately is only available in printed form. Will attempt to scan archived articles when I return to Western come September. - JeffTaytay (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
- Delete. If it is real it can be recreated as an encyclopedic article but this reeks of WP:NFT: eccentric Otis, 84th Lord of Seaton and his courtiers Fraser Iggbert Macdonald and... and is WP:OR. Yomangani 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont DeleteThis is a work in progress and obviously lacks the professionalism and full citations of a finished article, but it is based on a real sport and its history has been documented in multiple student papers at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Huron and Brescia colleges. A probationary time to complete the article is well deserved. --SteveKourash (—The preceding comment was added by 198.96.223.175 (talk • contribs) .)
- Weak Delete. There appear to be a couple of mentions of the game, such as down the bottom of this page and in a few other places, but my Google-fu gives no substantial coverage of this sport in what one might refer to as non-trivial publications. Mostly they're Wiki mirrors and "alternate uses of shopping cart" bits. I don't think it quite gets to verifiable levels of notability, though. Tony Fox (speak) 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable --G0zer 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont Delete this sport is gaining popularity in southwestern ontario —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliasn (talk • contribs) .
- Don't Delete* As a student at the university of western ontario I can attest to the sport's popularity, however I think that some liberties have been taken with the content of the artcile. It can be stripped down to a bare-bones article and be encyclopedic. User:costellofaso
- Delete not notable, the claims of many an unregistered UWO student notwithstanding. Raggaga 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough for an article. Monkey Brain(talk) 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If the site gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Anomo 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is a notable wireless Internet project. I'm going to start looking for newspaper articles, I've seen it get a lot of coverage. --Liface 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just referenced the article. Please go back and look at it again. --Liface 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also note that the user who put this up for deletion has just been blocked from Wikipedia. --Liface 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just referenced the article. Please go back and look at it again. --Liface 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No need to get rid of a well-cited article, it makes a claim to notability, and provides useful information to the reader. --tjstrf 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say keep, although I'm not quite up-to-date with en.wp's rules of the day. Even if the website is less notable today than it was when I started this article in May 2001, Personal Telco was an important part of an important "free wi-fi movement" around the turn of the millennium. If the article is deleted, Personal Telco should at least have a section in the broader article about this wireless community network movement. Several similar articles could be coalesced (sp?) into that one. Perhaps my old text from Everything2 could also be used for this? --LA2 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. PersonalTelco's notability is that it is an important part of Portland's high-tech industry/community, as well as having influence in the larger Free WiFi movement. The article probably could emphasise this more, but even as it currently reads this article explains why the subject is notable. Liface has done a good job of providing cites for this article, but if there are any further doubts, I'd be happpy to sift thru my PTP maillist archive & pull out more references: I expect PTP has been written up several dozen times by the press since its incorporation 5 years ago. -- llywrch 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notability has been asserted. --Peephole 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While an org, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP. There are many Wi-Fi networks up and running. Including a generic article that includes all of these some what mentionable ones is a better way to go in my mind. Otherwise a lot of these will deserve articles. The same is true for the multiple mesh networks that the various companies are installing. Vegaswikian 23:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Davidpdx 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Watching the List of wikis page I suspected there might be a VfD on this one eventually as well, and since I wrote the article in the first place I'm going to stay neutral on the vote. The site is to Korean articles on Wikipedia as Wookieepedia is to those on Star Wars, meaning that anything that would be of too much detail here can still be written over there, and the two aid each other in that way. That being said, that in and of itself may not make the article notable so I'm going to just let the vote go according to everyone else's wishes. If it is deleted though there should still be a clear limit for when it would become notable in the future. Should there be a few other blog entries, newspaper articles, if so what kind of newspapers and would those in Korean be acceptable, etc. The Wookieepedia article for example also only has a single blog entry as an external link, but its sheer article count seems to have kept it from deletion. Mithridates 10:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - I personally don't see any reason to delete it. A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized. It has almost 4,000 articles all related to Korea. I have found a lot of the information there useful. I think it's notable enough to merit its own article. However; maybe should be reduced to stub status, and as the website grows, and as time pasess, it could be expanded further. Merkurix 12:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "A Wikipedia article about another wiki website seems notable as long as it's properly categorized" lots of them have been deleted, kamelopedia, uncyclopedia of stupid, homestarrunner, something based on star wars, and they've even deleted ones with actual notable newspaper sources in them because people demanded the use of multiple newspaper sources. Hardvice 12:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the nominator is a sock puppet of the above user (and this user Hardvice has since been permanently blocked) (repeating what Hipocrite said above). See User:FurryiamIAM and [26]. -- KittySaturn 05:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe the person who nominated the article is wrong. The above article does meet noteablity and has recieved The Best 43 Blogs Award [27] for best Wiki blog. In addition, the article has high mention though sites like Dave's ESL Cafe. There is lots of useful information for expats (those who live in Korea). Also it's worth mentioning that FurryiamIAM nominated upwards of ten pages for deletion in one day and he/she has very little in the way of edit history. Davidpdx 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and bloggy source is irrelevant to wikipedia. Anomo 15:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a good resource and was mentioned on the Marmot's Hole the other day. Tortfeasor 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is indeed a bit short of the Wikipedia's standards, but it is my opinion that anyone who have had a read through it will agree that it is a detailed wiki about Korea, and the article has potential for expansion. I would also like to draw attention to what Davidpdx said above and
- comment that the nominator, FurryiamIAM is one whose edits consist roughly of: (1) edits about nominating articles for deletion and (2) making rapid empty edits to articles without adding or deleting any content (all of his edits to articles are such useless ones), disrupting Wikipedia. -- KittySaturn 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, looks like the nominator has just been blocked for being a sock of User:Hardvice and making multiple meaningless edits to rack up the edit count. Mithridates 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I half expected the block by the look of his edits, even if he wasn't a sock puppet... -- KittySaturn 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, looks like the nominator has just been blocked for being a sock of User:Hardvice and making multiple meaningless edits to rack up the edit count. Mithridates 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Like porn stars, wikis don't yet have clear guidelines for establishing notability other than an uneven record at AfD, so Furry or Hardvice or whoever is definitely WP:POINT. It should be noted that for many of its articles, Galbijim is literally the only English-language source available. Since I've done a lot of editing and admin work there I feel I should stay neutral but otherwise, I would be voting keep all the way.--ThreeAnswers 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Useful and relevant. -- Visviva 01:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. When I came across this article, it already had a deletion concern notice, but not AFD. FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anomo 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Not notable JeffMurph 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on copyvio grounds, not on notability grounds. I, for one, would like to see an article on this; as I remember, it had a presence in several Star Trek episodes as well as a number of novels, and is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia due to its rich mythological parallels/inspiration and central place in Klingon beliefs on the afterlife. Ripping material from Memory Alpha, however, is not acceptable. Captainktainer * Talk 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This can probably be speedied (using {{db-copyvio}}), depending on how broadly an admin interprets "commercial provider" -- Memory Alpha copyvios have certainly been speedied in the past. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. I think I can close this one early -- nom clearly didn't understand the subject's importance. Jacqui★ 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of any notability in the article, no awards etc. Appears NN Spartaz 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Very well-known indie rock band, easily fulfills WP:MUSIC. See allmusic entry, Pitchfork review, etc. This band toured the country several times and was on the well-respected label Polyvinyl Records. It was Mike Kinsella's main project for several years after he left Cap'n Jazz and before he started recording as Owen (band). Please do some research before nominating obviously notable indie rock bands for deletion! Amazinglarry 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per larry. hateless 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, strong keep - Withdraw this nom, and know what you're trying to delete. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per amazinglarry. --Joelmills 02:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per amazinglarry WalterWalrus3 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep---What the heck? This is a well-known band! Like Amazinglarry said.Dan 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to add a little more info. American Football released 2 albums (an LP and an EP). Additionally, WP:MUSIC states pretty clearly that former bands containing members of later bands that are notable. Well, Owen (band) (Kinsella's solo project) has released 4 albums on Polyvinyl. Here's a reference from the Denver Westword (Source: Lexis-Nexis):
Copyright 2002 Denver Westword, LLC Denver Westword (Colorado) November 21, 2002 Thursday SECTION: Music/Columns LENGTH: 291 words HEADLINE: Critic's Choice Owen BYLINE: By Jason Heller BODY: Nobody likes a whiner. And yet a whole troop of emo crybabies, from Dashboard Confessional's Chris Carraba to Bright Eyes' Connor Oberst, has whimpered its way into the spotlight over the past couple of years. Mike Kinsella, otherwise known as Owen (appearing Tuesday, November 26, at Club 156 in Boulder), is at least partly to blame. As drummer of the mid-'90s Illinois group Cap'n Jazz, Kinsella helped tame the wuss-rock frontier now populated by the likes of Modest Mouse and Jimmy Eat World. The members of Cap'n Jazz, though, were always deconstructionists at heart, using feedback, caterwauls and solipsistic wordplay to unravel their songs almost faster than they could stitch them together. As Cap'n Jazz mutated into Joan of Arc and then OWLS, the players softened and refined their sound, invoking the abstract groove of Tortoise and conceptual folk-blues as much as the cathartic abandon of Rites of Spring. Kinsella himself ventured even further into the realm of accessibility with his side project, American Football, a stunning exhibition of intricate, elegant guitar pop. With Owen, Kinsella has switched to guitar and vocals, boiling down American Football's melodic sensibility to its purest essence. His self-titled debut album shimmers with wispy synth backdrops, bashful strumming and his dandelion-puff voice, a plaintive sound stuck somewhere between Rainer Maria and an unplugged Coldplay. Songs with titles such as "Declaration of Incompetence," with lyrics like "I can't do anything/I can't do my hair right/Or have a good time/Or fall asleep with my girl," aren't going to significantly distance Kinsella from the current herd of bleating emo troubadours. His finesse and forbearance, though, already have. LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2002
--Dan 07:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Chinese Democracy. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a G'n'R song that hasn't been issued yet and may or may not be on a forthcoming album. Can be recreated when the album is issued and it is clear whether the song itself deserves an individual article Spartaz 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiable GnR song, redirect to the album or keep. Frivolous nomination. Kappa 09:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even if the song is notable, we know nothing about its notability other than that it will be on what will be a notable album (due to its fabled delays) by a notable band. The song itself remains non-notable at the present moment. BigHaz 10:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; non-notable. As the song is unwritten, there is nothing encyclopedic to put in an article about it, and no basis to assume that there will be enough on it to form an article once it is released. --Aquillion 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Given Axl Rose's reputation for not finishing things he has started, whether or not this song will ever be completed or be released is highly speculative. It fails WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. BigE1977 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Aquillion has expressed my sentiments on the subject eloquently. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the album, unless released as a single. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect --FrasierC 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band tribute at community theater with limited run in one small city. Wikipedia is not a theater listing. Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plans are actually in the works for a regional tour of independant theatres. The Dresden Dolls support this production and future tours, as well as productions of this nature. (Just look at their roots in the music industry) I don't feel the entry should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.149.182 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and I get the impression that individuals associated with the production have written the article, or at least the original text, and likely have written the above comment. Originalbigj 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Community theater? I don't think so. When the production lands on Broadway, or goes on a national/international tour with multiple verifiable sources, the article can be re-created. --Wine Guy Talk 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I brought this up before on the article's page. This is a community theatre project and not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. As Wine Guy said, when it gets big it can be remade. Tartan 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia may not be a theater listing, but it is an encyclopedia; that means that all subjects - whether you consider them relevant or not in your elitist snobbery of what is acceptable - should be allowed to have an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.84.18.84 (talk •contribs) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article was added as what we felt was a notable entry for The Dresden Dolls and to people everywhere. The fact that a band signed to a major label would allow and encourage our production should be notable in itself. Citing WP:NOT is probably not the best method of recommendation for deletion. Nowhere in that article do I find anything that suggests our article is inappropriate to Wikipedia. This article was not meant to be as for a theatre listing, but to serve for reference as articles do for other plays and musicals. "An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Why must you be so particular?Alexbt 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexbt, I cited WP:NOT casually, but we actually have a formal deletion policy and music notability guidelines. At the moment there isn't a specific guideline for theater productions, but if there were, then some level of national media coverage would be part of it. The band's involvement appears to be largely passive cooperation, and while that makes it worth noting on their article, the article doesn't fit the level of notability that we've established to prevent Wikipedia from becoming, essentially, Geocities for anybody who wants an article on themselves. More on point, we wouldn't want it to fill with advertising pages, either. By asserting standards of encyclopedic value we ensure that our users can think of Wikipedia as something useful. While we can include more, much more, than a paper encyclopedia, we can't include everything. I hope you do not see this as judgement of the artistic value of the show, because it is not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete maybe this show will be notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MarkBuckles 18:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Discount anon votes. Ifnord 05:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Necessary entry for Dresden Dolls oeuvre. NYcine 01:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Notable as per WP:Music. Seems to have been around forever but doesn't seem to have achieved anything. The article itself is just a discography and I'm pretty sure ther eare lots of places on the web where oyu can get one of these for this Spartaz 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They seem to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC (with enough albums with a record label), they also sell online here. --Porqin 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I might be biased because I am Belgian, but I know they are known in the European Grindcore scene. They are one of the top Belgian grindcore bands, toghether with Agatocles. I came here loking for information, which proves something.
- Keep For god's sake, Aborted is a known band, they even have videos around, don't delete this article, it is real
- Keep I nominated it but the creator provided good reasons why it should be kept. Meets criteria per WP:MUSIC.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 07:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged nn-bio, but notability is asserted (opened for Miriam Makeba, Kool and the Gang, Stevie Wonder). Either needs expanding and evidence of importance added, or deleting if there is no such evidence. Janitorial nomination, no vote. Just zis Guy you know? 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article does not provide enough support for the idea that she satisfies WP:MUSIC. She did not open for Makeba, Kool and the Gang, and Wonder as a solo performer, but only as a member of a group, and apparently only one time for each of them. No All Music Guide page, and her web site [28] does not clearly indicate notability either. --Metropolitan90 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Metropolitan90 above. The article itself provides no evidence of notability, per WP:MUSIC. Mattisse 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above comments. --Brad101 22:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. There was a strong lobby for merge and to merge other characters in the programme as well, but I have reservations about this as the competition results have not yet been announced. Merge can anyway be addressed without AfD. This article, if not merged, may well be suitable for AfD some time in the future, when the competition fever has diminished. Tyrenius 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable enough. abakharev 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Almost all other participants in this show, whatever it is, have their page on WP. Either we merge them all into one page (why not), or we delete them all, but deleting just this one and keeping others is kinda weird. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the lot Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all Phr (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all. Very unnotable. — mark ✎ 07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all into a single article. Yamaguchi先生 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Koumaev is currently a top-6 finalist in a show that has only three more weeks to run. The show is also currently the #1 rated show for the Summer of 2006. He's definitely notable now, so the article should be kept. We should table the AfD for now, and if necessary can revisit the issue in a month, after the season ends. --Elonka 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge this one. Some of the contestants are clearly deserving of their own articles (see Benji Schwimmer, Heidi Groskreutz, multi-year U.S. National Swing Dance Champions). But as for Koumaev, I agree that there's not enough to justify an individual article at this time. I recommend having a one paragraph bio for each contestant on the main program page, and then "for more details, see" links to the individual contestants who are independently notable (such as Schwimmer). --Elonka 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Obvious merge-Bri 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this one Dmitry Chaplin definitely deserves to have his own page. DJAlik 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Majority of contestants could fit into one page, given they've done almost nothing of note. People who have won or placed very highly in major tournaments, it can be argued, have done something noteworthy and are deserving of some measure. But most of these people are 15-minute celebrities and not something you'd EVER find in Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book. --ThatBajoranGuy 07:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Arguments on whether content would appear in paper encyclopedias are frankly irrelevant. It would be inconsistent to delete this entry and not delete the entries of other finalists. Moreover, as a top six contestant in the show, there is even less logic in deleting his entry before the show's completion. It should be noted, that merging all the articles is not an option without having this same discussion for each of the other finalists, and such a move would be blocked for those contestants like Schwimmer who have lengthier résumés. Rcharman 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. There seems no logical reason to delete the artice. Is it taking up unecessary space the Wikipedia does not have? It is a good entry that helps impart information on it's subject; just as any good article in an encyclopedia would. Arguments that this would not appear in paper encyclopedias are irrelavent because they have different concerns such as space and printing costs. If that was a valid argument, then all articles about all actors would have to be removed, all articles about schools and universities would have to be removed, all articles about singers would have to be removed, all articles about plays and movies would have to be removed, etc. This is not a paper encyclopedia so deletion would be quite unjustified.
Diemunkiesdie 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please the person is notable article and was expanded Yuckfoo 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep -- he's on the verge of NN, but I've seen much less notable subjects keep their articles. -Quasipalm 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, and split back if Ivan wins. --Gray Porpoise 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge conditionally to So You Think You Can Dance, then split again if he wins. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]FYI, I did some research and have considerably expanded the article with additional information and references. --Elonka 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged nn-band but contested. No evidence of meetign WP:MUSIC - one EP and "local stardom". Entire repertoire apparently free online - not a good sign! Just zis Guy you know? 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I originally speedied this band. I can find no evidence of notability. Doesn't even sniff WP:MUSIC.
- Delete and protect Why is it afd'd? Speedy it again. Entire repertoire online would be a big plus in my book (see Cory Doctorow or Free Software Foundation or (to get self-referential) Wikipedia), but it looks like downloading requires registration with lots of personal info. Phr (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopaedic article nob-notable pub crawl DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've drunk in about 8 of them, though. -- GWO
- Strong Keep. The Dozen is a notable rite of passage for young people of the area, most notably those who live in the residences of Manchester Metropolitan University. (Pally01 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete I wouldn't even put this in the Didsbury article, much less its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. Not even The Crawl has its own article. No way this "event" of purely local interest needs one. Agent 86 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GWO (actually, maybe 7 rather than 8). Rite of passage yes, notable no. Oldelpaso 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged for deletion as non-notable band, but contested. This is a Pink Floyd tribute with some local fame, may or may not meet WP:MUSIC (no real evidence presented that they do). Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC the only Pink Floyd tribute band really worth an entry is Australian Pink Floyd Show who do world tours etc DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I speedied it yesterday as an nn-band and would support doing that again, but slow deletion for not meeting WP:NMG will do. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band is apparently listed with PollStar [29] if that makes them more notable. I agree the Australian Pink Floyd is clearly more notable internationally. Sons Of Nothing is a regional phenomenon at this point. --166.70.238.250 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC, regional touring only. --Joelmills 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As the one who originally placed the speedy tag (the article was much smaller then), I can say it fails WP:MUSIC Alphachimp talk 04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial POV endorsement Skysmith 09:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - needs cleanup, or as an alternative, edit down and add to diamond -- Whpq 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - edited,clean up has been preformed, objective, more clean up if necessary [[User70.23.230.43]] 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - add to diamond right after color clarity and cut grading.
- Keep--Junebug12 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge into Christ Church, Oxford. Done. Ifnord 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read it once, then twice and if you still don't get it, read it once more!!! Anyway, regardless, this article does nothing to assert the imprtance of it's subject DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - I'm not entirely sure that what's there really qualifies as a subject, let alone one which needs a separate article. BigHaz 10:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Christ Church College -- GWO
- Merge per GWO --Spondoolicks 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per that hurt my head trying to understand. Merge away if you can make something out of it though... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what it's basically saying is that what other colleges call "Fellows", Christ Church call "Students"? And so that to avoid confusion, students themselves are always referred to as "undergraduates" (which they are across Oxford anyway)? Fair enough, yet another example of Oxford's wonderfully ridiculous conventions and traditions (like New College being one of the University's oldest), and I learned something, but is it really worthy of its own article? Merge to CC per GWO. Seb Patrick 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per GWO. -999 (Talk) 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a localized usage that doesn't really need to even be in the said article. AdamBiswanger1 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Merge to christ church college. relevant slang in oxford university. --Ageo020 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is not slang. It is the official title of members of the Governing Body. The use of this term is already in the main article. Just delete. --Bduke 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A dictionary sub-definition maybe, but not an encyclopedia article. --Xrblsnggt 03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Agan, per GWO. Not a bad definition, but not an article Niki Whimbrel 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A High School's third Rugby team, however triumphant is simply not encyclopedic. Also suffers from POV and OR issues. --Aoratos 10:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergea condensed form into Palmerston North Boys' High School. They seem notable enough to have some content there, but not really for their own page, and this does indeed need to be cleaned pre-merge. GassyGuy 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I can't even find info about the team at [30], which seems like the place where it would be. Delete unless something can be sourced. If it can, I revert back to my merge suggestion. GassyGuy 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless the information in the article can be properly sourced, in that case, merge in condensed form, as above. --JoanneB 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete It's strange to have an article about a specific sports team from a school, especially the THIRD team. This has obviously been put here by someone currently in the team or related to the team in some way. If I was a more experienced wikipedian I would have just deleted it on first sight... Ham21 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you wouldn't :) It does not meet any of the speedy criteria (as it definitely asserts notability), so AfD is the way to go. Let's not stretch the speedy deletion criteria without discussion... --JoanneB 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooooh. My bad. Ham21 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or merge if sources can be found) per GassyGuy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all AdamBiswanger1 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The most that is needed is info on what sports a school plays and which tournaments its first teams have won. Landolitan 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, an article from my home town! It's great to see local people taking an interest in Wikipedia, and very encouraging for the future of online information in New Zealand. Delete unverifiable. Ziggurat 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Ziggurat 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable. Possible vanity, given that this is the third team. I'd vote to merge if it were the first team, but this is the third. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity page--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly vanity, but a case could be made for speedy deletion as an attack page.-gadfium 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was userfy. There is strong consensus that the articles as they exist are not suitable for mainspace. Once they are cleaned up, they can be moved back. - brenneman {L} 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States health reform 1912-1920 - United States health reform under FDR - United States health reform under Truman - United States health reform under Nixon - United States health reform under Carter - United States health reform under Clinton
[edit]According to the discussion at Talk:Health care reform, the creation of this group of articles appears to have been encouraged by a college instructor at Duke University, User:Conoverc, for his Politics of Health Care class to address why universal health care proposals have been defeated despite overwhelming public support for universal coverage. To me, WP:OR appears to have been violated in that a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position appears in each article. He admitted to devising a common article template for his students to use in order to reach the conclusion "why the window of opportunity (for reform) closed", and the edit histories reveal a flurry of referenced assertions in the various sections of each article. In my opinion, the position being advanced is that reform or change is an "opportunity"; the synthesis is the A + B + C insertion of references to reach that conclusion. Medtopic 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Argeed ir is OR. Aeon Insane Ward 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Chaned my mind after doing a little quiet research Very Weak Keep All but these articles really need cleanup Aeon Insane Ward 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional keep and cleanup. I cheerfully confess I have not read each nominated article. The ones I did read were not so awful as to be unsalvageable; they were referenced. Even if they were created as a class project, they contain encyclopedic information that should not be simply erased. They do need to be edited to remove jargon ("the policy stream"?) and checked for NPOV, but this makes them no different from any other article about history. Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The articles are useful as supplements to the presidents in question. Much of the non-NPOV position has been editted out, leaving valuable articles (though bloated, in my opinion) - JethroElfman 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per JethroElfman - NickSentowski 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All -- Wikipedia prohibits "connecting the dots" as a violation of the policy against original research. See [31] Suggest the material be moved to Wikisource instead. Morton devonshire 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although some of the articles are problematic there is sufficient encyclopedic content that they should be saved. They certainly need more work and I'm interested in discussing it with anyone else who is willing to spend some time seperating wheat from chaff. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all The synthesis to advance a position problem is still present. For example, it is noticable that only certain Presidents are part of the series. I seem to recall a few presidents in between and since like Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and a Bush or two (a couple of whom signed reform legislation like the establishment of Medicare and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act). And the articles have statements like "resulted in no progress towards universal health care" that demonstrate their advocacy of the point of view that universal health care would be progress in the U.S. GRBerry 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While the quote presented from the article is probably POV, it seems that deleting (or rewriting) a bad sentence would be preferable to deleting an article which has some useful content. As for the issue of "missing presidents" from the series, your position almost seems to be that, if we don't have an article about United States health reform under Reagan then we should delete United States health reform under Nixon. As an encyclopedia, shouldn't our response be to write the "missing" article about Reagan rather than delete the one about Nixon? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No the point is that the series was constructed as it is in order to advance a point of view, thus fauling afoul of the policy against original research. There is no excuse for a neutral series of articles on healthcare reform in the U.S. omitting coverage of the introduction of Medicare, which is one of the most important pieces of healthcare legislation. One could say that the 2003 reform act is too new to evaluate in an encyclopedic fashion. Why are all cases of significant reform omitted from the series? GRBerry 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I find it somewhat ironic that I'm speaking in defense of these articles; 99% of my AfD votes are straight "Delete" because 99% of what comes through AfD is utter crap. These are not utter crap. They may be incomplete, POV, poorly written and partially redundant...but none of those are problems for which AfD is the best answer. The best answer is to rewrite, remove POV, and add more encyclopedic content, not to remove the useful information which is there. I know I'm starting to repeat myself now, but if information is missing why don't we add the needed info, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting useful content that simply needs improvement? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is a violation of Wiki policy. Do you think these articles do not violate that policy? Medtopic 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that there is certainly problematic content which can be removed and corrected with rewriting. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all I often see articles like this, with OR being the main premise for deletion, but invariably someone throws in the words "Inherently POV" or "Inherently OR". Not the case here. While I certainly agree that Wikipedia is not a place for "connecting the dots", I see no harm in making uncontroversial statements of the obvious theory behind such information. Perhaps our encyclopedia could just spew out facts and statistics with no correlation, but we must realize that the theory that binds these facts is as true, and is as much value to the encyclopedia as anything else that can be copied from an almanac, and the theory relating to this information is generally uncontroversial. What about the parts that are? Get rid of them. Like my history teacher used to say, "Facts without theory is trivia. Theory without facts is bullshit." And who's to say that this is OR? Who's to say that it is connecting the dots? Do not forget that each of these articles contain something like 10-15 references (Take a look at United States health reform under Clinton), so an OR claim in itself is strenuous enough, and certainly not strong enough to warrant such an ill-considered and reflexive call for deletion. I think what everyone here is looking for is a bunch of these:
<ref>d</ref>
, and I certainly am too, but I'm not going push for its deletion on those grounds. That, like everything else in these articles, can be improved. - Now I have a few reminders for us all. Firstly, there is something called Template:OR. It says, "Hey, let's work together and fix this". Secondly, AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. If cleanup is reasonable, which it most certainly is, then deletion is unthinkable. Thirdly, many of us are probably under the impression that the OR is much more serious than it is because of its non-encyclopedic tone, which reads like a tenth-grader giving a book-report. Let's fix this, not blow it up. AdamBiswanger1 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is certainly possible for editors to interpret Wikipedia policy differently, so calling this an "ill-considered and reflexive call for deletion" is unwarranted. If one believes that individual referenced points are strung together to make a point (i.e. connecting the dots), then he or she will view this as OR. If one does not believe that, then he or she will not. Medtopic 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly understand OR--as noted in my comment, I am not convinced that this is OR. The reason I suggested that the decisions of other voters was "reflexive", is because the issue here is unusually complex for AfD, and without an examination of the text, it may very well seem like OR on the surface. I'm no better than anyone else--sometimes I just jump on the dogpile and type "Delete per nom", but sometimes I see a flash of light in the article, and I investigate more carefully. Also, be assured that I am not accusing all editors who want to delete the article as being careless. AdamBiswanger1 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure which of the four of us you are accusing of carelessness, however, I think it's fair to grant the benefit of doubt to others here and assume that they have investigated carefully, too. The fact that three of the four editors voting "delete" thus far have referenced a particular section of WP:OR (i.e. synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) does not suggest that they have given only a cursory examination of the text, or that have voted reflexively, or that they are not capable of understanding the complexities of the AfD. Medtopic 22:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am willing to say that the other editors probably spent about 2 minutes in reading the articles. I respect you and all of the other editors here, and I am by no stretch of the imagination insulting them or looking down upon them because, well, we all do it (as I said). But to assume that every editor took long and deliberate look at each one, and upon a long period of thoughtful contemplation reached his or her decision would only be a lie to oneself, unless by some miracle each one actually did-- in which case I will tuck my tail between my legs and go home. But all of this is rather peripheral to my main contention, which is that this is not OR, and it is not advancing a position. And if it is? Well then we'll take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary. AdamBiswanger1 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd really like to emphasize this part: "...take it to the cleaners, not the cemetary." We really shouldn't be deleting useful content that can reasonably be brought into compliance with policy, which this can. The policy problems are related to the quality of the writing, not the quality of the content. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. The topics are worthy, and the articles can be improved to remove any OR. -- Avenue 10:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The titles should be changed. The word "reform" assumes that the change is for the better. But often there is not agreement on whether the result is actually better than before the "reform". And even if "reform" were OK, the subject being "reformed" is not "health." Maurreen 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Complete agreement that titles would be the first thing to NPOV, and some merges are probably in order. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, summarize, cleanup. These read as essays more than encyclopedic articles. They need to be summarized, text attributed to reliable sources, editorializing removed, and abundant references provided. If editors are not willing to do that job, then Delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to start a list and I hope that others who have 'voted' to keep and cleanup will sign on to help.
