Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

Purge server cache

May 19

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

The result of the debate was: List on today's copyright problems as a copyright violation (from here) Jude (talk,email) 10:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic totalitarianism

[edit]

Original Research. Totalitarianism is a concept used in political science, economic totalitarianism is not. Tazmaniacs 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Intangible 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep >40 hits on Google Scholar. >50 hits on Google Book. One of the book hits is Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman Not a neologism, was used in testimony before the U.S. Congress in 1948.[1]. Apparently an infrequently used, legitimate term of economic discussion. That it may not be used in political science is not relavant to whether it is a legitimate term in economics. GRBerry 02:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, comparable to Irrational exuberance (finance), but without the "memorability". Or possibly merge to Corporate fascism. Ewlyahoocom 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry who has shown that this is not OR. Hence, I see no reason to remove economic concepts from a reference work. -- JJay 13:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Google is not a substitute for library work. However, thanks for quoting Friedman's book, I was looking for the publication date for others reasons! In any cases, although Friedman may have anecdotically used it, "economic totalitarianism" is not a concept used neither by political scientists nor by economists. As User: Ewlyahoocom points out, it is quite comparable to making an article on Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance", without the "memorability". If you do some library work on the (political) concept of totalitarianism, you will see that "economic totalitarianism" is necessarily an oxymoron: totalitarianism relates to the state's control on every single part of human culture and society, including of course individuals' psychic lives. "Economic totalitarianism", as used by Friedman, is simply a polemic word to argue against planned economy and the Soviet Union (which is fair game, but is far from being the same of defining it as a political concept). Tazmaniacs 20:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a merge is proposed, it should certainly not be done with "corporate fascism" (which redirects to corporatism) but to totalitarianism ! (Interestingly enough, this proposition to merge it with "fascism" would lead to the exact opposite use of the term that Friedman had reserved for it, that it is an anticommunist term!) Tazmaniacs 20:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. No citations, looks like original research, not an accepted term in economics. Homey 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can tell, it's a word-for-word copyright violation from here. Jude (talk,email) 09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Sholom Day Camp

[edit]

Completely unnotable. The article is two sentences one, the first has the name and its location, and the second describes the activities offered at the camp, which are typical of all summer camps. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to relist. Dr Zak 02:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First American-Romanian congregation

[edit]

No references, is unsourced, poorly formatted, and is mostly a copy-vio. The only hit that comes up for the name on Google is the Wikipedia article and a mirror. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think any of those are grounds for deletion, unless it's actually impossible to verify its existence. I see instead a notability problem, considering how this is about a single synagogue that doesn't even exist any longer. It could make a case, however, judging from the general claim that "the synagogue became a center for cantorial music, and many of the greatest cantors of the 20th century performed there." If that can be verified and made into more of a concrete factual statement rather than mere puffery, it might pass the test. A building that survived from 1857 until 2006 may also be notable, even if not so as a congregation in and of itself. No vote for now. Postdlf 18:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after the Google evidence was added to the nom above. I'll reconsider if an offline source is cited before the end of the AFD. Postdlf 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When you edit a page, it says right under the edit window:
Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." (from verifiable) If information is not verifiable, then it does not belong in Wikipedia. The lack of formatting and copy-vio issues are just icing on the cake. If it's cleaned up, then perhaps consensus will change. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. Sorry about that. I just saw someone with no user page or talk page nominating loads of related articles that ended in speedy keeps and assumed something was up. ergot 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no user or talk page because he just deleted them. See also WP:AN/I Kim Bruning 20:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I'm just glad to see that I'm not the only one who interpreted it the way that I did. I still think that this one ought to be kept, regardless of motivation for bringing it to AfD. ergot 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Marriage (comic strip)

[edit]

Incomplete nomination by Gh87. Was PRODed (which Gh87 removed) as "This amounts to a vanity page and doesn't appear to have any notability." Ezeu 01:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Ezeu 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pingo - prepaid long distance calling card

[edit]

WP:SPAM -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groupbuy

[edit]

This page started off as spam, then got vandalised. Phileas 01:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, who wastes their time vandalizing pages just to mention that pages are able to be vandalized? That person (on the talk page of their IP address) even says, "This site is such a joke." Then why come to it?! -- Kicking222 01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Guzzardo

[edit]

Not notable. His claim to fame is for creating Love and Marriage (comic strip), which itself has been AFDed as not notable. Ezeu 01:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Trilogy

[edit]

Page duplicates info that's already written in David Bowie, and doesn't provide anything additional. It doesn't serve as a source of information for the albums, either, since they each have their own page. fuzzy510 01:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Deizio talk 02:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strix_Systems

[edit]

This article is blatant advertising Atomnet 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy to User:Brittks. Royboycrashfan 02:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Britton

[edit]