- Editors willing to help clean up this mess:
- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Not Sure if this is the palce for the list) Æon Insane Ward 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AdamBiswanger1 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. -- Longhair 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides its obvious brevity the article contains nothing but an amalgam of highly superficial catchwords without any explanative value whatsoever and displays a clearly non-neutral point of view.
Many of the common complaints regarding articles on topics concerning "Socialism" apply here:
1. No socialist country has ever proclaimed itself to be "communist" this being merely the final goal society strives to reach in the distant future.
2. "'Lighter' version of communism" is highly tendentious, implying that "communism" as such would be "hard" only to be a bit "alleviated" in its "later stages".
3. "Much diminished socialist propaganda" ("propaganda" here obviously but unduly used as a derogative term) is totally incorrect. As in every other socialist country the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the forms of its dissemination in Hungary underwent adaptations and modernisations, especially after 1956. But neverthelees it remained the official guiding thought and was propagated as such right until 1989.
4. The introduction of some market elements (combined with planning) as was the case in Hungary (but not only there !) is in no way incomaptible with a socialist economy. Therefore no "aknowledging of a deviation" would have been necessary.
This artificially magnified discussion of certain idiosyncratic features of the building of a socialist society in individual countries, for insthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goulash_Communism&action=edit
Edit this pageance in Hungary, should at best be avoided altogether. And if this proves to unfeasible, in the case of Hungary we already have the "Happiest Barrack" article (also fatally flawed but still far better than this one) of which this article is basically a shallow and useless reduplication.
I therefore demand the deletion of the article on "Goulash communism" as quickly as possible.
--Elsmlie 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Its brevity may be due to its relative youth; it still has the "new article smell" on it. Fact is, the term is out there, and I'd like to see it explained better. I learned the term in high school history (although high school history tends to be a tad more simplistic than anything at the post-secondary level). I remember hearing the term as well on a TV documentary. I'd actually like to see the article fleshed out. It ranks up there with terms like "gunboat diplomacy" and "bamboo curtain" that people coin to describe a situation or concept that appears to be different from the norm. --SigPig 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand if possible see this diff, article was apparently created to fill a redlink someone else had left (with a misspelling). I notice there's no hu:gulyáskommunizmus article though. Phr (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I hope there will be some improvement as time goes on. Zello 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (if really necessary) If you insist on keeping the term (which, I will repeat, may be widespread in American High School history lessons but still doesn't become any more correct or useful) merge this article with the "Happiest barrack" article and add the term "Goulash communism" as a second "catchword phrase" there. We do not need both articles.
--Elsmlie 16:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it a second time, I believe that when merging the two articles, it would be even better to keep the heading "Goulash communism" and delete the "Happiest barrack" heading instead. The content of the "Happiest Barrack" article should then be moved under the "Goulash communism" heading and this term be added as a second catchword there (as proposed in my previous comment). Despite its flaws "Goulash communism" as a term is in itself less offensive than "Happiest barrack" and should therefore be used as their common heading. --Elsmlie 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep again, let's fix the problems addressed rather than delete the article. I've heard of Goulash communism, and it is most certainly a valid phrase AdamBiswanger1 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's my proposal:
- 1. Repair the various problems in the article mentioned in my original deletion request. Since the article is not very long and it's been me who brought this all up I could do so, if you agree.
- 2. Sometime in the future, merge the article with the "Happiest barrack" article and use "Goulash communism" as their common heading.
- What do you think ? --Elsmlie 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. I have now fundamentally revised the article conforming to the points raised above. I hope my revision will find your approval and we can close the discussion. --Elsmlie 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a common used expression for the 1963(?amnesty)-1989 period in Hungary. kelenbp 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Merge the Happiest Barrack into this one, since "Goulash Communism" seems to be the more common term. I created the article out of "self interest", wanting to learn more about the subject. I am pleasantly surprised of the response, so far. I would like to see/add references to more or less similar situations, like Tito's Yugoslavia or present day China. Barabum 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or Merge and keep a redirect); the term is clearly a notable one (see the Google test). Problems with the content should be solved by editing, not deletion. KissL 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the original problems have already been solved since I have fundamentally revised the article yesterday. I therefore repeat my proposal to close the discussion. Merging and redirecting can be done later. --Elsmlie 10:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest merging and redirecting sooner, rather than later, to avoid duplicate work.Barabum 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely Keep. This a a normal, very frequent historical term now in all relevant European languages. Juro 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete and I ignored those dubious keeps, just for the record.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Podcaster, amateur webcomic artist, apparently unsigned nerdcore hip-hop artist (no albums yet). His claim to fame is two animations on albinoblacksheep.com. Please excuse me if I take that as a different meaning of the word fame from the one I am used to. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Criteria --Xrblsnggt 03:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no non-homemade records, no indication of significance. Just some guy with a website. Friday (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most nerdcore albums are "home made". Also he was present on the Rhyme Torrents[32] compilation, which is the first major collab between several nerdcore artists. Also he is featured in Project: Nerdcore [33], the nerdcore documentry. --Kahless720 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would hazard a guess that across the board, most records are homemade. Most records also get no reputable sources talking about them. This is exactly why we don't cover most records. Friday (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since the last time this deletion issue was brought up I've gotten more coverage and reviews. From what I understand at the end of August I'll be mentioned in an issue of Wired Magazine. Not to be the vainest man in the world, but in the realm of nerdcore I'd say that I'm at least a bit significant. Beefyness 08:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- note: ip=71.83.252.111; text deleted by 151.198.116.169, restored by Gimmetrow
- Keep He may only have two known cartoons, but he's currently working on a few Nerdcore-Hiphop projects (Tri-Forc3, new album), most Nerdcore Hiphop is created in a home or private office, and in his trade, he's basically the best I've heard, and really stays true to the Nerdcore genre. TimCoPress 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete - Beefy's too fat for wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.48.120 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 July 2006
- Delete It's not as though he's an actual artist or a reputable one at least. Many people with flash cartoons just don't make wiki pedia articles like this about themselves. This is just another cheap attempt to be on the internet and wikipedia. Definitely delete. Falloople 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in the "media coverage" section 4 links are given. One is a blog, and the ref to G4 is a 404 now. The other two need context - does an interview by comixfan imply some degree of notability? Gimmetrow 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STOP USING THE WORD NERD CORE. THE LAMEST THING EVER— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.89.185 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 July 2006
- Delete per nom. Also can someone check if Kahless720 and TimCoPress are sock puppets since these are their only edits -Bogsat 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you that these are not fake posts or accounts or whatever. Timco, Kahless, and Amy are just people who like my stuff. If you want to discredit their opinions and votes just because they want to keep the page up, then by all means don't let them have a say. Beefyness 05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep:This page is not in violation of any of the vanity page rules. Beefy has gained a lot of street cred in the last few years as more people listen to his albums, read his comics and tune into his ever entertaining podcasts. knowlege of beefy and his work is a more than excellent introduction into the little known nerdcore hip-hop scene/genre. if there is a place on the web for things worth knowing about it's here on wikipedia, that is why beefy has a page here to begin with. 67.188.213.76 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Amy Hanson[reply]
- Only registered accounts can vote. Thanks. Stubbleboy 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Discount sock/meat puppet votes. Ifnord 05:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; this fails WP:MUSIC as far as I can figure. There is one press mention, on the website of a local TV station; the other links are blogs or forums, and aren't reliable. Albums aren't on a label. No claim of touring. Closing admin: I don't envy you; please do check for puppets. *sigh* Mangojuicetalk 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Stubbleboy 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to be that schools under high school age are not inherantly notable. Only actual claims at notability seem to fall under the history of the area rather than the school itself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, sorry, seems like the whole page is a copyvio anyway, didn't catch it right away cause it's from a couple different pages. Marked for speedy now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — A {{copyvio}} template would have been preferable, as there is a whole process set up to handle such cases. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too far in the future, too speculative. Punkmorten 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a notable sporting event and it's not too far in advance (note the article for the 2022 Winter Olympics). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the speculative nature of the article. Punkmorten 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - crystalballism at work here. The article has no substantiated information, and is pure speculation. The article can be created when facts are known. -- Whpq 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm sure there is plenty of sourceable material about bids out there. Landolitan 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not enough substantiated information here. Yes there's a 2022 Olympics article, but the Olympics are in a different league in terms of coverage and preparation -- although if someone were to AFD it I might consider voting "delete" as too far ahead as well. 23skidoo 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whispering 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable band Travelbird 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BAND. --Porqin 12:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above. DrunkenSmurf 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable webpage Travelbird 11:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB. --Porqin 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm with Porqin. The article could also be used for more notable items that were part of the Digimon universe. - NickSentowski 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete per nom. -- Steel 23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, a league (?), no Google hits Travelbird 11:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notable, only 10 total google hits, some to this page. --Porqin 12:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete as per nom, not sure it even exists... Andymarczak 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The League existed from 1970-1971 in England. I know its pre-google, but pre-google doesn't necessarily mean outside the realm of wikipedia. If you look at the (admittedly few) google references, they do provide a bit of information, and I've tried to fill it in to the article. Anyway, I'm voting keep for several reasons:
- 1. It was a professional league, even if only for a short while. It was also a professional league in England, the home of football and a major footballing nation by almost any criteria.
- 2. 1970 was a watershed year for sponsorship in football, with the introduction of 3 major sponsor events (Texaco Cup and Watney Cup being the others), and the Ford Sporting League was an important part of the trend. This needs to be filled in better in the article, and I don't quite have the resources to do it.
- 3. It had a unique and interesting scoring system, about which much could be written. Vickser 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Comments updated further: Vickser 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral It still seems that if the league was very influential, there would be more than 10 hits on google, as people would write about this league, regardless of when it was formed. If the scoring system, the ability to deduct points, is unique to football; then maybe the league is worth mentioning. --Porqin 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a potentially interesting article about a professional league involving well known teams. (A quick google search yields not only Oldham, but also Fulham- I'd certainly be interested in finding out which other teams participated.) I won't rehash the reasons Vickser has given, but I strongly agree with all of them, particularly the interest generated by the unique scoring system- are there any other tournaments in football where scoring was directly influenced by sportsmanship? True, the competition was short lived, but so was the Super Cup, and that (rightly) has an article. I'll admit, I hadn't heard of this competition before looking at this article- but that just shows one of the great things about wikipedia, the potential for learning about interesting things, just like this.--Robotforaday 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as an aside to the above, the Oldham Athletic: Complete Record 1899-1988 by Garth Dykes might have results in the Ford sporting league (which would hopefully at least tell us just who participated), with possibly a final league table. Could be worth a look before deleting. I will get it out of my university library in a few days.--Robotforaday 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the teams playing will effect some votes, so it's worth noting that Colchester United, currently playing in the Championship, also participated in the league. So far they, Fulham and Oldham Ath are the only ones I've found, but I'll also be doing some more research. Vickser 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a pro league and with more work it could be a very interesting article. Slumgum T. C. 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
essay/email, orginal research/not encyclopedic Travelbird 11:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for not conforming to any of the standards that Wikipedia sets, except maybe a number of (unwikied) references. --Thorne N. Melcher 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, etc., etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an article that quotes the body of a spam email. --Xrblsnggt 03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed much of this article as a copyvio, and now what is left doesn't seem close to passing WP:CORP. It was prodded previously which was removed without comment. Kevin 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:CORP. --Porqin 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's a small cafe Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's fairly notable here in New Orleans as a restaurant that is essentially a nonprofit for training disadvantaged kids to work in the food industry. Will try to add to the article. NawlinWiki 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nice cafe and a noble cause. Unfortunately does not meet WP:CORP. No assertion of notability in any of the article versions - Peripitus (Talk) 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blatant advertising Travelbird 11:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom as well as problems with the article being non-encyclopediac. --Thorne N. Melcher 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blatant advertising Travelbird 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Appears to be vanity too. --Porqin 12:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam, snake-oil peddler etc. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Edit I would remove the last paragraph/line. It is a legitimate piece of trading software, but the text reads like an advert. Daviegold 15:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Legitimate, maybe. Notable, no. --Xrblsnggt 03:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
another advert Travelbird 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is a vanity article, also non-notable. --Porqin 12:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ad for non-notable company Dlyons493 Talk 12:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. Accurizer 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Terrible, should have been speedy delete. Jimbo68 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam and vanity article. --Ageo020 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 03:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
advertising Travelbird 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Visitor ar welcome pretty much says it all. Ad! Dlyons493 Talk 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not to mention "free trial available, low rate" NawlinWiki 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 03:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. --JoanneB 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This band does not meet the criteria on WP:MUSIC-- JoanneB 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." This band has released four, and appears to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. They gather about 86,000 google hits, and currently have albums selling here. --Porqin 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, you're right, I misjudged their record label and made a serious mistake while googling. My mistake. Closing as speedy keep, let's move on :) --JoanneB 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The latest version of www.xentash.com, has 85 members as of July 21. The designer of Xentash hopes to have 100 members by July 27. And WP:NOT the way to achieve that. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB. --Porqin 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoping to have 100 members? Let's just say World of Warcraft doesn't have much to worry about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the huge issue is, I'm not using Wikipedia to get members, as a matter of fact, only around 2 members have come from Wikipedia. Please don't delete this, it isn't intended as an advertisment.
It's non-notable, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
![]() | 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Online game launched in May this year. No evidence of number of players, innovation, significance, external coverage, etc. No sign of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Porqin 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB --Peephole 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Highway Return to Oz... 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The game is a browser based game and should not have to adhere to WP:SOFTWARE
- Comment: If it does not fall under WP:SOFTWARE then it falls under the WP:WEB guideline. Which requires the content of the website to be "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --Peephole 17:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should point out that WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, not policy, and hence not viable as the sole criteria for deletion. --Keolah 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well then WP:WEB has good criteria which this article fails to meet. --Peephole 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's two published works whose source is independent of the site itself, whether or not their non-trivial could possibly be debated. Gamechew Staff Weblog entry and a short Poe News entry --Meirleach 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A blog and a user submitted news article to a questionable site still isn't much more than scraps. See WP:RS for more on reliable sources.--Peephole 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's two published works whose source is independent of the site itself, whether or not their non-trivial could possibly be debated. Gamechew Staff Weblog entry and a short Poe News entry --Meirleach 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well then WP:WEB has good criteria which this article fails to meet. --Peephole 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should point out that WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, not policy, and hence not viable as the sole criteria for deletion. --Keolah 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it does not fall under WP:SOFTWARE then it falls under the WP:WEB guideline. Which requires the content of the website to be "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --Peephole 17:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - People are far too eager to sling around "non-notable", when you've got articles on quite a large number of more "non-notable" topics. Nexus War is extremely innovative for a browser-based game and has gained a large number of players in a very short period of time, and will only continue to do so. --Keolah 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nexus War has gathered a lot of players already, and the community is still growing swiftly. The game is very entertaining, and are actually better than some browser games that I know of. There's little doubt that it would be swarmed by browser-based MMOG fans. --Kamalia Timandre 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How about you do some research instead of just saying Delete as norm for everything. Its a very active community with about 8000 users so far and its only just gone into Beta. --Rogue
- Comment: If this can be verified, wouldn't this tend to make the article notable? I don't know what a large player base for a beta is, but this sounds like a significant number. If so, certainly criteria according to WP:WEB will follow; should we delete the article until then, or try to stay ahead of the curve and keep developing the article, since it's already been started? B7T 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article as it stands is at worst a badly written stub on a worthy topic. I hardly find that reason for deletion. Aren't we here to improve these articles rather than get rid of them? B7T 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a fairley new game and thus dosn't have much wrote on it yet, I've been looking through the other browser based games edit history and most of them started off with even less information than this, if the lack of statistical information bothers you that much, then go find it out and add it to the article. --Meirleach 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Feel free to propose those articles for deletion as well if they haven't asserted notability. But this afd deals with this article not those others. So please provide valid reasons to keep this article. Has it received any significant coverage? Is the game notable? Is the game innovative? Has the developer created any previous notable games? ... --Peephole 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're missing my point, look at say one of the earlier Urban Dead edits - here Its tiny, not very well written and contains very little information, now look at the current page Urban Dead it contains information on the player base, how many active accounts their are, and several of the interesting game mechanics. My point is that articals don't start off perfect, most of them start off as small poor quality stubs and are expanded upon by interested wikipaedians, they need time to grow. Go back to the earliest version of most articles in browser based games and you will see exactly the same thing. --Meirleach 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Meirleach makes a good point. It's disappointing to me when there is the appearance of being automatically dismissive of an article whose merits may not be immediately apparent. Peephole, your questions are worthy of consideration, but they are subjective: What makes a game notable or innovative? Whose coverage sets the standard for noteworthiness? And a developer's first game could indeed be noteworthy, so precedent needn't be an issue. B7T 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This afd isn't specifically based on the contents of the article but on whether the subject deserves a wikipedia article or not. My questions were indeed very subjective and that is why the subject needs independent, external and reliable coverage, which doesn't seem to exist at the moment. So the article should be deleted. If the subject is truly notable and worthy of an article, then it will eventually be treated by a reliable source and then the article can be recreated. --Peephole 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regarding re-creation of the article, see my comment under Rogue's above. And my questions were not rhetorical: What criteria define notability or innovation? Where, specifically, should we be looking for worthy coverage? I generally get my own initial information through the less significant sources like blogs and forums, and look to Wikipedia itself as one of the significant sources. B7T 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See WP:RS for more on reliable sources. --Peephole 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regarding re-creation of the article, see my comment under Rogue's above. And my questions were not rhetorical: What criteria define notability or innovation? Where, specifically, should we be looking for worthy coverage? I generally get my own initial information through the less significant sources like blogs and forums, and look to Wikipedia itself as one of the significant sources. B7T 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This afd isn't specifically based on the contents of the article but on whether the subject deserves a wikipedia article or not. My questions were indeed very subjective and that is why the subject needs independent, external and reliable coverage, which doesn't seem to exist at the moment. So the article should be deleted. If the subject is truly notable and worthy of an article, then it will eventually be treated by a reliable source and then the article can be recreated. --Peephole 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Meirleach makes a good point. It's disappointing to me when there is the appearance of being automatically dismissive of an article whose merits may not be immediately apparent. Peephole, your questions are worthy of consideration, but they are subjective: What makes a game notable or innovative? Whose coverage sets the standard for noteworthiness? And a developer's first game could indeed be noteworthy, so precedent needn't be an issue. B7T 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're missing my point, look at say one of the earlier Urban Dead edits - here Its tiny, not very well written and contains very little information, now look at the current page Urban Dead it contains information on the player base, how many active accounts their are, and several of the interesting game mechanics. My point is that articals don't start off perfect, most of them start off as small poor quality stubs and are expanded upon by interested wikipaedians, they need time to grow. Go back to the earliest version of most articles in browser based games and you will see exactly the same thing. --Meirleach 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Feel free to propose those articles for deletion as well if they haven't asserted notability. But this afd deals with this article not those others. So please provide valid reasons to keep this article. Has it received any significant coverage? Is the game notable? Is the game innovative? Has the developer created any previous notable games? ... --Peephole 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, sockpuppet-supported. Fails both WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NN= not negotiable? This AFD has only been around for 3 days, according to wiki policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy this is a public debate that lasts for 5 days, I also dislike the implication that I and several other 'keep' participents are sock puppets, we have all made valid comments and its unfair to just dismiss us on the suspicion of being sock puppets. On another note there is a general consensus that the article does in fact lack information and could be a lot better, if you look here in the deletion policy page Problem articles where deletion may not be needed You will see that articles that lack information or need alot of improvement should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention not deleted.
- Comment: NN=Not Notable. Also, as I've said before the discussion is mainly on whether the topic deserves an article at all. --Peephole 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And as I have said before, most of the other articles in browser based games started off in nearly exactly the same condition, why weren't they all deleted? If this browser based game isn't deserving of an article why are the rest of them? Almost all of us have agreed that the article needs work, and if you look at the earliest versions of just about any of the browser based games most of them weren't 'notable' either, but they were given a chance and some time and they grew into 'notable' articles. --Meirleach 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nobody said anything of those other browser games deserving an article. If you think they do not deserve an article, feel free to put them up for deletion as well. But this discussion should be on this articles merits, not those others. Oh and the problem isn't that this wikipedia article isn't notable but the subject (the game) has no notability and thus doesn't adhere to WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The games only been in beta for 3 months and already has 8000 players and as for innovation, most browser based MMORPGs seem to either focus on running a big empire(Dark Throne, battlemaster) or running your character around levelling up killing things (Shartak, UrbanDead and Runescape), Nexus War is a very interesting fusion of the two due to the faction system.
- Comment: Nobody said anything of those other browser games deserving an article. If you think they do not deserve an article, feel free to put them up for deletion as well. But this discussion should be on this articles merits, not those others. Oh and the problem isn't that this wikipedia article isn't notable but the subject (the game) has no notability and thus doesn't adhere to WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And as I have said before, most of the other articles in browser based games started off in nearly exactly the same condition, why weren't they all deleted? If this browser based game isn't deserving of an article why are the rest of them? Almost all of us have agreed that the article needs work, and if you look at the earliest versions of just about any of the browser based games most of them weren't 'notable' either, but they were given a chance and some time and they grew into 'notable' articles. --Meirleach 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: NN=Not Notable. Also, as I've said before the discussion is mainly on whether the topic deserves an article at all. --Peephole 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NN= not negotiable? This AFD has only been around for 3 days, according to wiki policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy this is a public debate that lasts for 5 days, I also dislike the implication that I and several other 'keep' participents are sock puppets, we have all made valid comments and its unfair to just dismiss us on the suspicion of being sock puppets. On another note there is a general consensus that the article does in fact lack information and could be a lot better, if you look here in the deletion policy page Problem articles where deletion may not be needed You will see that articles that lack information or need alot of improvement should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention not deleted.
- It has the more normal RPG elements, like finding weapons, gaining experience and levelling up, buy skills and all the usual RPG fair, but it also contains elements of the more strategic RPGs, you have to keep your weapon stocks up, so your faction members actually have stuff to attack with, you can hold areas by building barricades, make your faction bonuses stronger by infusing squares on the map.
- But unlike games like DarkThrone you don't do this by yourself, due to the games design its impossible, so if you want lots of faction bonuses, you have to organise the other players to infuse, if you want to attack someone you can't just click on their name and obliterate them, you have to find willing players in your faction and co-ordinate them, you want tons of guns and ammo, you have to keep players with crafting skills supplied or even forget that bit and make an alliance with another faction where they supply you with weapons in exchange for protection.
- Its a browser based game that *encourages* interacting with the other players on a level I have yet to see in any other browser based game, having said that you can play on your own, thereýs nothing stopping you, but its a much less filling experience.
- Now that all looks like a lot of gushing POV hyperbole, and of course there are things that annoy me in the game too, but the games faction system is very innovative. On --Meirleach 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:That's great, but is there a reliable source to back that claims up? --Peephole 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And therin lies the problem with browser based games, most accepted by the wiki reliable sources dont review browser based games, its very unlikey that you'll find a review of Nexus War in a newspaper or gaming magazine, WP:SOFTWARE has "The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer." You will be hard pushed to find a reliable source for any browser based game, due to their nature they don't fit properly in WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB, the two articles I linked above dont meet those two, which by the way are not policies, only guidelines, guidelines which due to the nature of browser based games, don't apply to them very well.
- Comment: Those same arguments were used for webcomics and internet memes. Until it was discovered that notable memes or webcmics ones were actually covered by reliable sources. If the webgame really was truly notable, it would have been covered. --Peephole 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So what would be a "reliable source" for browser-based games? I have yet to see the name of a publication, or a link. I'm not sure one exists. B7T 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A newspaper or a gamingmagazine would be most likely to cover this subject and would be a reliable source. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're being a bit disingenuous. Browser-based games aren't typically covered by mainstream press, nor do I expect them to be. This doesn't make a particular game any less notable -- although perhaps it makes it less likely that you will have heard of it, which I suspect is the real issue here. As far as verifiability goes, I agree that it would be better for there to be abundant coverage by mainstream media sources, but the fact that this is a web-based game puts us in the unique position of being able to actually click on the link and see it with your own eyeballs. Would you argue that items such as the W3c article shouldn't be on Wikipedia? -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They're not typically covered, because...they're not typically notable. W3c definatly belongs on wikipedia and guess what, it is extensivly covered by reliable sources. No one is contesting Nexus War doesn't exist but wikipedia just isn't a collection of links. So the sites that have an article should be notable sites. And Nexus War doesn't seem to have an exceptional number of users, it barely has any google hits, alexa barely notes any traffic and there are no reliable external sources covering it, so I don't see how it is notable.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Equating Alexa traffic to notability is a spurious argument. I regularly visit a site that is way further down on Alexa's ranking, and it's garnered notice on a nationally televised newsmagazine, as well as several magazine articles internationally. B7T 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree, I just think Alexa can give some indication whether a site is popular and thus can be considered notable. --Peephole 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We obviously disagree on the definition of "popular". I'd argue that thousands of active users of a browser-based game is incredibly popular. -grummerx 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I mention elsewhere below, WP:SET states: "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites" --grummerx 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please read my comment again and notice that I wasn't addressing the W3c's notability, but rather its verifiability. The extensive coverage you speak of is not what forms the verifiability of the W3c article. The key facts in the article can be gleaned from links to the W3c itself. -grummerx 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They're not typically covered, because...they're not typically notable. W3c definatly belongs on wikipedia and guess what, it is extensivly covered by reliable sources. No one is contesting Nexus War doesn't exist but wikipedia just isn't a collection of links. So the sites that have an article should be notable sites. And Nexus War doesn't seem to have an exceptional number of users, it barely has any google hits, alexa barely notes any traffic and there are no reliable external sources covering it, so I don't see how it is notable.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're being a bit disingenuous. Browser-based games aren't typically covered by mainstream press, nor do I expect them to be. This doesn't make a particular game any less notable -- although perhaps it makes it less likely that you will have heard of it, which I suspect is the real issue here. As far as verifiability goes, I agree that it would be better for there to be abundant coverage by mainstream media sources, but the fact that this is a web-based game puts us in the unique position of being able to actually click on the link and see it with your own eyeballs. Would you argue that items such as the W3c article shouldn't be on Wikipedia? -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A newspaper or a gamingmagazine would be most likely to cover this subject and would be a reliable source. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So what would be a "reliable source" for browser-based games? I have yet to see the name of a publication, or a link. I'm not sure one exists. B7T 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those same arguments were used for webcomics and internet memes. Until it was discovered that notable memes or webcmics ones were actually covered by reliable sources. If the webgame really was truly notable, it would have been covered. --Peephole 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And therin lies the problem with browser based games, most accepted by the wiki reliable sources dont review browser based games, its very unlikey that you'll find a review of Nexus War in a newspaper or gaming magazine, WP:SOFTWARE has "The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer." You will be hard pushed to find a reliable source for any browser based game, due to their nature they don't fit properly in WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB, the two articles I linked above dont meet those two, which by the way are not policies, only guidelines, guidelines which due to the nature of browser based games, don't apply to them very well.
- Comment:That's great, but is there a reliable source to back that claims up? --Peephole 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sockpuppet? I think you've gotten your definitions mixed up, here. A sockpuppet is one user using multiple accounts to "vote" on something. That is not at all the case here. :P Someone with few edits on this wiki is not, by definition, a sockpuppet. Players of the game coming on to support it does not make them sockpuppets, you know. You may not think their words carry much weight, but that does not make them "sockpuppets". Or do you really think that that game has only one player? :P --Keolah 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE and it just came out in May so it doesn't really pass WP:NN either. Whispering 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NN is not wiki policy or even a guideline, its just an essay, read the top of the WP:NN page. --Meirleach 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If anything, this article is a candidate to be added to Pages needing attention, not for outright deletion. To those voting "delete", I'd encourage you to read the actual Deletion_policy linked in the template at the top of the page. Note that although items such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are addressed, notability is not. Notability is not a universally accepted criteria on Wikipedia and does not appear anywhere in the official deletion policy.
- The deletion in question is being proposed for failing to meet such criteria as WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB, and WP:NN. None of these are actual criteria for deletion, but rather suggested guidelines. If we're bandying about proposed guidelines and essays, then I'd like to throw WP:NNOT into the mix. grummerx 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The game currently has 15760 players, and unlike UD which spawned NW, people are only allowed one account each on pain of banning. Surely that's enough people caring about and putting time and effort into the game for it to have an article?--Mobius Soul 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That amount of players apparantely isn't large enough to ensure coverage by any major news outlet or other reliable source. So why should wikipedia keep an article on the subject?--Peephole 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The question isn't "why should we keep it", but rather "why should we delete it?" The onus is on you to provide a satisfactory reason for deletion, which as far as I can see you have yet to do. The only criteria for deletion that I have yet to see comes entirely from proposed guidelines, and the assertion of "notability" itself can be seen to be NPOV. While your point of view is that a browser-based game is "not notable", from the point of view of thousands of very active players, it is quite notable. The notability article itself states under the "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" section that "'Non-notable' is generally a non-NPOV designation."
- Comment: From WP:V: "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." My point of view isn't that a browser-based game isn't notable, it is that this particular browser-based game isn't notable. And indeed notability is a point of view, that's why we need reliable, verifable and independent sources and that's also why there are guidelines for notability like WP:WEB and the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And that's also why we have guidelines like WP:UCS. Using a little common sense should make it abundantly clear that Nexus War can't really be shoe-horned into WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. From a notability aspect, common sense would dictate that a browser-based game capable of attracting thousands of very active users in a reasonably short time and which has hundreds of users online playing at any hour of the day or night is indeed quite notable. Remember that the "thousands of users" I refer to isn't the same as a website which receives thousands of visits a day -- these are actual users who come back to the game multiple times per day as opposed to casual viewers who may just glance at a web page before moving along. -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You claim that a couple thousand players is a high number and thus notable. Yet, I'm not convinced it is a high number. That is why we need reliable external sources to determine the game's notability.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I again direct you to use common sense rather than use the "it's not important to me, therefore it's not important" guideline. I note from your recent edits that you seem to have a bit of a vendetta against browser-based games, even going so far as to contest the notability of Urban Dead which by any measure of common sense is quite notable. Or perhaps you'd care to point me to another browser-based game that has had thousands of active players in the last hour alone? -grummerx 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I slapped a notability on the Urban Dead article in hopes of someone finding sources. But anyways I googled a second time for them myself and hey, I found some. Not the best ones but apparantely browser games do get some coverage. Can you find any sources for Nexus War?--Peephole 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I again direct you to use common sense rather than use the "it's not important to me, therefore it's not important" guideline. I note from your recent edits that you seem to have a bit of a vendetta against browser-based games, even going so far as to contest the notability of Urban Dead which by any measure of common sense is quite notable. Or perhaps you'd care to point me to another browser-based game that has had thousands of active players in the last hour alone? -grummerx 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You claim that a couple thousand players is a high number and thus notable. Yet, I'm not convinced it is a high number. That is why we need reliable external sources to determine the game's notability.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And that's also why we have guidelines like WP:UCS. Using a little common sense should make it abundantly clear that Nexus War can't really be shoe-horned into WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. From a notability aspect, common sense would dictate that a browser-based game capable of attracting thousands of very active users in a reasonably short time and which has hundreds of users online playing at any hour of the day or night is indeed quite notable. Remember that the "thousands of users" I refer to isn't the same as a website which receives thousands of visits a day -- these are actual users who come back to the game multiple times per day as opposed to casual viewers who may just glance at a web page before moving along. -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That amount of players apparantely isn't large enough to ensure coverage by any major news outlet or other reliable source. So why should wikipedia keep an article on the subject?--Peephole 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My general sense of this AFD is that of "here's a topic which doesn't interest me personally, let's throw as many proposed guidelines at it as possible and see if one sticks." -grummerx 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)$[reply]
- Comment: WP:WEB is not a proposed guideline. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And it doesn't really seem to apply in the sense in which you're trying to use it. See my comments above regarding WP:UCS -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See also my comments on the AfD for Pardus (game) regarding the applicability of WP:WEB to games such as this. --grummerx 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:WEB is not a proposed guideline. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My general sense of this AFD is that of "here's a topic which doesn't interest me personally, let's throw as many proposed guidelines at it as possible and see if one sticks." -grummerx 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)$[reply]
- Keep - As a moderator for NexusWar and a player of UrbanDead, I find the claims of sockpuppetry offensive. Keolah is a distinct individual, and also a moderator, as is Meirleach. The current amount of players totals approximately 7500, rather than the 15000 stated by Mobius Soul, but nevertheless, it is still not an insignificant number. Technically, it doesn't meet the WP:WEB requirements. I will freely admit that. Fortunately for Nexus War, WP:WEB is a page that gives some rough guidelines. -Wyndallin 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Way too new for being notable. The sockpuppetry in progress reminds me of the horrors of Lentil (slur)'s AFD last week. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Provide evidence of sockpuppetry, thank you very much. I've linked to my existence on other wikis. After review of the sockpuppet page, at worst, this is meatpuppetry. -Wyndallin 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In all of the "proposed guidelines" being thrown about here, I have been unable to find reference to age being the measure of notability. -grummerx 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agreed, can we either substantiate the "sock-puppet" claims or just knock it off? Icewolf34 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am a (casual) player of said game. Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's non-noteworthy. No sock-puppets here, either. Zarggg 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: I've never played the game, but I'd rather be able to look it up on Wikipedia should I so desire than, say, a high school. And each of those NN buggers has its own article. Icewolf34 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This may be a "weak" keep, but it's one of the strongest arguments I know of for keeping this article. Bear in mind that Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia and there's no real reason to delete an article that obviously has some genuine interest. Again, the common theme from many of those proposing deletion seems to stem from the fact that this is a game that they've never heard of. I'd argue that this is actually a great reason to keep the article -- I find myself using Wikipedia to look up items about which I know little or nothing far more often than subjects about which I'm well-versed. -grummerx 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Too new and not notable. To all for/against this delete - We all agree that in its current state it is nothing but an uninformative stub. If this game is truly notable, it'll eventually be covered or sprout a more extensive piece of writing. No point arguing over a stub. Delete for now and wait to see if the game swim or sink. Remiraz 09:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Without getting into an argument over whether gaming press coverage is necessary / sufficient for notability, I'd like to point out the game's virtues. To my knowledge, persistent-world 100-way capture the flag hasn't been done before. The game mechanics blend LoRD and TW:2K2 in a way that is, in my estimation, fundamentally new. Other MMO's have done roleplaying and PvP, but long-campaign strategy (and the community it begets) is the emerging paradigm in the genre. This game does it better than its browser-based cousins, not to mention the most popular game in the world. It's like somebody fused Axis & Allies with Dungeons & Dragons and then connected your kitchen table to every other house in the neighborhood.
This goes a long way to explain why Something Awful, Genmay, Penny Arcade and other (wikiworthy) forums have a significant Nexus presence. I have to think it's the article's style, and not the game's merit or notoriety, driving the removal votes. Parent says as much. Mockturtl 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Hi, I've contributed a great deal to this page (though as an exopedian it's not that obvious), and I'd like to vote keep because I believe the reasons for deletion don't fit in this case. It certainly doesn't fit WP:WEB as a browser based game, and it is notable regardless of its coverage in the press purely because of the sheer amount of players. If you're worried about the content on the page being lacking, I promise and doubtless others will also endeavour to improve the page further. This seems to me largely a "I haven't heard of this, so let's delete it" AFD, which does not accord with deletion policy. --84.67.51.36 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep- When I look at the article I can see where it can be improved. I know as a player of Nexus War that maybe the article in question should be declared a Snub until it gets expanded. The information there is all correct, and compared to Urban Dead, the game that spawned Nexus War, Nexus War has the potential to grow past UD (Urban Dead). To me, the article is not about how much publicity the game actually gets, it's about having information out there. Information is the real meaning Wikipedia was created. Nexus War is complex enough to warrant having an article. I agree that the current article is lacking. But improvement is a much better than deletion. So I stand that it should be kept and improved. This sin't some Unclyclopedia article on bungee jumping, it's an article about a real thing.I'm certain there are people in the NW community who would be willing to improve the article. Infested-jerk 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Having read many "keep" requests across this page, this is more of a comment to all of you. The issue here is not if the page can be proven worthy of deletion, but if it can be proven worthy of keeping. Despite what many of you seem to think, WP:WEB is, in fact, a criteria and NOT a guideline. As, quite truthfully, Nexus War is not the subject of any reliable publications. Also, from WP:NOT: "Internet guides - Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." This is more an introduction to the game than anything else, and has nothing like dates of the beginning/end of alpha, or beginning of Beta that an encyclopedia entry would have. The only information is a summary of the game and Jorm's name. However much I enjoy this game, I also recognize that this entry is not encyclopedic, has no statistical information, and, therefore, does not belong on Wikipedia. 19:59, 29 July, 2006
- Comment - Rather than just saying delete it all, why not tell us what you'd like to see on the page to make it more encyclopedic? What statistical information or other information would you like to see? Surely by answering these questions and helping other people to expand the article, this would help more than deleting the page outright. --84.64.13.108 00:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If there is an issue with the lack of encyclopedic information (and yes, I'm aware that that's not the only issue at hand here), then I would like to attempt to rectify that situation rather than delete the page outright. Give me a few days to see what sort of information I can grub up on the subject, and I'll see if I can at least alleviate the unencyclopedic concerns. Their user-base also seems to be growing at quite a clip (From playing the game, it appears that they generally have at least 200 players logged in at any given moment, and this seems to be increasing rather than dropping), though I don't have reliable figures for the true user-base figures. -- Kirby1024 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The userbase numbers are posted to a restricted section of our forums, but I've already stated them earlier on in my keep vote. They're as current as that comment. Anyways, if you need or want more information, and you use IRC, please, come to #nexus on irc.zirc.net and speak with jorm, myself, or any of us. Your best bet would probably be to PM Keolah, Maggah, Meirleach, or myself (Wyn). We'd be more than happy to answer any questions you need, and our own wiki can provide you with a great deal of information. -Wyndallin 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are thousands of people registered, with over 100 players online at any given time. As mentioned before, popular forums such as Penny Arcade and Something Awful have large in-game factions.
- From what I've seen, the game is much more innovative then Urban Dead because it forces the player to specialize their characters to remain effective in their preferred task as they level up. This in turn makes it very beneficial to join a faction, as the skills of each faction member complement each other. As mentioned before, it really does boil down to a 100-way game of capture the flag. Large 40 man raids comparable to those in World of Warcraft are not uncommon.
- This may be a somewhat weaker argument, but the game only went public near the end of May. For a new non-commercial game made by an formally unknown developer to gain such a large player-base in only three months is amazing. I don't really see the point of deleting, since the number of players will only continue to grow and even if the game is not notable now by the official guidelines, it will be soon. --James 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I would assume the three main points being argued are:
- 1. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:SOFTWARE?
- 2. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:WEB?
- 3. If none of the above, is it notable?
- I would argue that NW does not fall under either WP:SOFTWARE (as it is not a "software application", and in a category of games that is generally overlooked completely by ANY mainstream media. Whether it falls under WP:WEB is debatable, but it doesn't really seem to apply in this case. In addition, while I have participated in a good many AfDs that allege "WP:NOT a crystal ball", at this point it doesn't need to be. The site has thousands of unique users, with hundreds on at any given time. In addition, Urban Dead has an article as well. It is slightly fallacious to argue that it is not notable at this point by people arguing for a "Keep" as as stated above, Wiki is NOT a crystal ball. But I feel the article is notable. Cleanup it may need, but that's not a reason to delete it either. Tokakeke 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is non-notable, there is no way to "make" a subject notable. Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise or establish noteriety. Ifnord 05:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- But is is a place to learn about things. So tell me. Does the article act as a public relations ploy or does it actualy give out information? I feel it's the latter. The article in question really doesn't show vanity and it certainly isn't just a propaganda or advertising platform.
- Keep-I'm well aware that people not familiar with NW are having to take the word of the players for it, but as someone who has personally watched the growth in playerbase from day one of beta, and before, I can say that if this is deleted now, because it is not "notable" enough, it'll only have to be restored later when everyone is convinced it is "notable" --Lancensis 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Judging by the comments here and the size of the community behind the game, it rides on the cusp of the "notable" definition, such that its notable status currently depends on how one defines notability. So at the current moment call the situation balanced. But since it shows signs of increasing membership, I think we'll have to nudge it in the direction of "notable". Or, if not that, we'll have to look at some clearer criteria. But I think that the continued existence of the Urban Dead page at least invalidates the requirement for "respectable sources" coverage, because as far as I know there is no substantial coverage of that game in any respectable source. (There may be a one-sentence throw-away reference somewhere, but such a reference really establishes nothing that can't be better established in other ways: e.g., visiting the listed URL.) Joshua Nicholson 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Urban Dead entry clearly cites three reliable mainstream sources. It also had a full-page article in print magazine PC Gamer last year. --Grole 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- As per
[BattleMaster][Battlemaster] 68.146.221.26 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Many of the delete votes note that the article does not have properly "encyclopedic" information like player numbers, start of alpha, et cetera. I'm more of a Wikipedia reader than contributor, but it's my understanding that one of the main purposes of using the wiki format is to permit members to improve articles themselves rather than requiring them to be discarded. "It's not good now, so let's not give it a chance to become so" is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Speaking as someone who plays this game and is an enthusiast of games and browser games in general, I can attest that the growth in player numbers in Nexus War has been nothing short of astonishing and, if anything, appears to be accelerating. The design innovations it has introduced are remarkable as well. Finally, for those arguing that this can't possibly be noteworthy because it hasn't been covered by the press or other "reputable" sources, it's worth noting that internet phenomena in general tend to be poorly covered. The next mention I see of Slashdot in the mainstream press will be the first (not saying there haven't been any, just that I haven't seen them), and I'm a certified news junkie. --McSnatherson 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Fans of the game, please do not argue against deletion using reasons below.
1) This game has a huge player/fan base : Please do not quote large number of players unless you can prove it. I investigated into this matter and found out that there are only around 150 "characters" online at any one time. It is hard to see how there could be even 1000 "active" unique players in the game based on this data. (note: 1 unique player can own multiple "characters" in the game)
2) This game is "better than" another game : Please refrain from citing reasons like "this game is better than World of Warcraft" or the more general "this game is good/fun". All these are POV opinions and not facts. Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions.
3) Using other wiki articles as examples : This discussion is about this article only. If you feel that there are existing wiki articles that "deserves to be deleted more" then feel free to nominate them for deletion on their respective pages. The existance of other articles is not an excuse to keep this one.
If this game indeed have a huge player base and thought to be good (or better than mainstream commercial MMORPGs like some claimed) then it'll eventually earn coverage and become notable. From what I understand, this game was heavily inspired by Urban Dead which earned itself three citation from notable sources. Remiraz 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's an AP based game. For the most part, characters are only logged in for 5-10 minutes at a time to spend their AP. That does not mean that there "must be" fewer players than was stated. The data on the number of players came from the game admin himself. Also, I would like to point out to you the most similar games to Nexus War, Category:MU*_games, many of which have far fewer players than NW does. And I will state again that "notability" is not a viable criteria for deletion and never has been, in spite of what some people like to insist. --Keolah 06:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not a fan; I'm a moderator on the wiki associated with the game, and also a playtester. Brandon Harris is the game creator, and is therefore on the shortlist of people who actually have access to the programming and the database, and he has a habit of posting current stats in the playtesters' forum. I have access to current numbers, but only secondhand. I posted them straight from Mr. Harris' post in the forums. If you wish, I could get screencaptures of the forum posts - but somehow, I think you wouldn't accept them as proof, either. Also, please keep in mind that any one player can only have three characters unless they donate to the game or were present in the Alpha phase, and therefore if you divide the total number of characters by three, you're likely to find a relatively accurate number of accounts with the game. Research, research, research! -Wyndallin 10:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First of all I tried the game and know that it definately takes more than 5-10 minutes to spend all APs from full. Second, the only way to log into the game is through its website: if there are more than 8000 active unique players logging into the game twice or more everyday shouldn't there be a lot more traffic than those shown on Alexa? Finally, the existence of other similar wikipages has never been a deterrence from deletion. If you feel that those pages deserve to be deleted, please nominate them for delete. Otherwise, they have nothing to do with whether this wikipage stays or go. Remiraz 10:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't expect you to believe that this screencap is authentic, as per my earlier comment, but here is a capture of the most recent data that I have access to with regards to account information. Whether you choose to believe it is authentic or not is immaterial. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Ladayna/proof.gif -Wyndallin 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's the total number to have signed up in the game's history, rather than the total playing every day? --Grole 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is the current number of undeleted accounts, this is true. Regardless, 'playing every day' is misleading. Some people play day-to-day. I certainly don't play every day. With ten characters, I don't have the time or the inclination to play them all every day. I'll try and find out the number of accounts with at least one active character. -Wyndallin 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are inactive accounts included in that number? I know the game keeps track of who is active and who is not, as you can find factions filled with grey 'inactive' names. --James 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is the current number of undeleted accounts, this is true. Regardless, 'playing every day' is misleading. Some people play day-to-day. I certainly don't play every day. With ten characters, I don't have the time or the inclination to play them all every day. I'll try and find out the number of accounts with at least one active character. -Wyndallin 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's the total number to have signed up in the game's history, rather than the total playing every day? --Grole 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is good reason why Alexa is not an acceptable measure of a site's "notability". Alexa's traffic ratings only indicate how many people using Alexa's toolbar are using a site, which is extremely subjective and most people don't even use Alexa's crap. Plus there's been some talk of Alexa's ratings being compromised by people intentionally trying to boost their ratings on it. (The same can be said of Google to some extent, but Google tends to be more widely used.) Alexa was rejected as a method to determine "notability". --Keolah 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't expect you to believe that this screencap is authentic, as per my earlier comment, but here is a capture of the most recent data that I have access to with regards to account information. Whether you choose to believe it is authentic or not is immaterial. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Ladayna/proof.gif -Wyndallin 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First of all I tried the game and know that it definately takes more than 5-10 minutes to spend all APs from full. Second, the only way to log into the game is through its website: if there are more than 8000 active unique players logging into the game twice or more everyday shouldn't there be a lot more traffic than those shown on Alexa? Finally, the existence of other similar wikipages has never been a deterrence from deletion. If you feel that those pages deserve to be deleted, please nominate them for delete. Otherwise, they have nothing to do with whether this wikipage stays or go. Remiraz 10:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again the argument devolves into dubious claims of "non-notability". Allow me to address your points individually, Remiraz:
- 1) Re: player base: While I sincerely appreciate your effort to actually investigate the item in question, it would be nice if you'd also make an effort to understand how the mechanics of the game affect the number of concurrent users at any one time. In short, the AP mechanism means that users will typically only be online twice a day, and only for a few minutes at a time -- this happens to be directly mentioned in the article itself and should be apparent from a quick perusal of the game. The number of concurrent users you quote (150) is quite large when considered in this light.
- 2) Re: Comparisons to other games: Agreed. NPOV statements and comparisons to other games do not belong in this discussion. However, this same standard should also apply to NPOV claims of "non-notability", e.g. claiming that a game can't be as good as others simply due to lack of mainstream media attention. To your assertion that "Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions" I counter that this is exactly what you are attempting to do.
- 3) Re: Using other wiki articles as examples: Agreed on the point of comparing this article to others that may or may not deserve deletion. However, pointing out articles which have set a precedent by surviving similar AfDs is entirely acceptable. The mention of BattleMaster above is indeed pertinent to this discussion as it has just survived an AfD proposed on the same grounds as that for Nexus War.
- I'd now like to add my own items to your list if I may, for the benefit of those championing deletion:
- 4) If you're going to question the size of the player-base, at least make a passing effort to understand the game mechanics. If I were to claim that chess is non-notable because I watched a game and never saw more than 2 players, I'd be betraying a flawed understanding of that game, and this instance is no different.
- 5) Don't resort to straw man arguments. When verifiability of an article is mentioned, don't couch your argument in terms of notability.
- 6) Don't use Alexa as a measuring stick (ever). To quote WP:SET: "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons." Ignoring Alexa results is especially important when measuring a game such as Nexus War or Urban Dead. Players of these types of game tend to favor Firefox since the game community releases Firefox extensions to aid gameplay, such as NWTool and the Nexus War Homing Beacon. Alexa, on the other hand, is compatible only within Internet Explorer and would therefore never register many, if not most, of the users.
- 1) It would be nice if the people who have access to the secret player stats told us how many people were actually active in the game.
- 2) Whether the game is as "better" than others is irrelevant. If someone claims the game is non-notable and that it must be a bad game, it's only the non-notable aspect that this AfD concerns itself with.
- 3) No, this is just as bad. Battlemaster and Shartak seem to have survived simply because nobody who agreed strongly with the AfD happened to read the page, and because somebody who disagreed with it decided to close it. A couple of articles sneaking through AfD doesn't mean they should be kept forever (articles often come up for deletion multiple times), and particularly not that all similar games should automatically be kept.
- 4) Again, it would be nice to actually see some figures about the number of players, and the number of retained and active players.
- 5) That's fair enough.
- 6) It might be erratic, but even if players of these games mostly use Firefox, Urban Dead has an Alexa ranking of 14,711, compared to Nexus War's 200,691.
- And to add my own:-
- 7) "I think this game might be notable one day" is an argument for deleting the article and recreating it if its subject becomes notable, rather than keeping it and waiting. (People should accept the possibility that this game may never become notable.) --Grole 03:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Agreed, these figures should be published. However, my comment was in response to Remiraz's own investigation of the game, wherein he was able to see that there were "around 150" characters active just at that moment in time. I was merely pointing out the fallacy in Remiraz's use of a flawed extrapolation of this number to claim that there couldn't be very many real players in the game.
- 2) Again, note that I agreed.