Prod contested, bio about non-notable high school student Metros232 01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zophia Lavik

[edit]

Delete. Notability is not defined. Has only been in one production and the article sounds more or less advert-like, the "popularity" spoken of is unsupported by any of the sources furnished in the article as well. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India bashing

[edit]

I suspect substantially similar articles could be written about any country or organization (e.g. U.S.-bashing, Thailand-bashing, U.N.-bashing, Boy Scouts-bashing, Baby-bashing etc.) As it stands, the article lacks sources and seems un-encyclopedic ("...is a favorite pastime of naysayers, and doomsday predictors"). It's an interesting subject, but the writeup could be much better. Anirvan 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think its more than just a POV its a phenomenon, like say thats not been talked about much under one-title. BTW its a wiki, so if you think its un-encyclo' then gohead and show your Harvard-Eton skills. ;-) If you have time delete it as well, frankly I dont care.--பராசக்தி 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nonencyclopedic, factless, i.e., only commonalities. If replace "India" by "Pakistan", one will get equally good Pakistan basihing artciel.
We do have a whole category:Anti-national sentiment, but may Allah forgive the creator of this article. Mukadderat 02:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Ok guys gohead & delete it. Im nomore editing politics its just being a waste of my time.--பராசக்தி 07:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ephrosinia Lukarevic

[edit]

delete. Some kind of fantasy work. A fairy tale, not an encyclopedic article, and about a nonnotable person, too, judging from the text. Mukadderat 02:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! Checking contribs of Ragusino (talk · contribs) suggests there might be a more widespread problem. I am worried that these might also be hoaxes (not as obvious):
  1. House of Gondola I can't seem to find obviously independent information via Google.
  2. House of Ghetaldi reads in part " the brother of Segismondo Francesco was adoptive of your uncle Segismondo Count of Gondola" Huh?
  3. Trojan Gundulić I'd like a Serbian speaker who we can verify is not Ragusino to take a look at these alleged images of pages of historic books. Is it just me? Something about these figures doesn't look quite right to me, almost as if someone is creating these images on a computer, rather than scanning genuine books.
---CH 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My impression: these three are not a hoax, but as far as the Houses are concerned: original unverifiable research (Ragusino on User talk:Ragusino re Ghetaldi-Gondola Genialogie (sic): "All the text and investigation is MINE!!, my investigation of my family, take more than 1 year, of different archive /Dubrovnik, Merano, Zadar, Vienne, Graz, Venice, etc"). The website for the Four Gospels exolink on Trojan Gundulić looks too professional to be part of a hoax. I think the appearance of the bible page is due to a filter for removing noise from the blank parts. --LambiamTalk 11:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, Lambian. ---CH 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If proven true, on the other hand, this will be extremely notable. Lady Ephrosinia gave birth to a bearded little man with spurs on his bare feet, who entered the world crying, "A hungry Greek will even to heaven go," bit off his own umbilical cord, and rushed off, grabbing not clothes but a cap and calling for his sister by name. --LambiamTalk 11:12, May 19, 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, I am
-- assuming good faith and
-- allowing for the possibility that a good article has been vandalised by (political or ethical) opponents -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research, then either delete or weak keep --Ouro 09:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. - Nick C 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the rest, but Trojan Gundulić appears to be a real 16th century printer. The article needs some good sources. All I can come up with are some mentions in passing in JSTOR and Google Books, but neither is necessarily very useful for South Slavic book history. up+land 11:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ephrosinia Lukarevic as a copyright violation and fiction, but keep Trojan Gundulić, House of Gondola, and House of Ghetaldi and move them to userspace awaiting better references. As already pointed out Trojan Gundulić is clearly real, and there is enough both in House of Gondola and House of Ghetaldi that appear real that there is a good reason not to just summarily delete them just because little can be found through Google. Ivan Gundulić, mentioned in one of the articles, is certainly a real and very notable poet. A Joseph Sigismund Reichsgraf von Gondola, "auch: Gundulic", apparently a Benedictine author, has an entry in WBIS Online, as do a number of people named Gondola with given names such as Francesco and Sigismondo, who appear to be members of the family of this article. These Italian/Croatian noble families ought to be verifiable in Austro-Hungarian printed sources or other references covering Central European nobility, as well as possibly Italian biographical reference works. There is no reason to assume that they are "unverifiable" until these works have actually been checked. We clearly have a problem in this case with systemic bias in both the most easily available, googlable sources and in some of the databases I have access to, but there are enough indications that these are real historical people of some importance in their own time and place. Let the author work on them a bit more in his userspace and present good printed sources that readers can check. up+land 12:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that: delete this article and move the others to the author's userspace. ---CH 02:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following, from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ephrosinia Lukarevic, explains the origin of the text:
So apparently it's NOT original but copyvio. --LambiamTalk 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Pals of League-Based Justice