- 3) I do happen to agree with your points about the other AfDs not necessarily being set in stone, but must point out that doesn't preclude us from mentioning them. AfDs don't happen in a vacuum, and similar AfDs elsewhere on Wikipedia are most definitely valid points of discussion, whether or not you happen to agree with the outcome. We don't necessarily have to follow their precedent, but you can't just pretend those AfDs don't exist.
- 4) Agreed, see point 1.
- 5) ...
- 7) Perhaps. My contention though, is that Nexus War is notable now, or at the very least can't be shown as "non-notable" by any honestly applicable guideline. Please refer to my comments on the AfD for Pardus. To summarize:
- The only real notability guideline that has been claimed here is WP:WEB.
- WP:WEB was designed to weed out trivial, easily created, sites such as vanity pages and web comics.
- Nexus War and the other games in this category are not easily created, and do not easily attract a user-base of thousands.
- Applying WP:UCS and considering the spirit of the law makes it apparent that WP:WEB wasn't intended to weed out non-trivial creations such as these.
- There should perhaps be a notability guideline for these sorts of games, but until one exists it's better to err on the side of leniency rather than to delete legitimate information.
- -- grummerx 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 7) Perhaps. My contention though, is that Nexus War is notable now, or at the very least can't be shown as "non-notable" by any honestly applicable guideline. Please refer to my comments on the AfD for Pardus. To summarize:
- Delete Although I am not a gamer, I do enjoy Civilization and a few other simulations, but in my opinion games are not encyclopedic unless they are mega-notable. And Nexus has it's own WIKI: NexusWiki. Perhaps just keep the page with a link to Nexuswiki and then lock the page. --HResearcher 02:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Online game launched June 1 2006. No evidence of players, innovation, external coverage etc. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE, in other words, and lack of sources suggests WP:OR if not outright WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. A quick google turned up one article on Inside Mac Games and a few spam forum posts. It might be notable sometime in the future, but right now it isn't. The article reads a bit like an ad anyway, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaraidh-dobson (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. Valrith 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 19:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A game launched last Novemner and according to the article still in beta. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet criteria for WP:WEB. --Porqin 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perhaps doesn't meet the suitablity for "software", but almost none of the other entries on List of multiplayer browser games do either and they are not being considered for deletion. Let's at least be consistent - if you delete this one, delete all the other games also. --70.162.67.246 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've been putting up a lot of browser games up for deletion. But hey, let's keep this afd about this article, okay?--Peephole 16:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I too vote keep, as this software IS among the core products of a notable software developer.--130.108.115.65 13:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A notable software developer that doesn't have its own wikipedia article? --Peephole 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DS 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blatant advertising Travelbird 12:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom but wondering why this and the other seven articles here weren't prodded first.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Listerin 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These probably should have been marked with {{advert}} and {{prod}} instead, but at this point, we can kill it dead without much fear of controversy. -Harmil 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as recreation of content deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjabi Prison Match. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as repost, but (a) different content and (b) deleted by CSD G1 anyway, so bringing to AfD. At the very least the title needs changing. Wrestlecruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. --Porqin 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the speedy tagger. Appears to be made-up-cruft about the same match as the last one. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is a gimmick match to be held sometime this summer at a major WWE pay-per-view event but it's only a gimmick for one match so isn't notable unlike something that recurs like Hell in a Cell. MLA 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's even worth a merge or redirect to The Great Khali as that wrestler apparently didn't even appear in what was supposed to be his one-off signature gimmick match. MLA 08:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP If other gimmick matches get pages, why not this one? It will be used again. Please give this article some time to develop. - NickSentowski 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one-off gimmick. Can be recreated if it is used again repeatedly, or smerged into The Great Khali in the meanwhile. hateless 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.173.78 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 25 July 2006.
- STRONG KEEP As other gimmick matches are available here I see no reason why this shouldn't be on too even if it has only been used once. It won't do any harm to keep it. 195.92.168.169 08:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
looks like spam to me. Pap3rw8 12:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB, appears to be WP:VAIN, and is WP:SPAM. --Porqin 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not spam, this is an honest review. UniqueTigeress 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note- This user has 7 edits, 6 pertaining to this article and one in the sandbox
- Delete Wikipedia is not your personal blog to post product reviews. --Xrblsnggt 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It reads like an advertisement. Lurker 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:WEB. AdamBiswanger1 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for reviews. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above WP policy violations. This is Moneysavingexpert.com website. Take a look. Listerin 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per AdamBiswanger1 -Harmil 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Moneygrubbingadvertisingspam.com . NawlinWiki 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a review site. --DarkAudit 01:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SPAM --awh (Talk) 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a big ad. -Royalguard11Talk 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy as autobiography, which it is, but that's not a speedy criterion. Appears to violate WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. No sources. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Good luck to him, but the article barely asserts notability and is mostly unveriable. Half a dozen relevant google hits. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Landolitan 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity, and just so you know; vanity articles are candidates for speedy deletion. [34] Rob.derosa 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, being a member of youth parliament doesn't really meet WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity --Xrblsnggt 03:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, and I believe that this would qualify for speedy deletion. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A3 - no content other than a template. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
looks non-notable Nearly Headless Nick 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete This article contains a single box with nearly no information. --Porqin 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A1. --DarkAudit 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I'm going to speedy it as having no context. AdamBiswanger1 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Having a gallery of 'fair use' images is far from 'fair use', and possible copyvio too. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopdic gallery of fair use images. Delete. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a photo album. What little information there is could potentially be merged into the Formula Dé article. Srose (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I still think that given the subject, the page—as it was—was encyclopedic. Just like a book on Beanie-babies needs pictures to be usefull, a description of one of these circuits without at least a low-res picture is also difficult. (The actual boards are the size of a poster) I had originally intended to add more content—as I just have to section one, and will for the rest of the sections over the next week or so.
Especially with said content added, I believe this page meets Wikipedia’s criteria, and while it may deserve a cleanup tag of some sort, I do not believe it should be deleted. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete gamecruft. Maybe merge some excerpts and a picture or two to Formula Dé. Phr (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a couple of pics into F De. There's no real information in this article. If this was an encyclopedic De article, I'd definitely be looking to keep it but it isn't. MLA 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, merge some pictures into Formula Dé. Let the content (such as it is) die off; it's duplicated in Formula Dé's external links anyway. Percy Snoodle 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was one of the first I created here, and at the time I did not know images without text were generally against policy. When it was page-blanked in a recent edit, it showed up in my watch list, and I restored it as the first step in fixing it. Before I could do much else, it was listed for deletion.
It is very-much a work in progress at the moment, but there are things to say about each circuit that would be of interest to anyone reading up on the game. (Enough that it would clutter the main article) —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a couple of images into Formula Dé. I'm a fan of the game, but this is "detail only of interest to players of the game"; it doesn't add a proportionate amount of encyclopedic perspective about the game. The meat of this is already in the parent article, and doesn't need to be duplicated here. Barno 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this any different than the innumerable episode lists that Wikipedia has for TV shows? —MJBurrage • TALK • 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The TV irritainment programs have millions of repeat viewers, sometimes tens of millions. Formula Dé has a few thousand or at most a few ten-thousands of face-to-face players, and big multi-game tournaments might have a few dozen FD players. There might be a few thousand more players at online sites like BSW if they have FD. That big difference in broadness-of-influence is what hits Wikipedia standards; FD has narrower notability no matter whether it does much more to make people think and interact and make their own fun. Barno 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bad idea for an article. No fair-use galleries. Mangojuicetalk 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oghamura -wikipedia gives 103 Google hits, all of them due to someone using the word as their name on forums. "ogham ura" -wikipedia only gives three hits. Probably someone's personal artificial script, nn if it exists. ∅ (∅), 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I don't trust google for all purposes because many obscure matters such as this will not recieve many hits, I am compelled to take I do not exist's view that it is likely a personal script. AdamBiswanger1 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references, potentially WP:NOR; Doesn't make an assertion to notability. --Porqin 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pending sources provided by article creator. I've never heard of the term, and the references in calligraphy and ogham were both added by anons who have done naught else. Seems like a premature article, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original article was deleted. The new article is much better but unfortunately the subject is still non-notable. It is the school newspaper of a local elementary school. Notability is asserted but there is no verifiable evidence of it. Replaced prod with Afd. My vote would be Delete Dipics 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete elementary school newspaper!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, per my prod and per the discussion on the article's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, per Fughettabout it, and perhaps WP:NPOV as author has slanted explination in Talk page. --Bschott 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant but strong Delete. It's nice that it got cleaned up, but it's still an elementary school newspaper. Unless it "broke" one or more stories of major import, and/or served as the starting grounds of one or more extremely well-known journalists, it is hard to imagine ANY elementary school newspaper meeting standards of notability. The author seems to be asserting that notability is imparted by the paper's affiliation with/sanction by a governmental entity (i.e., a school), which would set a very sloppy precedent. --Pagana 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whether elementary schools are encyclopedically notable is a matter for debate. Whether their newspapers are is not. --Kinu t/c 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, it's an elementary school newspaper. Absolutely no evidence of any kind of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. However, this school is apparently not an elementary school. Grammar school means different things in different countries, and this school apparently covers the equivalent of 6th to 12th grade. --Metropolitan90 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, YouTube Cruft, Non-Notable person Bschott 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I could possibly see a Merge with the main YouTube page or with a Well-Known Users of YouTube page but beyond that I personally believe it is possible Cruft and she is Non-Notable. --Bschott 13:51,
- Keep The article is fully referenced to many notable newspapers/ magazines. She has recieved significant coverage as demonstrated in the article. (Disclosure: I am the articles creator) ViridaeTalk 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further links to major newspapers/news sources and deletion debate on the talk page. ViridaeTalk 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a vanity page - was not created by the subject. ViridaeTalk 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vanity pages are not just limited to the subject but those associated with the subject or those involved with the subject in some way shape or form. --Bschott 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, not a vanity page. I am neither related to, involved with, or associated with the subject in any form apart from seeing her video on YouTube, seeing the press coverage and thinking that gave her the required notability for inclusion. ViridaeTalk 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vanity pages are not just limited to the subject but those associated with the subject or those involved with the subject in some way shape or form. --Bschott 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am inclined to think that the Carson Daily contract, and all the media coverage would make her at least marginally notable already. And of course, once the Carson Daily stuff actually gets aired (assuming it does), I don't think her notability could be disputed. --Iustinus 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does this mean that anyone that is mentioned in a few articles automatically notable? Quite a few US soldiers have been named in various newspapers and shown on TV, especially when reporters are assigned to military units, but does that mean they are notable? --Bschott 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a soldier gets the amount of press coverage that Brooke has got due to their actions as a soldier (heroic, illegal, immoral) then I don't see why they shouldnt have an article on them. ViridaeTalk 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I read an article about Brodack in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago. I do believe she is notable, not only for the sheer amount of press coverage she gets, but also because of the impact her popularity has had on YouTube. The Carson Daly deal isn't altogether that notable until something actually comes of it. But she is a notable figure; her name is a household one at this point. If this article is deleted, information about her should certainly be merged into the YouTube article. Srose (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If others on YouTube have articles (see Emmalina and the AfD vote for her. The vote there resulted in a keep.) Then this should be kept as well. Ms. Brodack is more noteworthy too. Dave 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep qwm 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I finally decided to try YouTube a couple of weeks ago. I almost immediately came across Brookers and her videos; she's really funny. However, I only read articles about her in the media once I found her on YouTube, mainly because her fans kept linking to those articles in their comments. I'd argue she's not even an internet phenomenon, but simply a YouTube celebrity. Someone argued Emmalina from YouTube also has an article and intimated that to be precedent for inclusion for Brookers as well. Nobody knows these people besides users of YouTube. If computer programmers are very active in newsgroups, end up getting jobs because of their contributions to those communities, and then end up in tech site articles (for whatever reason), that doesn't automatically warrant the creation of an entry on wiki. Remember the Star Wars Kid? He was notable. Whether people were part of a particular community or not, they found out about him. Brooke Brodack isn't quite there just yet.--Contrinewb 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)contrinewb[reply]
- Keep - Seeing as she has been hired by someone in the industry, and she is the first to do so through YouTube, pretty much single-handidly, that makes her very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.79.227 (talk • contribs)
- Keep - I highly agree with the above.--Joseph 00:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long, unreferenced autobiography which, in the last paragraph, makes a fairly tenuous claim to notability. Wikipedia is not MySpace --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. No hits on any of the books he is purported to have written. One hit on the game "Quiz-King" but didn't mention Don Tate. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity. --Xrblsnggt 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. --Spot87 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an advertisement. Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM and WP:V Mattisse 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is not an advertisement. I have no connection with the firm who made it or with anyone who sells it. If Mattisse's argument holds, we will have to delete hundreds of articles describing manufactured tradenamed articles and tools and equipment including just about every article on gunshop-available guns and items of scuba gear and makes of vehicles and powered garden tools. My information came from a British mine rescue team who used them, and see http://www.therebreathersite.nl/Zuurstofrebreathers/English/sabre_sef.htm . The SEFA breathing set for many years was a main kit item for British mines rescue men. Mines rescue is worthy and notable, more than the mass of pop music singers and fictional characters that there are so many pages about. Anthony Appleyard 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Looks very much like an advert, and the wording does not help. --Bschott 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, so long as notability is established. Is it the most popular item of this type or something like that? By the way, if you read it, it doesn't sound like an ad. AdamBiswanger1 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obscure but legitimate topic. Note that the product is no longer made so the article is certainly not an ad and it reads nothing like one in any case. Landolitan 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you click on breathing set mentioned above by Anthony Appleyard you get to a disambiguation page which give you the choice of SCBA - a better written article on the same subject already existing on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard - thanks! Capit 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in fact your mines rescue link above also talks about SCBA!!! Anthony Appleyard, why are putting up links that go to a better article than yours? Capit 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - therefore is my vote per nom. Plus external links that ask you to sign their guestbook really are not what WP:V means. Capit 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. SEFA specifically describes the SEFA rebreather breathing set. SCBA describes industrial breathing sets in general. I do not see that either article is "better" than the other; they are about different parts of the topic.
- Mine rescue mentions SCBA: it does not go into details about them. It also points to some makes of SCBA, including the SEFA.
- http://www.therebreathersite.nl/Zuurstofrebreathers/English/sabre_sef.htm (the link that Capit objected to) points to a good description of the SEFA breathing set. Its link to a guestbook to sign, is irrelevant here. I am not going to refuse a link to a very good informative external site merely because the external page pointed to has a link to a guestbook tacked on its end. Anthony Appleyard 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Landolitan. Aye-Aye 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be almost entirely OR. Violates WP:OR. The links provided do not meet WP:V Listerin 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep I don't like deleting things because I've never heard of them. I see nothing in the article that might suggest it is a hoax, either. Also, you know the saying "Goading someone on"? (As if to prod or poke someone) Also check this out [35] AdamBiswanger1 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have restored the earlier contents as they existed before the "original research", if any. Anyone interested to have a scanned copy of the page from the book I have referred in this stub, are most welcome to send me a wiki-mail. I shall send they by way of e-mail attachemnt, a scanned copy of the relevant page from the book. --Bhadani 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but Bhadani's edits belong at Ankus, not at Goad. Goads have a long history in agricultural societies; I have no doubt a good, non-OR article on the history of their use can be written. User:Angr 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree. Your revert was fine. --Bhadani 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Why the f*ck does anyone want to delete this? It does not make sense.Barbara Shack 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to be civil and don't bite the nominator of this article. AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone put Hindu stuff in here, that should have been put in Ankus. It has now been put in Ankus. Keep. OR = Original Research, but there is nothing to research about the common ox-goad which farmers have been using for thousands of years. Anthony Appleyard 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It does need an {{unreferenced}} template though. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The section Biblical has Biblical references, and anyone with a Bible can check them. Apart from that, we don't need written references to say what the common oxgoad is, any more than we need written references to prove what a shovel or a pickaxe or a carter's whip are. Anthony Appleyard 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an interesting little article. Aye-Aye 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the interest of good faith I have left a welcome message for the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the interest of good faith, per above. All articles that are written in good faith should be kept per Wikipedia policy WP:AGF. Capit 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per above. If WP:OSTRICH were a policy, this nomination would fail it. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a non-notable web meme. An encyclopedic article could be written on mice that are genetically engineered such that they metabolize food differently, but it'd be at a different article name and it wouldn't be about some silly meme. Cyde↔Weys 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom. NN --Bschott 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 14:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. It is more popular in some realms of the 'net than you may think, although it still is not significant enough to warrant an article, at least until it gains as large of a following as All your base... Thorne N. Melcher 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It may be silly, but it's verifiable. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be verifiable, but it's non-notable. ; ) AdamBiswanger1 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's unclear if it ever can be. It seems to be some sort of indirect advertising for the website that's linked to. Delete. User:Angr 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's exact words. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was snowball redirect. JDoorjam Talk 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G6: Housekeeping: Better, properly titled page exists. See Independent Spirit Award. Kitty Davis 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom. It seems the article was only created because the user couldn't spell when searching. Thorne N. Melcher 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect. Vote changed as per reasoning below. Thorne N. Melcher 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Redirects are cheap. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Wikipedia needs as many redirects as possible as it does not have fuzzy search. People don't just make errors because they can't spell, but also because lots of us have clumsy fingers, me included. There are some words I mistype all the time. Landolitan 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has close to no information at all, no info is given why this person is of any notice outside of NK, and the only source is a North Korean website, highly POV. --Konstantin 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A1. --DarkAudit 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. No independent verifiable sources. --ColourBurst 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless POV list. Language is a political issue in more or less all countries. Political disputes are listed haphazardly and subjectively as minor, moderate, serious etc. This is far too vague a subject to make a list about. Ezeu 14:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'd agree; although I recognise the subjectivity, the page provides a useful starting point for someone researching language politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.47.14 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 July 2006
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless we can find good sources for this; as it stands, the article is unverifiable and entirely original research. -- H·G (words/works) 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Totally subjective, and currently both unverifiable and quite possibly OR. Agree with nominator that language is probably a political issue everywhere, so without the subjective element the article is pointless. - makomk 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It may be too subjective for you, but it's not for me. AdamBiswanger1 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename and eliminate subjective scale by which the author has judged the intensity of the conflicts. A better title might be List of major language-policy conflicts. -- Mwalcoff 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It needs work but it's a useful list as a starting point for anyone wanting to look at the issue. It needs sources and the "minor, moderate, serious" should be replaced by a very brief summary of the dispute in that country. Only countries where the issue is more than "minor" should be included.Rhion 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list isn't entirely subjective, although the ratings are certainly open to interpretation. This list could be useful and it should probably be renamed, but I don't have any better suggestions. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact that this article is only a microscopic part of the TV series "The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron" and barely even relevant, I nominate this article for deletion. In no way is this topic an important part of the series, and it has only been used in two episodes. Also, those episodes have not given any insight into what the Llama Love Society really is but instead has just shown that two characters (one is not even a recurring character) are members and have a membership card.
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is so minor -- Whpq 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRUFT, but it's not even important cruft. Originalbigj 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Be nice! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wrote the article, but it was the first one I wrote, and I didn't really know how to write one. I thought it would a appear on more episodes. --Llama man 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no harm in leaving this as a redirect (as the article's author, our friend Llama man here, suggested at Wikipedia talk:AfD). Redirects are cheap, and you never know, someone might just type it in to the search box wondering where on Earth it comes from. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite Frankly, I feel that the article for Metroid 2002 does not belong on Wikipedia, as it is merely an ordinary fan site. Moreover, there's not much to write about, outside of a brief infobox and introduction paragraph. (PS, sorry If I posted this on the wrong page, I am rather new to Wikipedia) --ShadowJester07 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Alexa ranking above 352,000, 216 unique Ghits for "Metroid2002", 77 for "Metroid 2002." Appears to fail WP:WEB. -- H·G (words/works) 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:WEB as detailed above. --Kinu t/c 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a very notable website within speedrunning community, yes, and houses some famous speedrunners, but regrettably the site itself is probably not gigantic enough to have an article of its own, and like the nominator says, there's really not that much to write about. Just don't let this stop using the site as a reference =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per HumbleGod. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not majorly influential or a large website. It's a good referene however for metroid info and trivia, however, it isn't influential and not particularly anything that anybody would be interested in looking up in a dictionary.--Mofomojo 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group of backyard wrestlers. Original research, non-notable Xyzzyplugh 11:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 12:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Feedyourfeet 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You-Tube and Myspace group. - CheNuevara 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR, vanity, POV, and unsourced. --DarkAudit 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable vanity. --Xrblsnggt 19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Landolitan 18:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity article -- Whpq 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ifnord 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is created with sole purpose of pushing one's POV .The creater user:Gamesmasterg9 after unsuccessfuly trying to move the preexisting page Vote Bank to Votebank politics in India has created this page which cannot be moved now to the original place because it has a redirect to this article.This article which is merely a bundle of opinion of one person cannot replace the content rich and well referenced earlier version which is now Votebank politics in India.The person has history of trolling and does not believe in consensus.Please DELETE this page and restore the original version.See the relevant talk on the earlier page too.I agree the term is Indian but it does not mean it talks of Indian politics only and we cannot create pages with similar contents and subject.I would also recommend BLOCK for this person.Holy---+---Warrior 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A votebank is a political concept. The older page was a description of votebank politics in India exclusively. The move was justified.Gamesmasterg9 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems a reason able distinction to make, and the Indian article is still there. Artw 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Plz note:The article will never grow beyond present size if it does not adress indian context.There is very little or no usage of the term outside India.The present content of the article is nothing but few sentences taken out of the original article.With time both article will have same/similar contents.Will you merge them then.Holy---+---Warrior 08:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PLz go through this too.[36],[37],[38] Holy---+---Warrior 08:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Plz note:The article will never grow beyond present size if it does not adress indian context.There is very little or no usage of the term outside India.The present content of the article is nothing but few sentences taken out of the original article.With time both article will have same/similar contents.Will you merge them then.Holy---+---Warrior 08:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request - please don't make this personal.Gamesmasterg9 11:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like it'd be a notable concept to me. Notable articles should be fixed, not deleted. In the meantime, let's just say it looks bad to accuse other editors of trolling without offering any attempt at justifying the accusation. Luna Santin 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the articles Votebank politics in India, Voting bloc and this one. utcursch | talk 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A parallel discussion has taken place on this page too[39].One may refer to this too.Holy | Warrior 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To Satin:Plz note the title occupied by this page has previously been held by what is Votebank politics in India.Check the move logs for better view.A question to you,if this case is not trolling,then if we assume a merger here,anybody creating a similar page again after merger,diverting the links, will not be called trolling again????Infact a merger of Vote Bank and Vote bank had already taken place,before creation of this article.Lastly I would say notability is not in question here because it has been already discussed during AfD of previous article,Perhaps you haven't gone through that.If we don't fix this problem now,I am pretty sure You will soon find pages with Vote bank politics in Kuwait,Votebank politics in malaysia with size comparable to the size of this article.In light of this you may reconsider your vote.Hope for the best from you.Holy | Warrior 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the pages you mention are created, how is that a bad thing? Why exactly is a longer article better than a short one?Gamesmaster G-9 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable company Travelbird 12:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN and vanity to boot. After deletion, I recommend a redirect to Web design. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then redirect, per Starblind. Artw 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Apparently a 5 member club; definitely NN. -Sanbeg 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You'll see that it's a vanity article if you check the history. Redirect to Web design per Starblind. Thorne N. Melcher 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and recreate as redirect to web design per above. --Kinu t/c 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete then redirect per Starblind. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, db-author. RasputinAXP c 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously noted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, this article has no use. During the creation of the article, the creator in question said that they would be returning to the article in an attempt to try and turn it into a Featured Article. It has now been four months since the articles creation, and the article has not been touched once by the creator since then, and has also been left in decay for the past two months at the least. The article also sets a bad precedent insomuch as the New Jersey Devils are only a 24 year old hockey team, while other, more storied teams (such as the Original Six of the National Hockey League do just fine without the need of a "History of the ..." article for their own team histories. While this article may have one or two things of particular note that the team's main article neglects to mention (for example the controversy over the team's name a year ago), just about all of the article is a carbon copy of the team's history on the main page with some minor tweaks on the wording here and there.--Resident Lune 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything relevant and Delete. Redundant. BoojiBoy 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant. ccwaters 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See here for the original deletion discussion. -- JamesTeterenko 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It should be with the main article. DMighton 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything that is not already on the New Jersey Devils page, then Delete. Redundant. -- Skudrafan1 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep It's just an expansion of an important section of an important entity. Why slaughter the information when there is not a question of notability of the New Jersey Devils, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having a history article, so long as it exceeds the limits of the main page. AdamBiswanger1 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I didn't realize how extensive the NJD article was. AdamBiswanger1 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back/Delete. Premature emancipation. -- GWO
- Merge/Delete There is not enough new information in the history article to warrant a separate page. Nearly everything that is covered in this article is already on New Jersey Devils. Resolute 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - there simply isn't enough info at this point to justify the separate article, and based on the lack of edits, there does not seem to be a lot of contributors willing to work on it. The ifnormation would fare better int he main article. -- Whpq 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the information in the article to New Jersey Devils, and for GFDL purposes redirect History of the New Jersey Devils to it as well. RasputinAXP c 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Delete as above. Frankly, while I'm as much of a hockey fanatic as the next fellow, the point at which an article about a hockey team gets too large for a single Wikipedia article is the point at which it needs to be trimmed; this is an encyclopedia, not a novel. RGTraynor 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dunno about that. Montreal Canadiens could probably be easily broken into three articles: Current team, history and records. For a 95+ year old team, multiple articles make perfect sense, and are almost required. For a 25 year old team, not so much. Resolute 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect, doesn't seem to be enough information right now to justify a separate article. JYolkowski // talk 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. What's next, a History of the Minnesota Wild article? --NeoChaosX 02:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As the page's creator, allow me to explain. Several months ago, I began working on the main NJD article to bring it to FA status (or at least Good). Using several team pages that had made FA status as a template, I created a History page to allow a much more detailed history of the team on the sub-page, while keeping the main page broad (see: New England Patriots, Gotheborg, etc.) However, real life prevented me from working on the page for a week, then two weeks, then it turned into several months. At this time I do not know when I will be able to resume work on the main page. As such, when that time comes, I will work solely on the main page. When it goes up for peer review, if at that time the history section is too extensive to fit on one page, then and only then will it be split off into its own page. However, given the comments above (I'm aware the team is only 24 years old, same age as me), it may not be necessary to house a separate page. Therefore, I suggest deleting the History page (as there isn't anything on it that isn't on the main page), or, failing that, a redirect. Merge is unnecessary, since it's a carbon copy of the main page anyway. Anthony Hit me up... 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can take care of that, then. RasputinAXP c 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created in an attempt to generate a subpage: [40] and it contains nothing but images, including a few from copyrighted books. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This subpage was created by me in the midst of a heated content dispute. An editor objected to the use of sources that he couldn't personally read, as they were not on the internet. The dispute ended up as part of an ArbCom case. The subpage does no longer serve any useful purpose, and its existence runs counter to current Wikipedia policies on subpages. --Andrés C. 15:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Landolitan 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely a hoax. Google for "Connor Gillies" "Real Radio Scotland" gets exactly 1 hit - this article. Delete. Kimchi.sg 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, its unverifable, probably hoax, otherwise very non-notable. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probable hoax. NawlinWiki 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Steel 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this i think is a general biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgillies (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Local Welsh band that fails WP:BAND notability guidelines. Speedy tag removed twice by author. Google hits for ("The Screamin' Eagles" + band) = 181. No listing on Allmusic. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 15:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Band does not come close to meeting WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my brother's band (Thomas Jones). What do I have to do to the article to avoid deletion? JayJonesUK 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)JayJonesUK[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, there's not much you can do. If you look over WP:BAND there are guidelines that warrent inclusion into Wikipedia, which it looks like your brother's band does not. If in the future they do, by all means, recreate the article. Wildthing61476 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge & redirect; thankfully the merging is already done. Mangojuicetalk 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is merely a list with little encyclopedic information about the less important noble houses in the fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire. The major houses of the setting already each have their own pages, and all of the information on this page is already replicated on those pages, or could be merged to those pages with little effort. This page is therefore merely an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, I'd say add the lists belonging to each house to their respective articles. Therefore, merge. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the lists that aren't already on major house pages, then
delete.in light of comments below, redirect. Brendan Moody 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment, as I've understood it, merging and deleting is difficult in view of authorship under GFDL. Therefore, I suggest a redirect to A Song of Ice and Fire rather than a delete. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr).--Isotope23 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Don't forget to change Template:ASOIAF --Scafloc 07:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I've taken the liberty of merging the information to the articles about the specific house. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Straight advertising/spam. Original author removed prod. My vote would be Delete Dipics 15:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added Bingoadvantage to this AfD, same editor. Delete both per nom. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The author also removed a speedy deletion notice on Bingoadvantage Lurker 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why cant one author write 2 articles? Bingo.com is probably noteable enough to list. And there are not even any links in it. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.169.157 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 July 2006
- Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is not an appropriate medium in which to advertise, and right now, that is precisely what the article reads like. --64.132.163.178 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bingo! er....Delete Article reads like advertising. Wildthing61476 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete reads like ad. -Sanbeg 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per above. NawlinWiki 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per NawlinWiki. 1ne 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as WP:SPAM. WP:WEB would work too, since the Alexa rank for bingo.com is 58,564 (which is close but still a "meh", IMHO), and bingoadvantage.com's is 175,889 (which is a definite "adios!"). --Kinu t/c 23:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- N-48. Er. Delete both.: Both articles do make excellent advertisements. --awh (Talk) 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two fat ladies say "delete this article" It's spam. Plain and simple Lurker 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete --Yunipo 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Survived a VfD nearly two years ago, but I hardly see why. It reads like vanity and/or advertising, fails WP:BIO, and the subject only receives 126 google hits, most of them either wikipedia and its mirrors or links to presentations she has given. This person clearly does not belong here. Indrian 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nothing about notability catches my eye AdamBiswanger1 15:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with above. Eusebeus 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuBu (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep Notable American poet. Dlyons493 Talk
- Keep GuBu could you expand on why you think this poet is not notable? I find multiple hits on Letter to an Imaginary Friend and reviews of his work here and here. Seems to be pretty notable, perhaps the article could be expanded as well. DrunkenSmurf 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A whole book has been writtern about him. Landolitan 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Also a Rhodes Scholar. AdamBiswanger1 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dlyons and Adambiswanger. Aye-Aye 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete. Normally, AfDs run for about 5 days or so, but this seems to be the most appropriate action. At minimum, The article is not a serious attempt at writing encyclopedic content for this project. HappyCamper 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense article, looks to be a parody of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tags have been removed by author on numerous occasions. Wildthing61476 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a nonsense article, it's an article trying to prove a point, just as the original intent of the FSM tried to prove a point. M_Castaldo 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not a place to "prove a point" however. The FSM is listed because it became a wellknown internet meme. This is a parody of that, that was just created, and is NOT NOTABLE. Again, Wikipedia is not a place to "make a point" but is a reference guide. Wildthing61476 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why can't an article do both? Unless you'd like to disprove my religion is false. It has just as much validity as any other religion, even if it's slightly younger and unknown. M_Castaldo 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not? Read WP:POV to start. I'm not proving your religion is true/false, even though it appears this is a blatant parody, but the religion does NOT merit an article on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it violates NPOV, then help rewrite it, rather then delete it. Why destroy a work when it's still being developed?