[edit]

Proded by User:Gtrmp as "Non-notable subject; cannot find evidence of its existence". Deproded by creator without comment. Delete per proder. Eivindt@c 02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was lazy close. While discussing the possibility of a merge after an article has already been brought to AfD is quote appropriate, articles should not be nominated on AfD if the nominator only wants a merge. You don't need AfD to merge, so I'm closing this with no result. If anyone wants to merge the article now, they're more than welcome ... just don't use AfD to do it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Buzz_Report

[edit]

Subject is already listed in Molly Wood's article already contains The Buzz Report's info. Please consider expanding the Molly Wood article. Adkinsjm

I added info about The Buzz Report to Molly's article. Has all the info this article has. No need for a seperate article unless useful info can be added. Adkinsjm
Then post on the forums and ASK people to add info to the page. Dude, the deletion tag is not something to be used lightly! It's an abuse of the powers on editing wiki! My goodness, you could have asked. If I have more time I can add in additional info, don't just list pages for deletion! --LifeStar 03:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Voss

[edit]

Article fails to establish notability. There are thousands of college football players. Article presumably written by a relative. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. I suppose it won't hurt me to merge them, or something. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-System

[edit]

This article originally had a db-bio speedy tag attached; I placed a hangon tag and attempted to assert notability. I think I've succeeded, but would like the community to judge. My vote is Keep Merge with Antisystem. Colonel Tom 03:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Antisystem already exists. With this said, weak delete. I am basing this on WP:BAND. In particular -- "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)." Now, I am no expert in punk labels. Pax Records or Reconcile could very well be notable, but I can't find much on them, either on the web in general or on Wikipedia. -- Irixman (t) (m) 03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I couldn't find enough to convince me that the labels above match notability either - I am undecided re this section of wp:band. My keep is more based on the one essay I found suggesting that the author believes thay were a notable 'Crust' band. I'm not sure that others would agree that this constitutes notability, so here we are... If this is kept, a merge would seem to be appropriate with Antisystem - I've changed my suggestion above.
      • Comment After some consideration, I am withdrawing my weak delete and just leaving my comment. Merge would definately be needed. I don't know enough about the genre, labels, groups, etc... to decide on notability. -- Irixman (t) (m) 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If no one can tell if they are notable, they aren't. If kept then merge. jbolden1517Talk 05:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both articles, both fail to establish notabilityYdam 08:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with existing article which needs expansion. (The spelling/hyphenation is also variable so it might be a useful redirect.) (They were a significant band, but they exemplify the sort of band that causes most difficulty with WP:MUSIC. They have an allmusic entry (discography) [4]. I'll have a dig around for sources. - Politepunk 08:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just about notable - allmusic listing, one track on Anti-War: Anarcho Punk Vol.1, listed on Amazon, label Red Rhino notable for releasing Red Lorry Yellow Lorry, Tackhead etc. Merge with Antisystem and redirect. TheMadBaron 08:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two articles under whatever name is valid - in the referenced article they're called "Anti System". That makes 3 variants. Worth keeping this little bit of punk history.Tyrenius 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; article is kept, but move or merge are not disallowed. - Liberatore(T) 11:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican hate groups

[edit]

I will change my vote to from Delete to Merge. I do wish to see a consensus. Brimba 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) changed as of 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the original title was Mexican hate groups. I moved it to Mexican political groups in an attempt at NPOV, and then Panem moved it back. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valenzetti Equation

[edit]

Astroturfing campaign. Part of the Lost massive campaign to create buzz about nonexistant movies and books. Was PRODded, the PROD removed, so I am bringing it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a speedy delete by author's request? --LambiamTalk 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. While we should all be very open to the idea of merging if there's content to be saved, I agree with those who say there's no content here worth saving. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Board criticism

[edit]

attack piece —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feinstein (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Adams (baseball)

[edit]