- delete looks like something made up in school one day, NN. -Sanbeg 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is comes down to is that it appears this is a parody piece for one, two, the religion itself is not notable enough for inclusion. Look I could create a religion that believe it's God is actually a armoire in a self-storage unit in Buffalo, but if only me and a handful of my friends believe in this, it's not notable. The FSM has become an internet meme and is notbale, hence the article. If in time your "religion" becomes notable then by all means recreate the article. Wildthing61476 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Of course, this page should be deleted. There is no religion associated with this article. The so-called religion's founder, Mike Wong, and his associates, are atheists who are using and abusing their privileges at Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking the Christian faith, which Mr. Wong refers to as "ludicrous", "absurd", and "nonsensical". Moreoever, it is being used to make his argument in debate in the ethos section of a website called The Total War Center, dedicated to Creative Assemblies' Total War series of computer games.
I strongly urge the deletion of this article, as it has no religious or historical value of any kind.
Georg von Brandenburg, PhD (This was copy and pasted from the Talk page for this AfD).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:CORP. A prod and a prod2 tag were removed by the creator Fused (talk · contribs) without any explanation. The user admits he is spamming (although in all fairness he seems to honestly fail to realize it's not acceptable practice on Wikipedia). Pascal.Tesson 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Alan Au 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, including the nom's vote of confidence in the creator's good faith. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete also per nominator. Too bad we can't make strike some sense, but this is a failing of WP:CORP and rather spammy. Sorry, send this article to the deleted zone. The other articles created in this are currently prod2'd. And they don't have a fully tangible product either, its software packages with support, and no evidence that that they truely have an actual buissness by way of sources. Kevin_b_er 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom — JonHarder 01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence given of notability, despite long-term flag on article Dweller 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete supposed movie not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The movie is located on the IMDB. --Porqin 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it's there, under a slightly different title and with just 21 people rating it. No change of vote for now, but I appreciate the info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The movie is located on the IMDB. --Porqin 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This movie is 6 min long, and gathers around 340 google hits. No real assertion of notability here. --Porqin 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Length is not an issue, as it is a short film, and its place on IMDB is a testament to its significance (they have similar requirements for listing to Wikipedia). Think of all of the Pixar shorts that may only score a scant few Google hits, but are seen by anyone who watches a Pixar film. Thorne N. Melcher 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. IMDB does not have similar requirements to Wikipedia. Their only requirement is that something exists. (For projects in "development" or "pre-production" they don't even require that.) There is no distribution of shorts, outside of things like the Pixar shorts that accompany their features. Most shorts are only seen by only a tiny handful of people who attend small film festivals. The vast majority of people will never see this, never have the opportunity to see it, and never even hear of it. That's non-notable. Fan-1967 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "The vast majority" of people probably haven't heard of hundreds of Wikipedia topics from hundreds of fields. "The vast majority" of people probably don't see a lot of movies. And perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with IMDB's listing policy. They will only list independent projects if they are lined up to be shown at a notable film festival or have been recognized in other significant fashion. The "development" and "pre-production" films are all titles formally announced by "big name" studios, producers, actors, or directors. Thorne N. Melcher 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is their criteria for a "notable" film festival? Are St. Kilda and Currumbin notable? Fan-1967 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "The vast majority" of people probably haven't heard of hundreds of Wikipedia topics from hundreds of fields. "The vast majority" of people probably don't see a lot of movies. And perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with IMDB's listing policy. They will only list independent projects if they are lined up to be shown at a notable film festival or have been recognized in other significant fashion. The "development" and "pre-production" films are all titles formally announced by "big name" studios, producers, actors, or directors. Thorne N. Melcher 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, with contact info; reads like an ad. -Sanbeg 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a vanity article. --Porqin 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an ad. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --DarkAudit 01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No content indicating notability of the subject. Page is an orphan with no pages linking to it. Fairsing 16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as nn-bio. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable bio does not a speedy deletion candidate make. "No assertion of notability" does. Delete - CheNuevara 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not quite a speedy. Does have a street hockey tournament named after him, which is apparently real but local to a small town and small in scope, raising about $7,000 CAN a year for charity. He was a policeman killed in the line of duty, which is indeed tragic, but typically not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daughter of André the Giant, but not notable in her own right Zerbey 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing at all that couldn't be added in a sentence or two to Andre's page, if it wasn't there already. Voice of Treason 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You don't become notable by association (or at least for your own page). --Porqin 17:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no notability asserted for Ms. Christensen (as opposed to her father). NawlinWiki 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, no information beyond what can be cited in Andre's article, and not notable for a page of her own. 150.148.0.27 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete. , She is notable because information is sought about her by a certain group of people...however obscure. (the preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.6
- Don't Delete, widely sought after information mainly by wrestlings fans of the 70s 80s and 90s --88.233.54.80 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Andre the Giant article, unless other references verifying notability can be found. --Elonka 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. She's already mentioned in her father's entry, and has no notability of her own aside from being André the Giant´s daughter, and fairly tall.--RicardoC 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character within the Dragon Ball GT anime series, and a copy of information already found in List of dragons in Dragon Ball. Only one of these characters (Yi Xing Long) has any real importance in the franchise. I am coupling this with others and Evil Dragons as well. Small amount of different info on some pages that can be merged, but at most they should redirect to the listed article.
Included in nomination:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all per nom. The WP:FICT guideline suggests that even quite major characters should be covered in sections of broad articles except where there is so much to say that a separate article is required to avoid unbalancing things. In this particular case, it is quite clear that it would be more useful for people unfamiliar with the series if all the dragons were discussed together in one article, so all the information was in one place, rather than forcing people to flip between multiple pages to learn everything about them. — Haeleth Talk 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all per nom and above. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all, do not keep as separate articles. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all and delete Evil Dragon and Evil Dragons. Totally unnecessary and I highly doubt anyone who might search for "evil dragon" is looking for Dragonball GT. - Wickning1 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, but I'd recommend just retargeting them to Dragon (disambiguation). I've done so for the latter, since it's not up for deletion here. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article/list is essentially entirely unsourced and speculative POV and original research, and really could never be anything but POV and OR. The article currently uses three criteria to determine if a city is "endangered," thus warranting mention in the article: declining population, "most in danger of natural disaster," and "most outrageous crime rates." In my opinion, the first and last of these could be sourced then split into articles of their own (perhaps List of cities in the United States by population growth and List of cities in the United States by crime rate). However, this article is about "endangered" cities, which is a very vague concept. It cites no sources and is speculative in large part ("Enormous earthquake predicted within the next 100 years. City remains unprepared and buildings are not up to code. Towers as far away as Chicago expected to sway when this earthquake strikes"). Finally, note that New York and Washington, D.C. are conspicuously absent from the list. Though it seems that these two cities would be more likely to experience a terror attack than any other US cities, adding these to the list would be purely speculative. Delete. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Inapt title and grouping the data together results in OR. AdamBiswanger1 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant WP:NOR violation. --Porqin 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Landolitan 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Outrageous" is not a measurement to indicate crime. Were more serious, cited numbers to be used I might suggest it be merged into more relevant articles. SliceNYC 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Viral marketing has no place on wikipedia. Violates WP:SPAM --DarkAudit 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional from MrSassyPants via IRC: if they can make the article into something useful instead of a summary of the blog and some semi-useful links, keep it. Its just that in its present form the article is 100% pure shit. --DarkAudit 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Viral marketing ploy, just a few weeks old. If it must be kept, redirect to Court TV, which conducted the viral marketing campaign. --Durin 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's a viral marketing ploy that may not even be notable, ever. Why even bother merging to Court TV? If it turns out to be a notable campaign in any way that becomes solidly identified with the Court TV, then it can be added. -- Whpq 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While interesting, there's nothing especially notable about this viral marketing campaign. --Alan Au 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. I realize as the author of the article, I must be seen as biased, but it seems to me that the article certainly fits in what is intended to be a highly-inclusive repository of information such as Wikipedia. I feel it serves quite well as a notable example of viral marketing, and is a useful example to those who are researching that particular subject. --Cyningaenglisc 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NN and WP:CSD A7. Google search turns up only 28 hits, most of which have nothing to do with this topic. A possible hoax. Originally PRODded, but User:Kappa removed the prod tag without giving a reason, as it appears he/she has been doing for quite some time now. Green451 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Porqin 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. I sympathize with the inclusionist viewpoint, but WP:VERIFY is policy. --Alan Au 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. However, I don't see how A7 applies here, as this is not a bio. - CheNuevara 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. My mistake, I have striked this from the nom. Thanks. Green451 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-verifiable article. Probably OR. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure Pureesh. Flush it. — NMChico24
09:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a non-notable web comic. There are 8 strips all posted today by the author to his blog. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, they were posted July 21st, not today. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete per nom. --Alan Au 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "How will I delete thee? Let me count the ways ..." - CheNuevara 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is too early for a Wikipedia article, but I've copied it over to Comixpedia: No Real Pleasure. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as three-day-old webcomic. Fagstein 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable advertising article. Three days may be a new record. -- Dragonfiend 03:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A four-day old webcomic of no apparent notability which has exactly one Google result (the site itself), and the article appears to have been added by the comic author as well. - makomk 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable web page. It also fails the vanity test as it is written by one of the page's developers. The topic page looks good, but is basially just a collection of national weather agency links and graphics which is regularly updated. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB --Porqin 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claims of notability per WP:WEB. --Alan Au 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. The text is the same as was in the previously deleted version of the article. In addition to reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhaseSpace, I had a look at all of the sources cited in the prior discussion (which are also cited in the article). None made any more than tangential mention of this company, supporting the view given by editors in the prior discussion that the WP:CORP criteria were not satisfied. An independently written magazine feature article on the company would satisfy the criteria. But a one sentence mention as an example of "other companies" (such as is the case with the cited ungraduate final year project) does not. Uncle G 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has been recreated after afd deletion on July 20, 2006. Mattisse 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few articles as per the Wikipedia rules and expected to be part of the Consensus. I also expected to have to continue to add more and more articles until I wore them down. Someone unilaterally showed they have more brownie points than I do, and removed it, without saying who. I will continue to improve the site. Tmcsheery 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to phase space; I felt the subject was non-notable before, and the new version of the article does little to convince me that I was wrong. -- H·G (words/works) 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company with an advertisement as an encyclopedia entry. Delete. Gump Stump 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is non-notable. --Porqin 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. --Alan Au 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Company is "well on its way to making a name for itself"? Try again if and when it does. NawlinWiki 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable according to WP:MUSIC. It was previously deleted by me according to WP:PROD, but the deletion was contested after it was deleted Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP it took me many an hour to make their page, the one of the greatest bands ever
- Delete per nom; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and has no Allmusic listing. --Alan Au 17:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Their only album turns up 23 google hits; fails WP:MUSIC. --Porqin 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important part of Glasgow's music scene and certainly more notable than some other articles I have seen. Google hits on first album not particularly valid measure, especially owing to the title's unusual spelling. Have also undertaken a UK tour, plus an additional one as support, and are about to release a second album on a major label. Press coverage includes national newspapers, magazines and radio. --Seaweasel 11.34, 24 July 2006 (BST)
- Then it will be a simple matter for you to cite some of the articles. Please cite some sources. Uncle G 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Feature in The Scotsman; Feature in The Scotsman; BBC Radio Session; plus article in Plan B magazine (not available online), live review in the NME (not available online), and other articles to be cited. --Seaweasel 14.52, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- Then it will be a simple matter for you to cite some of the articles. Please cite some sources. Uncle G 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review of gig in the Guardian, lest someone decides the Scotsman is not a national newspaper... http://arts.guardian.co.uk/reviews/story/0,11712,1538361,00.html. They also played at the wickerman festival in Scotland this year (2006)
- Delete per The Scotsman, where they merit two sentences under Five That Should Make It, they haven't made it yet. When they do (i.e. two full albums, not singles, released by One/BMG), the article can be re-created. --Wine Guy Talk 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN politician -Sanbeg 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; he can have an article when he wins an election. --Alan Au 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. --Porqin 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Candidacy alone does not make one notable. The other accomplishments do not add enough to his notability to make him encyclopediac. --DarkAudit 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DarkAudit. And that was 10 years ago, to boot. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. The sentence about "climbed the highest point in Australia (Mount Kosciuszko)" I find particularly annoying, because that's basically nothing but a day-hike [41]. --Elonka 00:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree I don't deserve to be listed in Wikipedia, but the Mount Kosciuszko inclusion, while true, was intended to be humorous. You guys really should lighten up a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.128.112 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is not notable herself. The loose notability claim declares that her site is the first to use high definition video in her video shoots. Other than that, it doesn't seem that she herself is all that notable. Therefore, this article fails to assert notability per WP:BIO and any criteria on the WP:PORN BIO proposal. Delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Alan Au 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Joe. Besides, there's no verification regarding the high-def claim, so I'm rather dubious about it. Tabercil 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable bio. The claims that are there are unsourced, difficult to verify, and not terribly important anyway. JDoorjam Talk 07:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete. The high-def claim is legit. See www.MayorsMoney.com. It's still early days for her. And just last month a big on-air feud broke out between her and Melissa Midwest where Melissa was accused of raping her on the Bubba The Love Sponge show. Daskunt 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment. And this is pertinent in an encyclopedia because...? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notable. --K4zem 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete. She meets WP:PORN_BIO criteria no. 4: "Is the performer noted for beginning a trend in pornography?" Her use of high definition videos in the adult online industry is revolutionary. It's no mere claim - it's a fact. Any adult webmaster knows her site was the first. To ignore a start of that trend is akin to ignoring the invention of the cellphone. Halfdeck 11:14, 29 July 2006
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page created by User:Jedhensley. Recreated after previous speedy deletion. This almost meets CSD A7, but because of the author's vigorous objecting, I felt it would be good to obtain consensus. I think "youngest Special Olympics Coach in Texas" is far short of WP:BIO standards... it is a claim to notability, though, and the only one I could find. Mangojuicetalk 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD:A7. "Youngest Special Olympics Coach in Texas" is not sufficient notable, unless other Special Olympics coaches (by age and state) are similarly notable. Article is a substantial duplicate of author's userpage. --Alan Au 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I userfied the article resulting in the first speedy deletion; apparently he really wants a mainspace article, but I don't think real notability is asserted. NawlinWiki 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A7 only applies when there is absolutely no attempt at claiming notability. Even the weakest attempt at asserting nobility disqualifies A7. - CheNuevara 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 If it was speedied and recreated, it qualifies. Otherwise, just Delete. -Royalguard11Talk 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As Nawlin says, the first speedy was due to him boldly userfying the page contents. It was deleted under {{db-empty}} which doesn't apply anymore, so I don't think G4 works here. Mangojuicetalk 05:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This look awfully like spam to me. Aristiana 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google turned up very few results . It reads like an advertisement as well. --Porqin 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wanna buy some Florida swampland? NawlinWiki 18:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local production of a musical DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Porqin 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted by Ed g2s --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a combination of a hoax and attack page. Probably fails WP:BIO too. No vote - listed here for consensus decision. exolon 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wow, that's a really long vanity article. NawlinWiki 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article isn't notable according to WP:WEB. It has an alexa ranking of only 312,567 and a google count of only 54,100. The article is already listed at Christian_wikis, which I think should suffice.--Peephole 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Christian wikis suggest that articles on these wikis should exist. Avala 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uhm, where? --Peephole 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They showed as redlinks in that article. As frequently happens, some take a redlink as a sign that an article needs to be created. I often take it as a sign that something should be de-wikilinked. Fan-1967 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uhm, where? --Peephole 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article doesn't really say much other than that "it exists", which its placment on the list does adequately. No real claim to notability either, and previous AfD was kept without any real explanation of how it was notable either. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or delete the plethora of other Wiki community articles (Wikia, MeatballWiki, etc.) -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Several wikis are being put up for deletion. But for obvious reasons, Wikia is a notable one that doesn't deserve deletion. --Peephole 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I suggest grouping information on other wikis in one article but not deleting them. Bratislav 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it's fine to delete at this stage. It still is mentioned within the Christian Wikis page.Dogface 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced original research and neologisms. Not to be confused with FanimeCon. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just WP:NEO. Voice of Treason 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable neologism, Google results are screwed due to the FanimeCon. tmopkisn tlka 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Where are the outside sources giving credibility? Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graveenib (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This information is not notable. This person is a small part of an alternate reality game for the TV show Lost. No sources are cited, and the page is pretty much inactive. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Will soon be Lost ... get it? haha ... aka delete - CheNuevara 18:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced, unedited... ungood. tmopkisn tlka 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable student; speedy tags removed so here we are. NawlinWiki 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Ugh... tmopkisn the Y tlka 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity article of a student still in school who has achieved nothing notable --Ageo020 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as uncited vanity. --DarkAudit 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Pat's Steaks already provides the history of Mr. Olivieri and his contribution to the development of the cheesesteak Konczewski 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pat's SteaksKeep per Capitalistroadster's expansion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. His death has been widely reported over the past few days and there is enough material available to write a proper biography. There are 173 Google News stories about him see [42].
The Washington Post [43], Los Angeles Times, [44] and the New York Times [45] have all reported his death so there is enough material for a standalone article. Redirect as a second best option. Capitalistroadster 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pat's Steaks unless article is expanded and sourced.Very good job on the rewrite/expansion, Keep. tmopkisn tlka 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep and expand to make this more encyclopedic, or redirect to Pat's Steaks. I'm neutral as to what should be done with the article, but it should be a bluelink in one form or another, as the subject is notable per WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article with sources. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, don't merge, per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- note on obituaries cited--every single one of them seems to be a rewrite of the original Philadelphia Daily news obit. So it's the the same original source with no new research. I'm changing my original request to delete to merge with Pat's Steaks article.Konczewski 11:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that's so, the wide range of publication indicates that he was important far beyond Philly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then how do I unrequest this article for deletion? Konczewski 12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't look like anyone's said delete, so you should be able to strike your vote out with <s></s> around your original nomination, and an admin will come and close it out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion. Konczewski 14:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't look like anyone's said delete, so you should be able to strike your vote out with <s></s> around your original nomination, and an admin will come and close it out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Philadephia Inquirer article referenced in the article is substantially different to the Philadelphia Daily News. Capitalistroadster 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I retract my earlier comment about the obits. It appears in the past few days the non-Philly papers have done some research. I'm still confused as to why so many of them have different answers for the original price of a cheesesteak. I've seen quotes from 5 to 25 cents.Konczewski 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then how do I unrequest this article for deletion? Konczewski 12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that's so, the wide range of publication indicates that he was important far beyond Philly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the article is nicely expanded: Keep-Zeno Izen 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP, WP:AD, and WP:VANITY as User:Alinemedia has created a redirect to the article from userspace. Teke 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only 114 unique Google hits and insufficient press coverage. However, it doesn't fail WP:VANITY as the article was created and worked on in their userspace before being moved into the mainspace. tmopkisn tlka 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:CORP. Jacek Kendysz 23:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong uncertainty --Yunipo 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep and rename. SynergeticMaggot 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cafzal listed it for speedy because "No importance or significance. I have a hard time even seeing how this is a value for entertainment informational purposes" but I felt that this deserved a full AfD. I vote for a possible rename to something like Places in SpongeBob SquarePants with Bikini Bottom having a link to its article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with above comment by Ricky81682. -AMK152 18:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Ricky - CheNuevara 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep possibly rename. Definately NOT a speedy candidate by any means whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This info was important and significant enough to stay in the Bikini Bottom article for so long, so it should be important enough to have its own article to keep down the size of the main article. I agree that a title change is necessary; Places in SpongeBob SquarePants and List of places in SpongeBob SquarePants seem like the best choices. --CrazyLegsKC 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and rename. Sorry if I caused any problems... I am new to the deletion process. ~ clearthought 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename. This is one of those cases in which each individual item is not worthy of a separate article, but togehter it's okay. Similar to how in Star Wars articles, major characters like Luke Skywalker have their own articles but other characters are lumped together in articles like "List of Minor Imperial Officers" or something like that. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting info for spongebob fans --Ageo020 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ricky. Treebark (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and that's coming from someone who knows nothing about Spongebob besides that he lives in a pineapple under the sea. --awh (Talk) 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename. Is there a separate article for List of places above Bikini Bottom? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally put a merge to The Joshua Tree tag on this track from the album, but there is nothing in this article that isn't on the album page. U2 are, of course, notable, but this song (never released as a single) doesn't quite make the grade for its own page DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, each and every other song on that record has its own article with interesting, additional information. This one might as well grow into that. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the problem here is that this particular article really has no additional interesting information. Since it has been a stub since it's creation, maybe a U2 fan can add some content to it. DrunkenSmurf 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment at this time I have added (a little) info to the article. Also, it is a like search term, another reason why this should not be deleted. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Content added by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) explains exactly why this song deserves it's own article IMO. Without it, users viewing the Joshua Tree page might wonder why this song is excluded as all the others have an article and this new content explains why I think. DrunkenSmurf 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some more information now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by JoJan. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable voice actor with one credit. 378 GHits, however most of the results do not refer to a voice actor. Article was tagged for speedy (by me) but removed by page creator, who also left a message on my talk page attacking the tag. hateless 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The defined reason for deletion was because one cannot attribute that she did or did not appear in Kiddy Grade based on the fact that she is non-notable. Which is an unjustified reason. And hateless appropriates this as his reason in the very same place on his talk page. Just because she is not particularly famous, that doesnt constitute as a valid reason for deletion, mainly as an encyclopedia is for the collection of information, irrelevant of how important that information is. Look it up in a dictionary. I made the page to rid of red links on the Kiddy Grade page, nothing more nothing less. I am not a particular fan of this person, I just do not want the red link. --Crampy20 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are two ways to get rid of a red link. One is to create an article; the other is to edit the page and change the link to plain text. The second is often the better choice. Always consider both options. Fan-1967 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you care to look at Kiddy Grade and then go to the cast list, you will see under the present situation one cannot change the to text. Also a page about a person cannot be expressed on a separate page. Consider having Bill Gates bio on the Microsoft page. Does it make sense? Of course not!--Crampy20 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The cast list is editable, and you could change the entry from [[Melissa Elise]] to Melissa Elise, which would eliminate the redlink. As far as the bio information is concerned, there isn't any, so nothing further is needed. Fan-1967 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Instead of looking up the definition of an encyclopedia in a dictionary, may I recomment a more appropriate source? WP:BIO is the standard that is set for inclusion of a person in Wikipedia. This person easily fails. Dipics 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BIO is NOT policy, seems stupid to use non policy as a reason for deletion, does it not? Furhermore the page states that the subject is contentious and this:
- "Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups)."
- Speedy deletion refers to these things. Patent Nonsense, Test Pages, Pure Vandalism, Recreation of deleted material, banned user, housekeeping, author requests deletion, talk pages of pages that do not exist and office actions. None of these refer to unimportant persons. And under A7 (Unremarkable persons) it refers to AFD to decide if the subject is worth deletion. Which is what has eventually been done, after the original (without proper reason) speedy deletion was imposed. Thus hateless actually broke policy.
- Thus under all this the above Delete is unfounded and an affective break against policy, AFD is designed to decide this, but if AFD refers to articles which refers to AFD no decision can be made.
- --Crampy20 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:DEL, an official policy of WP. It explicitly states articles that fail WP:BIO as eligible for deletion. Also, WP:CSD another official policy, lists articles that do not assert notability as articles that can be speedy deleted. hateless 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see where the criteria for a speedy deletion really applies here. This article is not up for a speedy delete. AFD is an appropriate venue for articles that may not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under the appropriate guidelines but do not qualify for a speedy delete. Dipics 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment The criteria for speedy deletion applies from here([46]) and here([47]) as he asserted that it should have been. Also the rules that contribute to delete an article are stated as this "The articles for deletion (AFD) process, supported by two companion processes, speedy deletion and proposed deletion". Deletion policy (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy) refers also to proposed delete, which does not apply and AFD, which is currently under way. The reason that this is brought up under AFD is also because deletion guides and thus speedy deletion indicate to bring this to AFD as described earlier.
Basically policy indicates purely and simply to refer to AFD and thus AFD must make the decision, but because of this AFD cannot refer to policy for its reasons because policy directs to AFD. The need to delete this page doesn't come any non-AFD criteria, as described earlier, and is based entirely on wether or not this article is useful. Melissa Elise is a recent voice actress and she is soon to have many more roles. This page will have to eventually be made anyway, and is there really a reason to delete it? It isn't spam or anything else. This has started to become personal... --Crampy20 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After all that, I the Author of the page Melissa Elise propose Deletion, under the simple fact that the aforementioned person has no biographical information available and that all information on the page is contained elsewhere and that no more information will be available as this only instance of voice acting was in 2002. I will contact an admin for deletion. (Thank you Fan-1967, your comment, though simple, was the simple solution.)
Comment AFD is the way we Wikipedians get together to determine if an article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Policies such as WP:DEL and, to a lesser extent, guidelines such as WP:BIO help to set the standards for these discussions so they don't fall into a free for all. While WP:DEL tells us to list an article on WFD to gain consensus, it also specifically instructs us to use guidelines such as WP:BIO as an aid in determining notability. Trying to argue that policy doesn't apply to AFD is not likely to convince anyone but yourself. You state above that Melissa is "soon to have many more roles" but one of the tenets of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. Perhaps we should wait to see if she actually does get some more jobs instead of assuming that she will. If and when she does, that is time enough to add her. Dipics 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list of those little vanity stickers. As you can get them just about anywhere, this list is never going to be complete. While the little stickers themselves are a notable fad and certainly worthy of an article, an attempt to list every single oval sticker that someone might make is not overly encyclopedic. BigDT 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these official? Or are they just decoration? If they are official: keep, otherwise delete. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of them are official per se, but some of them like OBX are certainly widespread and seen all over the place. They're based on the stickers used to identify the origins of cars in Europe. Since they're simple black-on-white designs (an oval with 2 or 3 Helvetica letters in it), anyone with MS Paint and an inkjet printer could make their own. Weak delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering it seems cafepress is producing their own oval stickers, I'd assume non-official. So, that's Delete for me as well until proven otherwise. hateless 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom JianLi 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would consider supporting an article about the stickers, as BigDT said, but the list itself is not worthy of an article (especially in lieu of an article about the stickers in general) --Icarus (Hi!) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as amazingly trivial list, and probably original research. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Yes, this is frighteningly trivial, but this list does provide a service, and a wiki is the right mechanism for this "service." And while anyone can print these, most of them do reference a particular place, are semi-offical, and widely understood in a geographic area. OBX, for example, is understood as the Outer Banks of North Carolina on the east coast of the US, and someone from outside the area could legitimately want to know this. Originalbigj 00:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sorry, the whole thing looks like a vehicle for someone's cafepress site. Since there are no 'official' stickers, the list is endless and you could simply place anything here. Maybe an article about the phenom would be more appropriate - without the linkspam at the end :) Kuru talk 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see nothing wrong with this list. I don't see how officiality is relevant, and I certainly do not see how it is OR. AdamBiswanger1 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though an article about the phenomenon themselves would be interesting to see. What on earth would you put it at, oval bumper stickers? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nifty list of stickers but not encyclopedic. Whispering 18:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. WP:NOT Vegaswikian 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research TigerShark 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as ... as ... I don't know, but something ;) BigDT 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per pretty much anything on WP:NOT. Unfortunately fits no CSD. Sandstein 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for any three good reasons you can think of, starting with WP:BALLS. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Err... tmopkisn tlka 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I would suggest a new criteria be made for CSD, that of "abstract motivational speeches". Or maybe not. hateless 22:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ofcourse. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete both. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two re-posts/forks under a strange title. The consensus version is at Pinafore eroticism. Dr Zak 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- burninate with fire and things. Just zis Guy you know? 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I would suggest redirecting, but how likely is it that someone is going to enter those exact phrases into the search bar? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Petticoat Discipline, Petticoat Punishment and Petticoat domination have already been redirected. Dr Zak 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. An excellent article on an interesting topic.Gpscholar 04:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)gpscholar[reply]
- Comment I noticed that this user has several warnings for making duplicate articles (including Male petticoating, which was redirected), and happens to be the creator of both of these. This article is a duplicate of Male petticoating and of all three redirects previously mentioned, which makes it a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate, etc. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as redundant and extremely unlikely to be useful as a redirect. GRBerry 02:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article, though very well-written, is also lacking context (its first sentence does not even explain the meaning of the term). In addition, it has been completely written (excluding markup, etc) by one user, User:Jack Child, who is also the author of the book which this article references. So there is the possibility that this may be copyed straight out of the book, leading to copyright complications. I'm not sure if deleting it would be the right thing to do, but I at least wanted to bring this to the attentions of people with a better understanding of the policy than I do JianLi 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove references to 'Jack Childs' books and remove 'Jack Childs' own research If the author himself has copied it then its probably ok as he owns the material and therefore has the right to use it as he pleases, including subjecting it to open license. However it is certainly the case that much of the content of the article is the authors own arguements (demonstrated by him referencing his own book). This means that is breaches WP:NOR and those parts which are his own analysis should be removed.Adam Slack 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This looks like a pretty clear essay to me. Some of the information in the article may belong on Wikipedia, but perhaps woven into a discussion of Antarctic or South American politics, not as its own article. But, as the previous commentor mentions, WP:NOR applies, and WP:NPOV may too. Originalbigj 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Originalbigj. Also, I still have no firm idea what "Antarctic Geopolitical Thinking" means. JianLi 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deponia (deponija) means garbage dump. There is no official place called Deponia and all of the Roma settlements are regarded to as "unhygienic settlement" and if any official would name them 'deponija' it would be most probably considered as an insult. To conclude - this article is fake. Delete. Avala 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be an official settlement, but there appears to be a widely recognized slum area near to Belgrade that is indeed known by this name, insulting or not. I've added citations to the article. Keep. Uncle G 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This name is just a mistake used by foreign media. It does happen. Even the CNN reported in 1999 that Nato bombed "Okolina". In Serbia there is no such place and that words means "Vicinity". It was a popular joke for some time after the bombing so let's not create a joke on Wikipeda. Avala 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First it means "garbage dump" and now it means "vicinity"? Please cite sources to back your argument up. Please cite sources giving the real name of the place, given your contention that this is not its real name. At present we have three sources saying that it is, and zero sources confirming what you assert. Uncle G 11:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn`t even read what I wrote. OKOLINA means VICINITY and DEPONIJA means GARBAGE DUMP. The story about vicinity or okolina bombing appeared on CNN which is a pure example that such a ridicilous mistake can be made. They reported the bombing of the Okolina, like if they said there was the bombing of Vicinity with capital V. So if CNN can make such a rough translation mistake those smaller sources you are citing could do it as well. Like I said the official name is "unhygienic settlement" and you will get results on these Roma settlements if you type it in google. Unofficial names can be kartoncity, deponija, ciganmala... but they are definately not something we should put into encyclopedia. Just type deponija in Google and you will get photos and texts about garbage dumps but not Roma settlement. And when you search Deponia among serbian text websites you get nothing as it is not even a correct spelling. This is not the official name and we can`t use it. We can make an article Unhygienic settlements in Serbia where we would cite all of the names but the article carrying a name like this is definately a joke. Avala 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked you to cite sources to back up your argument. Instead, you have simply repeated your argument. The source tally is still 3:0. Please cite sources. Uncle G 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn`t even read what I wrote. OKOLINA means VICINITY and DEPONIJA means GARBAGE DUMP. The story about vicinity or okolina bombing appeared on CNN which is a pure example that such a ridicilous mistake can be made. They reported the bombing of the Okolina, like if they said there was the bombing of Vicinity with capital V. So if CNN can make such a rough translation mistake those smaller sources you are citing could do it as well. Like I said the official name is "unhygienic settlement" and you will get results on these Roma settlements if you type it in google. Unofficial names can be kartoncity, deponija, ciganmala... but they are definately not something we should put into encyclopedia. Just type deponija in Google and you will get photos and texts about garbage dumps but not Roma settlement. And when you search Deponia among serbian text websites you get nothing as it is not even a correct spelling. This is not the official name and we can`t use it. We can make an article Unhygienic settlements in Serbia where we would cite all of the names but the article carrying a name like this is definately a joke. Avala 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First it means "garbage dump" and now it means "vicinity"? Please cite sources to back your argument up. Please cite sources giving the real name of the place, given your contention that this is not its real name. At present we have three sources saying that it is, and zero sources confirming what you assert. Uncle G 11:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This name is just a mistake used by foreign media. It does happen. Even the CNN reported in 1999 that Nato bombed "Okolina". In Serbia there is no such place and that words means "Vicinity". It was a popular joke for some time after the bombing so let's not create a joke on Wikipeda. Avala 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not know much about quarters of Belgrade, but there is also quarter named Deponija in Novi Sad. See the map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Novi_sad_quarters.png So, it is not something unusual at all. If such settlement exist, there is no reason why article about it should not exist. PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So they have a garbage dump in Novi Sad? That's amazing! --LambiamTalk 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was not the point. There is a garbage dump there all right, but there are also some people that live there, thus it is also a settlement, not only a garbage dump. I presume same thing is a case in Belgrade. PANONIAN (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is - it is a generic name. We can`t call it a Deponija with big D as such a settlement exists in every town and it is not even a settlement but homeless people living on landfill zone. Avala
- Ok, maybe then name of the article should be moved to "Deponia, Belgrade", while "Deponia" could be disambiguation page describing other meanings of the word. PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is - it is a generic name. We can`t call it a Deponija with big D as such a settlement exists in every town and it is not even a settlement but homeless people living on landfill zone. Avala
- No, that was not the point. There is a garbage dump there all right, but there are also some people that live there, thus it is also a settlement, not only a garbage dump. I presume same thing is a case in Belgrade. PANONIAN (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So they have a garbage dump in Novi Sad? That's amazing! --LambiamTalk 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This page on the official Internet site of Belgrade systematically uses "deponija" in lower case, which appears to support Avala's claims. Disclaimer: my knowledge of Serbian is essentially absent. --LambiamTalk 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That site obviously refer to garbage dump, not to settlement. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On the other hand, I found several references from .yu web sites using "Deponija" as the name of a settlement: [48], [49], [50]; the last is from the University of Belgrade. The first and last put quotes around "Deponija", presumably because this – although used as a name – is not considered an official name. Still, the settlement exists, and this appears to be the common way of referring to it. A compromise position may be to rename the article to "Deponija" settlement or Deponija (settlement). --LambiamTalk 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename to Deponija for the start or, better still, to Deponija (Belgrade); I guess many ex-Yu cities have something like that. The settlement is of course not officially called like that because it officialy does not exist. Duja 13:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, many of the city quarters in the Serbian cities officially do not exist. Cities are usually divided into "mesne zajednice" ("local communities"), which may or may not correspond with traditional or known city quarters. Officially, only "mesne zajednice" exist, and everything else is unofficial. PANONIAN (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Every city has slums, its not a shame PajaBG 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- yes slums and not Slums. Avala 13:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is both non-notable and spammy JianLi 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverified and sourceless, official site has Alexa rank of 1,111,293. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. ALthough the article does need some sources, the group itself is quite notable, receiving 40,600 hits on Google, 717 of which are unique - quite a feat when put into perspective. As for the above comment, I don't think that the Alexa statistic should really come into pay here, as the article is about the organization, not about the organization's website. For example, the official website of the redcross recieves an ALexa ranking of only 13,254. tmopkisn tlka 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable neopagan organization both in longevity and size. Article could use some neutralizing and sourcing, but they deserve an article. Will add to WikiProject_Neopaganism. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- guideline should not be WP:WEB here; this shouldn't be an article about a website. Organisation is arguably the most important Neopagan organisation in the United States and inarguably in the top five. See the 1979 book Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler for more information about the organisation and its importance, or more recent surveys of Neopaganism in the U.S. Jkelly 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. It has been discussed and deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers), but the content has been substantially changed and expanded. TigerShark 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets basic notability standard with a story on MTV and a mention about the emo subculture at the UK Times [51]. It's also available on iFilm, which doesn't take any old content, as far as I know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jeff. Which notabiliy criteria are you using? I have tried to fit it with the film criteria, but can't. The Times article just seems to be a fairly random reference to a film found by the journalist and I'm not sure how important the MTV review is (does anybody know how difficult it is to get a review there?). Regarding the iFilm inclusion, they may not take rubbish but, again, how hard is it to get on there? Cheers TigerShark 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTFILM would not apply here anyway, as it's a nonbinding essay lacking broad support. I think the MTV + Times citation meet WP:WEB, as I also believe its inclusion on iFilm does ("The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."). --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the MTV article causes it to meet my criteria for inclusion. JYolkowski // talk 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per above Huangcjz 15:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as a recreation of previously deleted content (content was not identical, but gave no additional evidence of notability; previous AfD hinged on lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Sudoku). bd2412 T 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Has already been deleted once, I was about to speedy it, but I can't guarantee that the content hasn't been significantly changed. I vote Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Sudoku. tmopkisn tlka 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy G4 if it's reasonably similar to the original article; otherwise delete as still failing WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above AdamBiswanger1 01:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A school with 150 pupils is surely not notable Computerjoe's talk 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most Agreed, this school should not be included not notable for the wikiAeon Insane Ward 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into West Green, Crawley. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the authors contributions makes me suspect that they are a teacher at that school or another nearby. This is a vanity article and should be removed.Adam Slack 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well written article detailing history of this 50+ year old school, hardly a "vanity" article, which is inapplicable (from a policy perspective) to schools in any event. Further, "notability" (or the lack thereof) is not and never has been a valid deletion criterion for schools. 42 elementary/primary schools have survived the AfD process in the past 2 months alone, with hundreds of similar schools surviving the process in the previous 2 year period. While some of these elementary/primary schools resulted in "no consensus" closures, it is reasonable that a wikipedia reader would expect to find an article about this school when searching for it given the great perponderance of other elementary/primary school articles on wikipedia. --Nicodemus75 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but there are no external sources given. The two links are to the schools website and the local education autority. I think schools can be included as you are not meant to be th primary author of an organisatio you are associated with. Even then the information is not verifiable, and it looks unlikely that any neutral Wikipaedian would want to improve an article about an obscure institution.Adam Slack 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but ofsted is an external source. If the Government of the United Kingdom says the schools exists, it exists (as far as WP:V is concerned). This article is about a verifable school, period.--Nicodemus75 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but there are no external sources given. The two links are to the schools website and the local education autority. I think schools can be included as you are not meant to be th primary author of an organisatio you are associated with. Even then the information is not verifiable, and it looks unlikely that any neutral Wikipaedian would want to improve an article about an obscure institution.Adam Slack 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and allow for organic growth, schools of all shapes and sizes are notable. Bahn Mi 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with the local supermarket, but there is no article on that. Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also lets say someone made a school (got it credited ect) and it only had lets say 10 to 20 people? Would you still include that? This schoool only has 150 students, there are preschools in some areas that have more than that yet they are not included here either. Aeon Insane Ward 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as
advertisement andvanity.This is a private school and thus a private business, and I don't see any pressing reason (a 50-year history isn't significant in the UK) to allow them to advertise their services on Wikipedia.Incidentally, precedent isn't binding on AFD, and using the Schoolwatch page as an AFD scorecard page is wholly inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- This article still amounts to vanity and a stub that cannot be expanded save with local trivia, when the advertising issue is laid aside. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a primary school, the point at which I draw my line. All the issues have been argued and argued, leaving this as my only argument. AdamBiswanger1 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, primary schools (especially those with such a low number of students) aren't notable unless they did something more than exist (and for longer than 50 years, seeing as this is the UK we're talking about). Barring that, since this is a private school, I will go as far to say that this fails WP:ADS. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable primary school, WP:SCHOOL is not policy Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the well reasoned arguments established at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Having reviewed the article, nothing within it is of a promotional tone, nor does it have the appearance of a vanity page, it is simply informational. This school is notable, and Wikipedia:Notability is not policy, it's an essay. Silensor 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with that argument is that there are just as well reasoned arguments at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, which makes citing that section useless. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a discussion. Silensor is linking to the arguments page to state his rationale for voting to keep the article without retyping the reasons out on each and every school AfD discussion (there are HUNDREDS each year, after all). It is not "useless" to cite one's reasons for voting a particular way.--Nicodemus75 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with that argument is that there are just as well reasoned arguments at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, which makes citing that section useless. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep established school and as such important to its local community, also the subject of a well-written article with multiple third-party sources. Kappa 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Schools are inherently notable per consensus reached @ This page -- Librarianofages 02:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any discussion on that page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Said page is a user page, not a page where standards are formed. It is nothing but a list of AFD cases. It is useless as evidence of past practice because it fails to distinguish between consensus keep and no consensus defaults to keep outcomes. A more full explanation of the useless of that page can be found in this diff. [52] GRBerry 12:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no assertion of notability in the article. Primary school or elementary schools are also normally not kept, even by our excessively loose standard practices for keeping schools. If there is no assertion of notability in the article, having an article violates the Not an indiscriminate collection of information rule of WP:NOT. GRBerry 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Schools are inherently notable, per School Project. There is an organization of deletionists on Wikipedia that is out to delete all schools. Per School Project, this must be stopped. Capit 13:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This kind of accusation does little to make the Wikipedia project seem more encyclopedic. Consider for a moment not that there is a deletionist cabal out to get rid of all school articles, but instead that a group of clear-thinking editors feel that schools which are not demonstrably notable in and of themselves do not need their own article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nn - vanity article Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GRBerry. I have no problem keeping articles on schools, so long as that school has a demonstrable claim to notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided - as it was I who wrote the article, I thought I'd add a few comments. Firstly, it's not a private school (not sure why that came up). Secondly, it was never intended to be recruitative; rather that it is difficult to find a central history of schools anywhere, and I have researched several; some of the older history info can be verified from the Victoria History series, so I can find a reference for that if that would make is saveable. Failing that, if consensus is that schools have to be of a certain size or notability, then what it that? And how broadly? It's notable locally since it has been threatened with closure on more than one occasion, and may well be again in the next 5-10 years. Does it need to be broader than that? Tafkam 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, there isn't a consensus over school notability, hence the differing opinions here. Computerjoe's talk 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding more verified information to the article about its local notability would make for a better evaluation. The article now seems to say that people cared, but not clearly enough to say if they cared about the school specifically or generally objected to the system's plan. The general rule for all articles is that the article itself needs to provide reason for being kept. GRBerry 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, there isn't a consensus over school notability, hence the differing opinions here. Computerjoe's talk 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of seeming stroppy, is there a reason, then, that this article has been selected for deletion? I notice that almost every Primary School in Bucks has a two-line stub article, as well as a category to collate them.
- They may also be nominated. This just happened to be article I spotted ;) Computerjoe's talk 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep around and around and around we go.... ALKIVAR™
11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Alkivar, you've been here much longer than I have. AFD is for discussion and consensus-building, not a vote or making sarcastic quips. Comments like the one above contribute nothing to the discussion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That might be true, but I don't see what repeating yourself over and over and over and over again in AfD after AfD adds to the discussion or to consensus building either. It's not like there aren't HUNDREDS of AfDs where you can't read Alkivar's views. I think it is ridiculous to expect editors to cut/paste their opinions hundreds of times.--Nicodemus75 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That does not make it appropriate to post deriding comments that show that the editor has no interest in working toward consensus about a subject, which is contrary to the spirit of AFD, and the Wikipedia project itself. Again, I say, AFD is not a vote and comments like this seem to have an underlying assumption that this is so. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do you seriously believe that 90% of those who vote to delete on this and all the other school AfDs are "working toward consensus"? Do you think that "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" actually have any respect whatsoever for the opinions of those who disagree with them? I can't see as how those who pile on with delete votes aren't treating these "discussions" as a vote, particularly in light of the fact that school articles are very, very rarely deleted through deletion processes on wikipedia. The fact is, that ALL attempts at consensus on this issue have utterly failed, and in fact, if anything the failure of WP:SCHOOL simply codified the polarized positions that exist on this contentious matter. There is no consensus on what to do with schools and trying discredit editors who have well-known views on the subject, expressed in literally hundreds of previous AfD discussions is quite frankly, a cheap shot. Further, "around and around we go" is hardly "deriding"--Nicodemus75 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to assuming good faith of those who disagree with you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to you assuming good faith? Your comment above claims that the author (and subsequent editors) of this article is engaged in advertising and writing a vanity article - hardly an assumption of good faith.--Nicodemus75 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that it's a good-faith misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia isn't here to advertise businesses, and this article does little else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, but that is hogwash. When an editor creates an article about a school of which there are literally tens of thousands of such articles on wikipedia as well several organized projects to create and improve articles about schools, it is not an assumption of good faith to then suggest that the editor was creating "advertising". It is the opposite. It is obvious that the editor in this case created the article on wikipedia after seeing many other school articles and wished to contribute information about - not to "advertise" this school. Frankly, I find your lack of assumption of good faith with respect to the author and contributors to this article by suggesting that they are creating "advertising", offensive and uncivil. Your voting premise is faulty and malinformed in any case as this is a not a "private business". The article clearly states that this was founded as a Church of England school. In England, the Church of England is established. The article goes on to make abundantly clear that school was later reorganized by the Local education authority. This school is funded by the state. Did you actually read the article before voting on it?--Nicodemus75 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One para intro, three para history. It's not exactly lauding the merits of the school, I admit, but announcing the existence of a business offering services to the public is an advertisement, unless that article serves some purpose other than announcing the availability of the services. This article fails to anything else, and, whether or not it was intended as an advertisement, it is an advertisement.
My knowledge of English schools is limited. (Does this school actively recruit students, or simply accept students from a district? In the case of the latter, my argument that this is an advertisement would indeed be incorrect.) I went to find out more, then discovered that Education in England is horrribly uninformative and badly written; it's mostly bulleted lists. Perhaps your time would be better spent making that a useful, informative article?
As for the rest of the articles, looks like there's a lot of work to do to clean them up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- If you had bothered to read the link I cited, it would have explained to you how Local education authoritys work. Students are organized into these STATE SCHOOLS by the LEAs, the school does not solicit for students. Perhaps your time would be better spent getting informed on a subject you are voting on and discussing before pronouncing that the subject is "a private school" and "a private business" which is clearly not the case. I hope the closing admin discounts your obviously and admittedly shoddily-informed comment. Irrespective of your unfounded assertion and continued weak defense of same, "advertisement" is defined as "A publication produced in order to sell some commodity, service or similar." or "A commercial solicitation in a publication designed to sell some commodity, service or similar." This article is neither of those things, particularly since no service is "sold" by this institution. This state-run school is not a business.--Nicodemus75 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The LEA article is unclear on whether students are recruited or assigned, as well. I was under the impression that private schools solicited students, as is my experience with both the American and Canadian educational systems. Consider my objection mooted, then (although the Education in England and Local Education Authority articles need a lot of love). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a private school.--Nicodemus75 10:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you know what I mean. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a private school.--Nicodemus75 10:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The LEA article is unclear on whether students are recruited or assigned, as well. I was under the impression that private schools solicited students, as is my experience with both the American and Canadian educational systems. Consider my objection mooted, then (although the Education in England and Local Education Authority articles need a lot of love). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had bothered to read the link I cited, it would have explained to you how Local education authoritys work. Students are organized into these STATE SCHOOLS by the LEAs, the school does not solicit for students. Perhaps your time would be better spent getting informed on a subject you are voting on and discussing before pronouncing that the subject is "a private school" and "a private business" which is clearly not the case. I hope the closing admin discounts your obviously and admittedly shoddily-informed comment. Irrespective of your unfounded assertion and continued weak defense of same, "advertisement" is defined as "A publication produced in order to sell some commodity, service or similar." or "A commercial solicitation in a publication designed to sell some commodity, service or similar." This article is neither of those things, particularly since no service is "sold" by this institution. This state-run school is not a business.--Nicodemus75 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One para intro, three para history. It's not exactly lauding the merits of the school, I admit, but announcing the existence of a business offering services to the public is an advertisement, unless that article serves some purpose other than announcing the availability of the services. This article fails to anything else, and, whether or not it was intended as an advertisement, it is an advertisement.
- I am sorry, but that is hogwash. When an editor creates an article about a school of which there are literally tens of thousands of such articles on wikipedia as well several organized projects to create and improve articles about schools, it is not an assumption of good faith to then suggest that the editor was creating "advertising". It is the opposite. It is obvious that the editor in this case created the article on wikipedia after seeing many other school articles and wished to contribute information about - not to "advertise" this school. Frankly, I find your lack of assumption of good faith with respect to the author and contributors to this article by suggesting that they are creating "advertising", offensive and uncivil. Your voting premise is faulty and malinformed in any case as this is a not a "private business". The article clearly states that this was founded as a Church of England school. In England, the Church of England is established. The article goes on to make abundantly clear that school was later reorganized by the Local education authority. This school is funded by the state. Did you actually read the article before voting on it?--Nicodemus75 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that it's a good-faith misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia isn't here to advertise businesses, and this article does little else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to you assuming good faith? Your comment above claims that the author (and subsequent editors) of this article is engaged in advertising and writing a vanity article - hardly an assumption of good faith.--Nicodemus75 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That last bit, at the very least, implies that the objections and opinions of editors who disagree are meaningless and without worth to the project, which I find nonconducive to the environment needed to create an encyclopedia. And further, yes, I believe that many of the people who have voted delete above have an interest in consensus, particularly when it comes to this article. The claim that people who would argue to delete an article like this are "piling on votes" is similarly thoroughly unfounded. I have expressed in my vote the reason I think that the article is inappropriate to include, and I am entirely open to discussion on my position as far as this article is concerned. Further, I have respect for the differing opinions of other editors who disagree with me- I extend this effort toward other editors in the name of not detracting from what Wikipedia needs to work, and it is this expectation that led me to voice concerns over what Alkivar had to say. Lastly, the concerns expressed by A Man In Black, I must admit, concern me as well. A civil environment in which editors assume good faith is similarly vital to the project. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to assuming good faith of those who disagree with you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do you seriously believe that 90% of those who vote to delete on this and all the other school AfDs are "working toward consensus"? Do you think that "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" actually have any respect whatsoever for the opinions of those who disagree with them? I can't see as how those who pile on with delete votes aren't treating these "discussions" as a vote, particularly in light of the fact that school articles are very, very rarely deleted through deletion processes on wikipedia. The fact is, that ALL attempts at consensus on this issue have utterly failed, and in fact, if anything the failure of WP:SCHOOL simply codified the polarized positions that exist on this contentious matter. There is no consensus on what to do with schools and trying discredit editors who have well-known views on the subject, expressed in literally hundreds of previous AfD discussions is quite frankly, a cheap shot. Further, "around and around we go" is hardly "deriding"--Nicodemus75 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That does not make it appropriate to post deriding comments that show that the editor has no interest in working toward consensus about a subject, which is contrary to the spirit of AFD, and the Wikipedia project itself. Again, I say, AFD is not a vote and comments like this seem to have an underlying assumption that this is so. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That might be true, but I don't see what repeating yourself over and over and over and over again in AfD after AfD adds to the discussion or to consensus building either. It's not like there aren't HUNDREDS of AfDs where you can't read Alkivar's views. I think it is ridiculous to expect editors to cut/paste their opinions hundreds of times.--Nicodemus75 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Alkivar, you've been here much longer than I have. AFD is for discussion and consensus-building, not a vote or making sarcastic quips. Comments like the one above contribute nothing to the discussion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Imagine it was your own primary school, which is probably no more notable (I know mine isn't). How would you vote then? I know this isn't a very convincinag argument, but give it a thought anyway. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't think of any reason why my primary school would have an article on Wikipedia. Catchpole 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll vote delete if my primary school gets an article and gets AFD, they are not notable except for select cases Jaranda wat's sup 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Not encylopedic. Well written articles is not a reason for inclusion. Vegaswikian 23:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a sense of notability here, I do not see how removing this is beneficial to the project. Yamaguchi先生 02:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into West Green, Crawley (which is a stub in need of more information) or possibly a listing of schools. Doesn't seem notable unto itself. Dreadlocke
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was PROD'd with the reason, "nonstandard presentation of trivial material". That didn't seem an appropriate reason for PROD, so I'm AfD-ing for further discussion. I have no preference regarding deletion. Thanks. RJH (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the concepts into the section Mathematical induction#Proof or reformulation of mathematical induction . CMummert 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons originally stated. -lethe talk + 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: this can be merged without deletion; and if it is to be merged, and if it is to be merged the history should be kept. Septentrionalis 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons originally stated. In WP jargon, "nonstandard presentation" is original research. Inasmuch as the content is standard it is adequately covered in mathematical induction. Also, lousy title. —Blotwell 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure it is nonstandard, I think I have seen a proof along these lines before. However, it is a trivial proof, and trivial proofs usually do not belong in an encyclopaedia. As most participants are probably aware, there is also some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Proving induction. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Abstain. If Ryan says it's important, then I guess it is. Furthermore, I forgot that I decided long ago not to bother about articles containing only a proof, even though I think they do not belong here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. I usually hate joining AfD's, but this one seems to me to be misguided on a reasonably important topic. I dispute that this presentation is nonstandard, first of all. I have here on my lap a copy of Kolmogorov and Fomin's book Introductory Real Analysis (ISBN 0-486-61226-0) which, on page 28, proves "strong" induction using precisely this argument. Since strong and weak induction are equivalent, the argument has seen print. Second, on page 29, they prove transfinite induction using the same technique. Now, regardless of your opinion of the axiomatic status of the principle of induction for the natural numbers, you will probably agree with me that said status is nonexistent for ordinals. It can, however, be proved that the ordinals are well-ordered and hence satisfy induction using this argument. However, the article is not so well-written. I think it should be improved, have transfinite induction included, and perhaps sourced (like, from Kolmogorov and Fomin) to avoid further accusations of originality. I also think the name is fine: the natural numbers have a pretty variable axiomatic status (you can define them from the ground up, with the Peano axioms, but you can also define them from the top down, as a subset of the real numbers, and in the latter case, well-ordering and induction need to be proven explicitly). Ryan Reich 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See talk page for relevant details. --KSmrqT 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or keep per Septentrionalis. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. It may be fairly trivial stuff but it is also covered in books like Willard's 'General Topology' (and Munkres, I believe), along with the proof (based on well-ordering) of transfinite induction. Madmath789 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I have already seen an argument of this kind in the mathematical literature, the problem is to clarify the meaning and the details.--Pokipsy76 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clean up and Merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I look this sort of thing up on wikipedia from time to time(although this particular one has never been my goal) I hate when the present visual quality is enough to kill an article. i kan reed 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and improve. Variations of this content are found in standard literature, so OR is not an issue, per se. To be interesting and meaningful, this cannot stand alone. It must be part of a wider discussion of induction and the different axiomatic ways it arises and finds use. In Peano axioms induction is "built in". Typical topos foundations have a natural numbers object. Axiomatic set theory can use choice/Zorn to prove every set is well-ordered, from which induction follows. All of this belongs in the article on induction where it can properly be discussed. --KSmrqT 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This shows the signs of being a vanity page, created by User:Hazellj2 whos only contributions are to this article. No details are provided which explain what Hazell did for the six radio stations he worked for, nor are there any sources. Google searching for "James Hazell" +radio results in 363 hits but even then I was unable to find anything of note, so here it is. RFerreira 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability established. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity article --Ageo020 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO as non-notable local radio personality, WP:VAIN. --Kinu t/c 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what's here, and use as a redirect to Hazell (TV series) (The lead character's name was James Hazell). Grutness...wha? 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to establish notability. rewtguy 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I was not aware that Wikipedia was so heavily censored. I wrongly assumed that information to the general public was not controlled in this manner.
Please delete - I would not want to be a part of such an ill thought out regime.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has remained a substub since its creation one year ago. While Becker may or may not be notable, the article itself not only fails WP:PORN BIO, it is damn close to meeting our speedy deletion criteria. At the time of nomination, this article lists only one film in the videography, does nothing to assert notability of the subject, and provides nothing in the way of references. RFerreira 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can only find one film for this performer in checking three consistently reliable sources: tlaVideo, Vivid Video, and HisXpress. (See below.) The one film that is listed at HisXpress and tlaVideo is Intruders, Fox Studio, 1984. Vivid doesn't list it. The only reference I can find that would make Paul Becker in any way notable is included in the notes for that film at tlaVideo [53] - that he was a competition bodybuilder. I found a website for a Paul Becker bodybuilder[54]; his picture there looks nothing like his picture on the cover of his video[55] or his picture at HisXpress (caution: full-frontal nudity)[56]. They could be the same person; 1984 was a long time ago and he's got on a lot more clothes in his wedding photo (odd choice of picture for a bodybuilding site, but I digress). Rather than run the risk of it not being the same person and creating some sort of brouhaha, I vote for deletion. Additionally, since the original author of this article is no longer around to question as to sources, unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep the page that I'm not aware of, I think it should go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chidom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: My experience is that tlaVideo generally has the most complete filmography; even though they are a retail site, they still list films that are out of print or no longer available. Their credits list includes information (when available) for Country, Studio, Cast, and Director - clicking an entry in the list produces a filmography filtered by the contents of the link. Vivid and, to a lesser extent, HisXpress tend to delete films from their lists that are no longer available for purchase or rent (download), but they are still worth checking, although their search engines are not as robust or intuitive. Searching "Paul Becker" in the search box at HisXpress, for example, will get you a list of every film with someone named Paul or Becker. There is a drop-down list of performers to search by name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chidom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, they're mine. Sorry I forgot to sign them! (Thanks, RFerreira) Chidom 05:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: My experience is that tlaVideo generally has the most complete filmography; even though they are a retail site, they still list films that are out of print or no longer available. Their credits list includes information (when available) for Country, Studio, Cast, and Director - clicking an entry in the list produces a filmography filtered by the contents of the link. Vivid and, to a lesser extent, HisXpress tend to delete films from their lists that are no longer available for purchase or rent (download), but they are still worth checking, although their search engines are not as robust or intuitive. Searching "Paul Becker" in the search box at HisXpress, for example, will get you a list of every film with someone named Paul or Becker. There is a drop-down list of performers to search by name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chidom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as notability is not asserted. Does qualify as a speedy. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable self-published comic book; 88 unique Ghits, Amazon sales rank below 300,000. NawlinWiki 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not a comic book. Novel (prose). --maru (talk) contribs 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep. The article's been around for a while and seems to have had multiple contributors. Even though the book currently has a relatively low sales rank and comes from a vanity press, it has a relatively large number of (borderline non-trivial) reviews on Amazon, and its author has an as-yet-unchallenged Wikipedia article. I think a lot of the content (all those character bios and extended plot "summary") is unencyclopedic, however, and would be in favor of deleting most if not all of the character articles such as Katkat, Nihel and Mighty Metallic Magno Man. If they aren't included in this AfD, I'll eventually list them separately. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though I agree with the comments above that the article can be trimmed down substantially and that the various "character" articles can be removed. --Chrismith 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely trim the separate pages for character bios though. None of them are necessary or cover information that is not already found in the main article. As for the Amazon Sales Rank, that's not a very accurate ruler to go by. The book seems to rubberband between 50k - 300k depending on the day of the week. Kurosen 06:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. --maru (talk) contribs 04:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Online browser game launched last year. No indication of notability or a large number of players. Doesn't seem to adhere to WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. 1680 google hits. Alexa ranking: 1,743,476. Peephole 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Given that Shartak, a web-based "browser" game isn't technically software, it shouldn't be expected to meet these guidelines. Also, how is Alexa's demonstrably flawed site ranking valid or relevant? The game has maintained over 1000 "active" players for several months, despite only launching publicly since Jan '06.---Jackel 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it does not fall under WP:SOFTWARE then it falls under the WP:WEB guideline. Which requires the content of the website to be "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --Peephole 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-read the WP:WEB article and note that the the 3 listed criteria are prefaced as being "some rough guidelines", not all-inclusive and by no means "requirements". Then, peruse the that entry's talk page and note the various threads concerning the current lack of "notability" criteria for web-based entries, and the overall disfavor with which this particular guideline is viewed. ---Jackel 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB is generally accepted throughout wikipedia. And yes it is a guideline, if you can state why Shartak should be considered an exception from this guideline please state so. --Peephole 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-read the WP:WEB article and note that the the 3 listed criteria are prefaced as being "some rough guidelines", not all-inclusive and by no means "requirements". Then, peruse the that entry's talk page and note the various threads concerning the current lack of "notability" criteria for web-based entries, and the overall disfavor with which this particular guideline is viewed. ---Jackel 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google hits and Alexa ranking (Or amount of players) Should have no bearing on whether or not an article for it should exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should have as much information on all subjects as possible.
- Comment: No, Wikipedia has an official policy on what it is not, including "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". See WP:NOT. --Peephole 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should rethink your definition of an "indiscriminate collection of information". The article in question does NOT fall under that category. (As a side note, I'd like to mention that you seem to be against keeping both this and another browser based game, Nexus War. It appears that you have a distaste for browser based games, and this would be in conflict with many of wikipedia's policies.)
- Comment: My reference to WP:NOT was to your claim that "wikipedia should have as much information on all subjects as possible". Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, they do not help your "cause". Especially when they are unfounded (I did not nominate the other article for deletion) and if you're making them anonymously (smells like socks). --Peephole 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was only simply stating that you seem to have dislike these games. Not once did I say that you *did* dislike them, just that it looks that way. It is by no means a personal attack, and I most certainly did NOT say it anonymously. Infact, I'm displaying more personal information than you, as all I see is your profile name and a link to it, and my IP address is displayed under the history. Thats far more than anonymous. I'd also like to note that we are getting off topic. Let's focus on the task at hand, shall we?
- Comment: My reference to WP:NOT was to your claim that "wikipedia should have as much information on all subjects as possible". Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, they do not help your "cause". Especially when they are unfounded (I did not nominate the other article for deletion) and if you're making them anonymously (smells like socks). --Peephole 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should rethink your definition of an "indiscriminate collection of information". The article in question does NOT fall under that category. (As a side note, I'd like to mention that you seem to be against keeping both this and another browser based game, Nexus War. It appears that you have a distaste for browser based games, and this would be in conflict with many of wikipedia's policies.)
- Comment: No, Wikipedia has an official policy on what it is not, including "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". See WP:NOT. --Peephole 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't even like this game and have never actually played it, but I think you're getting a bit over-enthusiastic with the deletion proposals here. By your "criteria" that aren't even policy, by the way, we'd end up with no articles on webgames at all. --Keolah 00:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I like Shartak I find it relaxing, and as several people have pointed out WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE are guidelines not policy and if you check the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page, you will find no refernces to deleting things for failing WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. --Meirleach 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of you have still haven't made any good points as to why a webgame with barely 1000 players is notable enough to be included on wikipedia.--Peephole 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion. It isn't a vanity page, nor obvious patent nonsense, and it isn't spam nor copyright infringement. You haven't given good reason why it should be deleted. Alexa and Google are also not acceptable sole reasons for deletion (In fact, one could argue that Alexa is non-notable in and of itself. :P) --Keolah 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The google and alexa information wasn't included as an argument for deletion but to indicate how trivial the subject is. Lack of notability IS an acceptable reason for deletion. Articles are being deleted constantly for not being notable.--Peephole 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion. It isn't a vanity page, nor obvious patent nonsense, and it isn't spam nor copyright infringement. You haven't given good reason why it should be deleted. Alexa and Google are also not acceptable sole reasons for deletion (In fact, one could argue that Alexa is non-notable in and of itself. :P) --Keolah 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:SOFTWARE doesn't apply because the article is primarily about a game, not the code that runs it (hence Category:Browser-based games and Category:Massively multiplayer online games). Besides, WP:SOFTWARE is only about "software applications" (see Application software). Furthermore, WP:WEB pertains to "web-specific content" such as "webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts". While web-specific content is not limited to those categories, it doesn't seem like Shartak, which is first and foremost a game, is the sort of thing that's being discussed. And finally, regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I think it's essential to read the entire section for an idea of what its heading means. (The section consists mainly of a list of kinds of articles that should not be included in Wikipedia according to consensus.) Interestingly enough, none of the eleven items in that list concern this article, so I'm curious as to how a summary like "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" can be an argument for deletion when its explanation is clearly not. — Elembis 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think we may have a disagreement as to where the burden of proof lies. To my knowledge there are no policies and guidelines that make statements like "articles about games are always okay" (Wikipedia:Notability is just an essay), but there are plenty of policies and guidelines about what isn't okay (like WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:DEL). Doesn't that strongly suggest that any article is acceptable unless it violates a policy or guideline? Doesn't the very act of proposing an article for deletion imply that the person making the proposal has a case to make? — Elembis 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list of companies listed on the NASDAQ changes daily, often with multiple changes per day. It's unfeasible to keep to a canonical list current without introducing an automated mechansim. Trying to keep the list current by hand results in unreliable data. Ronnotel 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oh no, no, no. Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable. Don't want to see those dreaded words "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" when there are thousands of companies that could be listed. This is as bad as one of those List of song titles that contain a vowel articles. Fan-1967 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. There are a multitude of online resources dedicated to providing this data. We might auto-generate from one of them, but what's the point? Not only are companies added and removed, their listings change for a multude of reasons, including name changes, acquisitions and ticker symbol changes. I appreciate the spirit of completion, but as the initial author indicates (by running out of steam after a few dozen listings), practicality must intrude. This can never be accurate, much less canonical. --Pagana 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I like the idea, but I'm afraid anyone interested is going to have to go to Nasdaq.com to get updated info. Maybe we can have an eternal link on the NASDAQ article. AdamBiswanger1 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unmaintainable Dlyons493 Talk 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just provide an external link at NASDAQ. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge and Redirect to Xbox_Live#Gamerscore. Ifnord 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable gamercruft neologism. De-prodded sans explanation by article's creator/sole editor. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong, strong, strong keep and expand I've never touched a 360, and I'm a Playstation man, but to 360 gamers, one's Gamerscore is a HUGE deal. IGN and Gamespot have each written articles (one or the other, I can't remember which, has written multiple articles) about earning Gamerscore points. I know people who have rented games they couldn't care less about simply because they wanted to raise their Gamerscore. Achievement points are, for one reason or another, incredibly important to hardcore gamers. I think this article has to greatly expand on the topic, reference some reliable game sources, and get rid of the stupid external links to banner makers. I also think that the article should absolutely remain on WP. -- Kicking222 22:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Xbox 360 article. If it's that important to people, then it belongs there. It's sole puropse is with Xbox 360's, so it belongs there. -Royalguard11Talk 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Xbox_Live#Gamerscore, this information is already covered. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect as Anetode/Royalguard. -- GWO
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable songwriter, 9 unique Ghits. Also listing his song Savannah Breeze. NawlinWiki 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. Fails WP:MUSIC. -Seidenstud 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as per nom. --Merovingian - Talk 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as per nom. feydey 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - I wish I had more to say than, per nom, but the nom described it too well; this is simply not a well-known songwriter yet. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DS 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, unencylopedic. Internal corporate info. Dr. Cash 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the Walmart article. JD[don't talk|email] 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't want to merge with the Wal-Mart article because it's non-notable. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or weak merge. These seem to show up all over the internet, so maybe including them in the main article would be ok, but it's not really neccisary. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Seems too non-notable to be merged. —Mets501 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if references added before end of AfD, otherwise delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What??? Delete!!! Walmart intercom codes? We certainly cannot have internal policy and procedure manuals on Wikipedia. I don't even think this belongs in the Wal mart article AdamBiswanger1 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nominator and AdamBiswanger1. Article is non-notable and Wikipedia is definitely not the place for procedure manuals. --Tuspm(C | @) 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've heard of these before, and I don't think there supost to be in the public domain. This is something Wikipedia could actually get sued over I recken. -Royalguard11Talk 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we need the references (or lack thereof), to determine whether these are verifiable or if they're trade secrets or whatever. JYolkowski // talk 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage all editors to expend the effort in doing the research. It was not hard to find a reference for "Code Adam" that is published by Wal-Mart itself, given that we have an entire article — Code Adam — on the subject. Uncle G 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page originally tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of www.pickard Chilton.com, tag removed by author. Prodded, against tag removed by author. Article is blatant c&p from above website, reads as advertising/spam Wildthing61476 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete copyvio from [57] Dlyons493 Talk 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Probably a series of {{drmspeedy}} warnings could have avoided afd.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is "Dr. Robert Condon" but the article is about John F. Condon. The article duplicates verbatim the information about John F. Condon that appears in Lindbergh kidnapping. Medtopic 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Haakon 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete - full copyvio from [58] —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product; 99 Google hits. Reads like an advertisement. User's first edit. Haakon 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No alexa ranking, doesn't meet WP:WEB Xyzzyplugh 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Appears to fail WP:WEB —Mets501 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:WEB at all and that is all. --angers 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. Jacek Kendysz 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted. No brainer indeed. kingboyk 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a how-to guide. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Nothing really else to say except delete. Wickethewok 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. --Kinu t/c 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Jacek Kendysz 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting a How To Article in Wikipedia --Daduzi talk 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete a how to guide is a simple open and shut delete. Vickser 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR and A8 of WP:NOT-- Alias Flood 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - no brainer Andymarczak 08:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable •Jim62sch• 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I've taken a swack at adding content, but Wegman is at best marginally notable for our purposes here and what should be a bio is not a bio at all, but a irresistable POV magnet for pushing the message the anti-Global Warming crowd. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Content is awful (irrelevant). Subject appears patently notable (relevant). Google search reveals 266 unique hits for a math professor (not sure there aren't some false positives), but a study of the links found is serious stuff. 137 Google Scholar hits [59]. Multiple books on amazon by him and apparently mentioning him [60]. I wasn't able to find an actual article, but a google search of ""Edward Wegman" "New York Times"" indicates many mentions in New York Times Articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep He's a very well-known Statistician. Of the order of 100 hits on Google Scholar. I've even heard of him myself! Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Being used purely as a vehicle for POV. — Dunc|☺ 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Suspect nominated as a means of censoring Wegman's views. It's against NPOV to remove well-referenced information "on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. --Uncle Ed 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are free to suspect anything you want, but the guy simply is not notable. By the way, "liberal "pro-global warming theory" point of view" -- why not be a bit more blatant about your point of view? What next, the "liberal" theory of the big bang? the "liberal" idea that HIV causes AIDS? Bottom line here Ed -- your comment was out of line. •Jim62sch• 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The info in this article is important. Perhaps it should be at Wegman Committee, cast as the recommendations of the committee rather than as a "bio" article. Is there a "keep and move" option? I hesitate to move it while the afd vote is going on, but the relevance of the info is the challenge to the liberal "pro-global warming theory" point of view. I'd like to see Wikipedia avoid championing the liberal POV; opposing POVs should be mentioned, too. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, verifiable as demonstrated above. I won't wade into the POV history; I just note that even if it is currnetly POV that is not a rationale for deletion, it must be irredeemably POV to have an article on the subject for that to be grounds for deletion, and I believe that that test can never be met for a biographical article. GRBerry 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge all but Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) to List of Kiddy Grade characters. Mangojuicetalk 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kiddy Grade characters
[edit]I prodded some of these articles earlier but they were deprodded without any comment by their author. I feel that they relate to characters from a very minor animé series, and may constitute fancruft.
The articles I am nominating are:
- Eclipse (Kiddy Grade)
- Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade)
- Armblast (Kiddy Grade)
- Alv and Dvergr (Kiddy Grade)
- Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Kiddy Grade)
- Un-ou and A-ou (Kiddy Grade)
- Sinistra and Dextera (Kiddy Grade)
- Alv and Dvergr (Kiddy Grade)
- Mercredi (Kiddy Grade)
I am not nominating the following lists at this time:
I feel we do not need detailed articles on all these characters. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am this Author. Does 977,000 GHits ([61]) sound minor? I feel really insulted by this, I really enjoy this series and wish to make a valid contribution to the pages related to it. I don't care, how big or small it is, I am interested in doing this. I just happened to put great effort into these pages and really wish to improve them. I have contacted several users for their help, and placed the article in several 'wikihelp' instances, note the Talk page. I as one dont understand the obsession with not needing detailed articles on 'minor things'. I happen to note that you have no active interest in anime series. Unfortunately who are you to decide wether or not this article is relevant, irrespective of your admin title? All I want to do is write a damn good article and everything is getting in the way. Most of my argument is personal, I realise that. --Crampy20 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAlso Ah! My Goddess, arguable the most popular anime around at the moment, has less GHits than this ([62]). --Crampy20 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Firstly, I should be clear that the fact I am an admin is not relevant to this discussion - anyone can nominate articles for deletion and I am acting as a regular user and not an administrator in that regard. Secondly, I am not (exclusively) trying to decide whether this article should remain on Wikipedia or not - this discussion will hopefully attract other Wikipedians who can contribute and make recommendations. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is unfair, I do not base my argument on that fact, ''irrespective of your admin title'' should make that clear. I wish for your comments on my comments. --Crampy20 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Articles should be much more than they are now and give character relevance if they are to stay, but the pages were just created. As for Crampy20, don't take things so personally, as while this isn't a vote rants are more likely to lose like-minded individuals than gain them. I do disagree with KG being considered very minor (while it is an average series), but if this is as far in detail as the articles are to go I'm more in favor of a Merge. Voice of Treason 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was moving around information, i think that classes as moving, not creation. The information on all these characters was on, the now deleted, List of Kiddy Grade Characters, i was moving info to characters own pages. I wish to take things personally in this instance. When someone puts efforts into something, they dont want to see it deleted, that goes for every single person. Deletion is spiteful, I wish to only see this occur in vandalism and such cases. Also i wish to point out that it is a distinctly good series, it is the first 5 episodes that really let it down. Also a merge seems stupid as this information was shall i say, un-merged, as described earlier. Again I shall point out the Talk page If people are going to refer to the quality of the article. --Crampy20 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was never any such page as List of Kiddy Grade Characters; List of Kiddy Grade characters was moved, by you, to List of Minor Kiddy Grade characters. That argument appears to be disingenuous. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ah, opps. Please refer to [63] (scroll down to characters) and [64] (Note that it was moved.) --Crampy20 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was never any such page as List of Kiddy Grade Characters; List of Kiddy Grade characters was moved, by you, to List of Minor Kiddy Grade characters. That argument appears to be disingenuous. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was moving around information, i think that classes as moving, not creation. The information on all these characters was on, the now deleted, List of Kiddy Grade Characters, i was moving info to characters own pages. I wish to take things personally in this instance. When someone puts efforts into something, they dont want to see it deleted, that goes for every single person. Deletion is spiteful, I wish to only see this occur in vandalism and such cases. Also i wish to point out that it is a distinctly good series, it is the first 5 episodes that really let it down. Also a merge seems stupid as this information was shall i say, un-merged, as described earlier. Again I shall point out the Talk page If people are going to refer to the quality of the article. --Crampy20 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Venting is doing nothing to help your case here. My point of view of the series' quality has nothing to do with my nod to stay/go, and how long the text was around before doesn't change the fact the articles are very young (which was an argument to your benefit, not against). I will say though, after sitting through the show only once, I don't think that many characters could supply sufficent content to sustain an independent article. It shows they were taken from a list as of now, an expansion of detail and relevance on your part would do more to prove doubters wrong. Voice of Treason 23:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am going to stop my venting, I takes me time to stop being juvenile about things.--Crampy20 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would again like to point out the Kiddy Grade Talk Page - Talk:Kiddy Grade where I am currently trying to rally other people to help me improve this article. I would also like to point out this, as much as I am shooting myself in the foot. It is relevent [65] and [66]. Where the information was clearly farmed from. Another reason for improvement on this article. Which i plan on starting soon.--Crampy20 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Merge: It would be easier to just move the short paragraphs if the pages have to be deleted rather than to delete the character summaries. If anyone needs to look at the structure of anime articles rules stuctures see; WikiProject Anime and manga. This is my opinion of trying to save the summaries of the character if possible. -Adv193 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Point taken on the merging. But Aesthisticly and in terms of wanting numerous images, this way is the best. I have done similar things with other animes, most notable Tenchi Muyo where you take an article, where the character info is confusingly placed all on one page and move them to separate ones supplying a char box. It encouraged writing ten-fold. The images help the articles immensely too.--Crampy20 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to be rude and please don't take this is gnawing the newbies or assuming ill intentions of an editor. I don't, it's not the editor, it's the culture. But there has been a pervasive explosion of these character articles in Anime articles. They contain little chunks of information, but only seem to exist to hold an image and an infobox on the character and to fill out a character navagation template... [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
- I have half a mind to say delete the lot of them and start from scratch .. but I'd only push for that if we could throw in the similarly formatted character articles from OMG, IY, and Tenchi as well. They were all created in the same manner, and it's not well suited to the wikipedia. First off, they contain way too many pictures and (some of them) seem to only exist because an infobox was able to be created for the article. But, I will not be mean to the information and I will push for a SUPER speedy merge These articles fall under the auspices of the WP:FICTION which give a wonderful steps on how to create such pages. Also, a aticle like Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) contains WAY too many photos and is a definite violation of the fair use policy. It needs a lot of trimming regardless of the outcome of this debate. I would vote to Delete the Kiddy Grade Infobox and navigation templates, if I could. [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
- I also mistakenly removed a prod template from the minor non-human chars article.. It, however, would be best to list it with these articles. [Note: this comment added by Kunzite]
- There are a lot of Anime and manga character articles that need to be cleaned up and merged. (Though there will be some fights on certain series.) Perhaps, I should nominate as a ACOTW. --Kunzite 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oh and I have already cleared this up with another admin, it isnt a breach of fair use as, each picture is displayed just once throughout the whole of wikipedia. --Crampy20 09:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wish to point out that I am not trying to do what fits in with policy best, but with what is easiest to read. This is an anime, and a anime is a cartoon and as a visual product, pictures are available and used. For this point i will use Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) and will tell you that all the pictures are relevent. There is the main one of each character there, you can't argue with that. Then there is also one of their guard robot and ship, that La Muse and Donnershlag, each of these articles are important in the series, technically, I see that they should be placed on the Non-human Kiddy Grade Characters Page. But they are relevant to the people. Now the other 4 pictures of eclair and lumiere are ones of forms that we learn about later in the series, while these forms are relevant they are also spoilers. But again this is an anime, it is visual each picture is useful and each has a purpose. Wether or not this suits the wikipedia style. As I am trying to get an article that is easy to read and that gives lots of relevenet info. Now in terms of the info the pages are very young, and haven't had time to accumulate information. That said a merge should probably wait a bit at least. --Crampy20 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard that a fair use image may only appear once in wikipedia. I do, however, know that only a limited ammount of fair use images should appear on a page. The fair use image (screenshot) has one goal: "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Furthermore, according to the official policy, "3) The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately" and "8) The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." For the page in its current for, the images of the the two charaters on that page could be done with two images. As to the newness of the articles, I'm currently out of time and will write more on that later. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Since they are often in pairs, the articles aren't as bad as many others. Probably better to merge them a bit more, perhaps Main chars, ES Members, and Others. - Wickning1 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ah good suggestion. But if there were more info, would the pages become more accessable?--Crampy20 09:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge to List of Kiddy Grade characters per WP:FICT. A partial merge to multiple smaller lists, per Wickning1, would be an acceptable alternative if it is likely that a single monolithic list would be too cumbersome for people who are looking for this information. — Haeleth Talk 08:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge to multiple pages, if the page is large, would also be a wonderful solution. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Wikipedia grows faster and better on stubs and this is something that should be encouraged. WP:FICT (Notability) is not a policy to promote deletionism. People should not be given timetables on how fast they are to write articles. --Cat out 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There can be a lot that can be said about Keiichi Morisato. The character appeared on 5 ova episodes, one anime movie, over 37 anime episodes (ongoing serries), furthermore it appeared on a manga that had been around since 1988 (23 volumes). By all means Keiichi is among the most notable fictional characters. With the logic behind this nom that article should also be merged just like all stub articles throughout wikipedia. At a point Tornado was a stub. --Cat out 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose what, exactly? This is AFD, not RFA; the usual bolded comments are keep, delete, merge, redirect, etc. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There can be a lot that can be said about Keiichi Morisato. The character appeared on 5 ova episodes, one anime movie, over 37 anime episodes (ongoing serries), furthermore it appeared on a manga that had been around since 1988 (23 volumes). By all means Keiichi is among the most notable fictional characters. With the logic behind this nom that article should also be merged just like all stub articles throughout wikipedia. At a point Tornado was a stub. --Cat out 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentYES.. It should be merged into a list of characters. If, after the article is merged into that list, there is a decent ammount of information, a summary should be left on the character's page and the article should be moved to its own page. The Keiichi article doesn't have much substance right now.. It's a lot better than some of the other one paragraph, two sentence, fluff that exists for some of the other OMG articles. Secondly, you're over stating the character's importance he's appeared in a lot of episodes, but only one franchise. The case could be made per WP:FICTION that he deserves his own article because he appears in an OVA, the TV series, and the manga of the same exact series, but that's stretching it a bit.
- I have told you this before, and I will tell it to you again: there are more benefits from merging these articles than keeping them seperate. The first and foremost is that they reduce the number of pages that need to be monitered to ensure that changes are made correctly and that no vandalism is occouring. They also make the articles easier to navigate and provide more succinct articles without the need to repeat the same information over and over and over. --Kunzite 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very tough call. The series and characters are notable, but the articles are, quite frankly, horrid, and do not even attempt to use an outside perspective on the series. Also, way too many images, ugly templates and nowhere near enough prose. In accordance with my view that articles up for deletion as "fancruft" should be judged by quality of writing, I say merge, with no prejudice towards recreation iff the author can come up with better versions. --tjstrf 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your points are null, you cannot make a call on wether or not to keep an article based on "looks," clearly stated in policy. There is no policy on fancruft so that isn't a valid reason. Giving that the articles are horrid could be considered a personal attack, against policy. Thank you for your opinion. --Crampy20 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the excessively intense langauge then, it was not meant to be interpeted as an attack. By "horrid", I meant that they don't follow the writing guidelines (including WP:FICT), manual of style, proper voice for writing about fiction, etc. I'm simply suggesting they be merged for now, and that you rewrite them one at a time. We did something similar with a number of character articles from the Bleach (manga) category who were either non-notable or had not yet proven their notability, and as some of them have turned out to be important, we have reinstated their articles. I'm not saying we should salt the earth here, just that character lists are preferable to character articles until the list has reached a sufficient length. --tjstrf 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank for reiterating that, I was just poking the fire with the horrid comment. ummmm, The notability is not disputed. An earlier comment comparing the GHits of this to Ah My Goddess, a clearly more favored program. Proves that it is beyond a doubt notable. And I am also going through the articles, if you still think that Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) is written badly please say, as the new article is designed to be far better and non fancruft. --Crampy20 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now I'm confused, but at least it had some actual information. Still needs significant clean-up. (Tip:Use sub-headings) Why are Eclair and Lumiere listed as one article anyway? The only times I've ever seen 2 character articles are for characters who are split personalities of each other. It also needs far less pictures. --tjstrf 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank for reiterating that, I was just poking the fire with the horrid comment. ummmm, The notability is not disputed. An earlier comment comparing the GHits of this to Ah My Goddess, a clearly more favored program. Proves that it is beyond a doubt notable. And I am also going through the articles, if you still think that Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) is written badly please say, as the new article is designed to be far better and non fancruft. --Crampy20 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the excessively intense langauge then, it was not meant to be interpeted as an attack. By "horrid", I meant that they don't follow the writing guidelines (including WP:FICT), manual of style, proper voice for writing about fiction, etc. I'm simply suggesting they be merged for now, and that you rewrite them one at a time. We did something similar with a number of character articles from the Bleach (manga) category who were either non-notable or had not yet proven their notability, and as some of them have turned out to be important, we have reinstated their articles. I'm not saying we should salt the earth here, just that character lists are preferable to character articles until the list has reached a sufficient length. --tjstrf 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your points are null, you cannot make a call on wether or not to keep an article based on "looks," clearly stated in policy. There is no policy on fancruft so that isn't a valid reason. Giving that the articles are horrid could be considered a personal attack, against policy. Thank you for your opinion. --Crampy20 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to either main article or to list of characters. Main article has nothing on them, and the pages up for deletion don't have much. So put them all back together - policy, I believe, says they should only be split when there becomes too much to keep them on the main page. Trim them down and put them back there. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all but Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade). This is the only characters with enough content to stand on their own and should be split into their own articles. The rest, however are too short in accordance with WP:FICT and should be merged into List of Kiddy Grade characters with short excerpts for Eclair and Lumiere as well. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, the editor's effort to pair up related characters to decrease the number of subarticles by a factor of 2 is admirable, and if there's not, in fact, enough information for separate articles, they can be revisited when they've had enough time to mature. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't really read what everyone else's take is on this, but it seems to me that the grouping of this AfD is off. A quick glance and it would seem that some definitely should be their own articles, while others I could see as merged to a list. So merge and/or keep, but definitely not delete. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge. I've sinned in regards to crufty character articles, although I think I'm on the road to atonement. I'm becoming increasinly hostile to the idea of separate articles for all but the most important characters in fiction, and anime a fortiori. Considering how hard it is to get citable material for an anime series as a whole, I can't believe that there's enough on the Kiddy Grade characters listed above to warrant all these articles. One article succinctly listing all the notable characters should suffice, with either one cast shot ala NGE, or a series of small pictures for the most major characters.--Monocrat 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't you cite the series itself as a resource? I realize it's a primary source, but it's a published source and highly verifiable. We cite primary sources in the form of research studies in numerous articles. The biggest problem with citing external sources is that outside of Wikipedia, your review sites are basically a bunch of blogs and barely say anything other than "I liked it". I suppose there are probably some magazines that cover anime series as well, but that's only helpful for establishing notability. When it comes to actual information about a series, wikipedia is often the best source outside of the series itself, because while our articles are often written by cruft loving fanboys, everyone else's articles are written by cruft loving fanboys who don't have rules against speculation. --tjstrf 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There is a large amount of printed information available for the series in the form of the Continuity File books that were included with the LE DVDs and the kiddy Grade Conclusion book. Unfortunately it is all in Japanese but parts have been translated for the FUNimation site (which is all in Flash, but I have all the textual information extracted on disc). Shiroi Hane 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge. There's not going to be much you can say about these characters outside of plot summary or analysis of Kiddy Grade, and we really don't need 79 million articles all recapping the plot of one anime series. It's kind of a cheap shot to call Kiddy Grade minor, but it isn't exactly Mobile Suit Gundam or Walt Disney for lasting cultural impact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OH MY GOD! It isn't about wether or not we need them, you can't say that we don't need something just because you think we don't. Please if you are going to make such a comment, give a reason. You don't know these characters, there is plenty to say. It isn't about cultural impact either. I consider the a article to be pointless, it has little use, i think. But there are fans of series, people who are interested in anime. In just the same way that there are people interested in language and typography. No anime has cultural impact in the way you suggest it, but that doesn't stop us from writing articles. I can't believe that you are prepared to make such a statement. -end of rant- Apart from that, I have already said that a merge is not ideal. Articles sit for long periods of time, wallowing around doing nothing. You take the list of character and split them into their own areas and people can easily focus on adding pictures and writing informative long articles about characters. having it in one least, means that they are encouraged to just put basic information down, not to give detail. Wikipedia is a resource an infinite one, while you may not think it's necessary, each little article isn't exactly a waste of space, they are like 2 kb each for crying out loud. --Crampy20 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply He did give a reason: Lists allow for the exact same amount of useful information to be given as articles do, you do not need minor character articles. Seriously Crampy, you need to calm down, realize we aren't trying to remove any content, just place it in a list rather than individual articles. --tjstrf 12:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yeah I do agree with Tjstrf's statement and besides one thing I learned when I helped with the making of character profiles is that those with one or few paragraphs should deserve to be on the same page and only those with a large amount of paragraphs into a page which is not only why I supported having Seiryo Tennan, Misao Kuramitsu, and Seina Yamada to be made into their own pages. The point I am trying to make is that since most of these profiles have minor summaries then it would be a better idea to merge them together. I also agree that you should calm down, I mean even though I occasionally get stressed with things that occur on Wikipedia but I prefer to control my emotions and do the best I can to help even when something I worked for such as a type of category gets deleted. -Adv193 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OH MY GOD! It isn't about wether or not we need them, you can't say that we don't need something just because you think we don't. Please if you are going to make such a comment, give a reason. You don't know these characters, there is plenty to say. It isn't about cultural impact either. I consider the a article to be pointless, it has little use, i think. But there are fans of series, people who are interested in anime. In just the same way that there are people interested in language and typography. No anime has cultural impact in the way you suggest it, but that doesn't stop us from writing articles. I can't believe that you are prepared to make such a statement. -end of rant- Apart from that, I have already said that a merge is not ideal. Articles sit for long periods of time, wallowing around doing nothing. You take the list of character and split them into their own areas and people can easily focus on adding pictures and writing informative long articles about characters. having it in one least, means that they are encouraged to just put basic information down, not to give detail. Wikipedia is a resource an infinite one, while you may not think it's necessary, each little article isn't exactly a waste of space, they are like 2 kb each for crying out loud. --Crampy20 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, merge some. The series doesn't seem to be minor, as explained above. The major characters are alraedy lumped together in Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade). On the other hand I don't see why we should not merge the other pairs and characters into articles on 'GOTT ES Members', 'Villains', 'GOTT Command' and 'Others', most of those are stubs anyway and until they grow too big (if ever) I see little reason for a split.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I split the two main character's articles, listing changed to reflect this. --tjstrf 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What's the problem here? These are perfectly acceptable article topics, and they don't none of them seem to fail any policies like NOR, NPOV or verifiability, and I'd say notability as well, for all that they aren't that great from various guidelines' perspectivies. --maru (talk) contribs 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As is stands, the article I am most in favour of deleting is one of the ones you have specifically not listed - Non-human Kiddy Grade characters. My reasoning being that, these are mecha, not characters (only the few mecha with advanced AI, e.g. Donner and Wirbelwind, could be considered characters), and the information would better serve being merged with the relevant character articles (e.g. merge the CC and Dodo information with the Tweedle Twins page) - provided of course that the character articles aren't actually deleted. Shiroi Hane 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Eclair and Lumiere" and Merge Others. While Eclair and Lumiere appear to have more than enough information about them, the others don't necessarily merit their own personal pages. --Diametes T. Jackson 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedied- A7 --Pilotguy (roger that) 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Speedy delete as nominator. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I added the speedy and vanity tags to the page previously. Wildthing61476 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and that's all this article will likely ever be. -/- Warren 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete listcruft. -- Koffieyahoo 08:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the very quintessence of arbitrariness. Leave it to Microsoft to do their marketing. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smells like vanity page. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Publishing online essays is not by itself notable. No independent bases provided.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Incidentally, the essay was repeatedly added (and removed) to Homosexuality yesterday. That's by the by though. -- Steel 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - much of this information has been proposed for AfD before under a heading along the lines of "[Name]'s response to Corvino's defence of homosexuality" (I can't find the discussion offhand, but I know it's within the last few days). BigHaz 00:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - John Corvino is not a vanity page. I am not John, and I created it. How can that possibly be vanity? I created it from various sources. He is a professer of Philosophy, an author, and a well-known speaker on issues of homosexuality. He is not only published online, but in print as well. He is certainly very well-known as a speaker and author. I copied the essay bits here only as a way of preserving them. If you don't like them, discuss it on talk. Wjhonson 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essay masquerading as a biographical entry. If more bio can be sourced and it shows notability, I'll reconsider. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, I've removed the entire essay. He is still notable and verifiable. Wjhonson 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added his works from his resume, so you can see that he has print publications. Wjhonson 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Keep and expand this is the wrong article to be listing for deletion. A quick search of Amazon indicates that Corvino has been genuinely published quite a few times. The article that should be AFD'd is John Corvino on Homosexuality, for reasons described at Talk:John Corvino on Homosexuality. (Although I must say, this is an interesting response to an edit war.) --Ptkfgs 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well during the edit war, I was like "Who is John Corvino?" So I started doing some searching on him, and built the article on him from that. Generally I start articles with just snippets, whatever I can find, and them add to them as I go. Some editors are just so antsy to delete they jump the gun. Editors please allow articles to exist for a few *days* at least before submitting to AfD. I mean give us some time to try to collaborate
Wjhonson 21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well during the edit war, I was like "Who is John Corvino?" So I started doing some searching on him, and built the article on him from that. Generally I start articles with just snippets, whatever I can find, and them add to them as I go. Some editors are just so antsy to delete they jump the gun. Editors please allow articles to exist for a few *days* at least before submitting to AfD. I mean give us some time to try to collaborate
- Delete. NN prof/blogger. -- GWO
- Delete on second thought this is just a standard college prof with a normal amount of publications, failing WP:BIO. --Ptkfgs 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Assistant professor who doesn't seem more notable than your average professor. It is worth noting that this article started as a word-for-word copy of another article that was already in AFD at that time, and that the same author has since created yet another word-for-word copy of the same material, that is also in AFD. How many times does the same material have to be deleted? Fan-1967 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um what are you talking about? I created *this* article from scratch. This article on John Corvino is not the article on John's view of homosexuality or anything else. And *I* only created two articles, AND only recently, and in reponse to an edit war on Homosexuality not anything else. To the closing editor, please note, that almost every comment above is referring to a different article than this article. I wonder if people even read what they write. At any rate, John posted a note on my talk page, and I've added that notability claim. "He has addressed over 100 university audiences" (see my talk). That's above the bar for notability. Wjhonson 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can view the two links I posted above and compare them. They are practically identical. The closing admin can review the deleted articles from the earlier AFD and compare that text. Fan-1967 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, anyone can review Google's cache of the deleted article, "John Corvino's defense of homosexuality", cached 23 July at 12:48 GMT. Or Google's cache of "Homosexuality: a philosophical consideration", cached 23 July at 19:14. Looks just like the original version of the one you claim you wrote from scratch at 20:01 on 23 July (this article), or on 25 July 23:55 (John Corvino on Homosexuality). They're all the same article. Fan-1967 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be confused about what article this AfD is about. This Afd is about the current John Corvino article, not any old historic article which no longer exists, and certainly not about some other article, which should have it's own unique AfD. It is the current article that I wrote from scratch. I have already stated several times, that the article on his view on homosexuality was cut from the edit war on Homosexuality. Obviously I did not write that. That article no longer exists in this article. Hope thats clear now. Wjhonson 06:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete generic associate professor. Just zis Guy you know? 09:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable bureaucrat (chief administrative officer) in sub-provincial (Region of Peel, Ontario) government JChap (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO. -Seidenstud 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is the second article of a bureaucrat from the Peel region, Ontario has been nominated. I suggest Emil Kolb be also nominated for deletion as also this category People with Power in Canada. Since, this category consists of middle ranking bureaucrats and are non notable. --Ageo020 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kolb was kept, somewhat to my mystification. The category has already been nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. Some sections are word for word copies of his official bio page http://www.region.peel.on.ca/exec-office/david-bio.htm --DarkAudit 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Alias Flood 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:BIO failure. As much as the Kolb decision mystifies me as well, at least he was a mayor. This guy is just another low-level bureaucrat. --Kinu t/c 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These types are the Top Level Bureaucrats since you can't get any higher in public service. Wages exceed $200,000 per year. They are responsible for managing budgets in the Billions of Dollars range. These are the people with the real Power in Canada. Politicians in Canada do not have the same level of power as they do in other democratic countries. These are important and interesting distinctions for Canada and Ontario more particularly which deserve Encyclopedic record and notoriety.WikiWoo 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- the CAO isn't a low- or middle-level bureaucrat, he's the top dog of the bureaucracy. If the article had any noteworthy content, I might have asked to keep it. But the editor who wrote this item has gone to great lengths to remind us that CAOs rank below CEOs, and even CEOs have to meet criteria for a Wikipedia entry. The article as it's written falls hopelessly below the bar set by WP:BIO. --Gary Will 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.OzLawyer 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a character on a soap opera that may or may not exist. In limited Googling, I haven't really found this term in use anywhere. The sources mentioned in the article don't seem to mention the term "Unknown Johnson" at all. Delete per those reasons. Wickethewok 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The character is the son of two prominent characters on the show. The identity of this missing child has been a major mystery that has gone on for almost the show's entire 7+ year history. He is related to several characters on the show.
Presumably if the mystery ever is solved the need for the article would go away or it would have to be merged with whoever the person really is.
Also if someone has a better name than Unknown_Johnson I'm willing to change the name of the article. I picked that name because the child was born out of wedlock to a character named Eve Johnson. Unnamed_Crane or Unnamed_Child_Of_Julian_and_Eve might also work.ksofen666
- Please review our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Everything here must be verifiable and not original research. If you wish to argue that this article should be kept, you must cite sources where people have already discussed the possible identity of this soap opera character in detail. And note that that means Reliable sources, not just someone idly speculating on Usenet or on a web log. Uncle G 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eve Johnson, but not necessarily with a redirect there.The articles about Passions characters I have seen seem to mostly list the characters' relatives, with minimal prose content. If Eve has a son, previously thought dead, but who turns out to be alive with an unknown identity, put that in the article about her, which contains hardly any information other than the list of relatives. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I am changing my recommendation to delete in order to avoid a "no consensus keep" result, but I would accept a merge as above. --Metropolitan90 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't even know if Julian and Eve's son is alive or not. When he is proven to be definitively alive (or, at least as definitively as possible for a soap), the necessity for such an article can be reevaluated. Charity 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: no consensus for deletion, but unanimous consensus that these should not exist as separate articles, so all redirected to Demon Beast (Kirby series), and whoever wishes to do a merge can go into the history. Note that merge consensuses made at AfD are not binding and it is up to those supporting merge to watchlist the redirects if they don't want them reverted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a bundle deletion of articles that could basically either be a single article, or just removed altogether for being fairly unnotable, episodic enemies in the anime. Half of the listed characters are also nominated for deletion, mostly for fancruft, and the fact some of the monsters appear for about 30 seconds at the end of an episode (as reflected by the fact some of them don't even have -names-). Not to point fingers, but to sum it up, most of these articles are made by Kirbyfan103, and include fact and fiction to make paragraphs of what could basically be a two to three sentence summation in a single article. --ArrEmmDee 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:This is a list of articles that were linked to this page for deletion. --Kunzite 04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I missed three and I've added them to the bottom.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all subarticles into the main article, Demon Beast (Kirby series). These characters are non-notable on their own and shouldn't have individual articles per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment where's the list of articles you tagged? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically 80 percent of the links in the article are included. While some stuff would be probably better off merged not that TheFarix mentioned it, things like 'Debt Collector Ghost' and Unnamed Monster Spirits (Kirby) are just absurd. Sorry I haven't listed them all of, there's just like, too many of them. --ArrEmmDee 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI'm not sure I like the process in this AfD. Some of those links go to individual articles, some go to "List of Kirby enemies", some seem to have enough content for an article, some don't. It definitely looks like they need attention and a lot of merging, but until I know exactly what we're voting on, I'll err on the side of keep. - Wickning1 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all per Kunzite's listing. - Wickning1 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete The entire collection of articles is on extremely minor characters that hardly have 1 episode each. Also the articles are not written in a formal tone (One of the pictures is subtitled "A very freaky doctor Moro.") If not delete than merge into one big article (that is edited to be more coherent).70.226.21.120 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anime cruft + list cruft = delete the cruft! Cheesehead 1980 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep- without a list of the articles up for consideration, I fear that this will be destined to be overturned at deletion review. If someone can compile that list here (and possibly restart the clock, so it has a full five days), I'd be very happy to reconsider (I suspect my vote will be delete, but we should follow the process). -- nae'blis- Delete or redirect for GFDL purposes if anything is merged, but I doubt it will be. Do not keep separately as articles, as they are completely unsourced and speculative. Thanks Kunzite for the list. -- nae'blis 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep only if outcome is Merge otherwise, Delete ... WP:FICTION guidelines suggests we merge 'em. --Kunzite 04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the lot of them. Articles for every one-shot enemy in a TV series are totally unnecessary. WarpstarRider 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft. --Sparky Lurkdragon 08:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge most of them and delete a few of the unimportant ones that weren't the basis of an episode. They aren't so unimportant that they have to be fully deleted. Nemu 21:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect
then nominate the entire article for deletion.--HResearcher 02:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the important characters into one article and remove the rest. --Wafulz 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.