Stub for player who only played in one game in 1902 [6] One line stub with no potantial of expanding Delete Jaranda wat's sup 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need that purdy text there, y'know. We have some rather clever people closing discussions these days (alas, you're stuck with me), and they can tell what you want without the purdy text, which, as we all know, contributes to the misconception that AfD is a vote, encourages poor nominations, and turns wives against husbands. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 07:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guys who played one game need to be pretty special to deserve an article. -- GWO
  • Delete Little potential for expansion. It appears the fella's nickname was "wagon tongue" but all other information was hard to come by. Few sources due to lack of notability and time since final appearance. Should be included in a "cup of coffee" or "one game players" list, perhaps, but doesn't warrant its own page, in my opinion. Davemcarlson 08:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't assert notability, too little information to be useful. JIP | Talk 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this guy was a 2006 rookie on a roster, or even possibly a AAA player right now, he'd have an article, possibly before he played. Don't be prejudicial, he meets WP:BIO and the only reason this is being considered is because his game was 106 years ago. --badlydrawnjeff
Acually I would AFD any article of players who only played in one major league game and has no other claim of notablity, doesn't meet WP:BIO exatly Jaranda wat's sup 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd vote keep on them. Especially Red Sox players. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ever heard of Moonlight Graham? Same deal. - TheActuary (WP:MEMES?) 11:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Really? Which highly successful book and movie feature Joe Adams as a character? PS: Observant viewers will note I linked to Moonlight Graham above. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff's comments. Amazinglarry 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments by badlydrawnjeff. Yamaguchi先生 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article after creating an all-time roster page for the St. Louis Cardinals. Not surprisingly, many of the links pointed to the wrong people, so I started going through and fixing that by creating stubs for such players. The plan was to eventually go back through and upgrade those stubs, but even so, I can't see why the stub should be deleted. It's not harming anyone by sitting there. That said, the idea of creating a one game players or small service time players list seems reasonable. But again, there seems to be no reason to delete- it's not as if we need the space or the page available for something more notable or more useful. --Sharur 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He must have been at least somewhat notable in his day, as someone actually bothered to record his nickname. It's difficult to find much info about these old-timey athletes using the Internet, but you could probably find something if you looked through some newspaper archives. Thethethe 05:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments by badlydrawnjeff, since non-notable is non-notable, whether today or 100 years ago. --Calton | Talk 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Can be smerged to an appropriate list if desired, but having a substub isn't particularly useful. Stifle (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expanded the article a little bit. It's still not much, but it's a start. Thethethe 01:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy was a pro baseball player. That is a wonderful achievement. I want to thank the editors who are trying to complete our professional athlete coverage. In the future, I hope we have articles on everyone who ever picked up a glove or a bat or whatever. -- JJay 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who has picked up a glove (and bat, although not at the same time) many times, I hope you're referring to pro athletes. The thought of a Wikipedia article about myself distinctly lacks appeal ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable professional athlete. -- No Guru 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I discounted the views of anyone who decided to treat this simply as a vote; however, there were mercifully few "votes" without any discussion. I don't think either side of the discussion really makes any points that overwhelm the other side's. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial Outpost

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

This article is more about the dispute between the forum amins than about the forums itself. -- Drini 03:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep As the original author of the article, it had very little to do with the dispute (which is funny, a 1.5 million post, 8700 member board is in dispute with a sub-2000 post 40 member board?!?) and more with the history of the most prolific, widespread, and well-known actuarial board in the world. A few people's vendetta does not make this a candidate for deletion! Avi 04:03, 19 May 2006 04:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drini, please check interiot's new tool, I have as many edits in the name space as I do afd. I would request you investigate before accusing. Thank you -- Avi 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was a mistake from my part. I meant to put it below the next one.
The above account is used almost exclusively for AFD participation -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the hundreds, if not thousands, of actuaries who use the forum cannot install Alexa toolbars on our work computers--we'd be fired :) -- Avi 05:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This entry isn't just about a 'forum'. It's probably the most visited site in the actuarial profession and it's used as a resource not just a chat room. The unique history of the site also makes this entry noteworthy in the annals of the actuarial profession. Suggesting it's a forum with an alexa rank disregards the importance of this site and the information contained within it, particularly to the profession. There's a case could be made that this site is the realization of the actuarial profession. The site itself also holds quite a bit of symbolism within the profession, just like the iron ring does. -glenn

- besides, alexa rank doesn't hold much water in this community. These folks don't have toolbars installed, it's severly misrepresented with that. Check the .edu backlinks of this site and www.actuary.ca if you want a better idea (www.actuary.ca is the same site). --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waterwheel (talk • contribs) .

The above account is new and has never edited before -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being the largest and most visited actuarial site in the world is pretty notable, I would think. -- Avi 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong keep.. Notable - it was recently mentioned in the New York Times. And a whole slew of other national and regional traditional media on some mathematical pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterwheel (talk • contribs)

Second statement by Waterwheel -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ... because no linked-to proofs of notability are provided, as required by WP:WEB. We do not judge based on assertions of notability, credible though they may be, but rather on verifiable sources. Sandstein 10:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what WEB says, the above assertions of notability are strong enough that I think we should look into it.

Preferably I would like to see something white-on-black (on screen) or black-on-white (on paper) though, if possible. Has the site been referenced from any (or many) 3rd party sources? If so, could you respectively provide links to a couple, or provide a scan? Kim Bruning 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone mentioned New York Times. If you can show us the NYT article in question (note: such excerpts and quotations are permitted under US law under "fair use", especially for uses such as this), that should be sufficient for a keep. Kim Bruning 10:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now. Lots of weasel wording ("...it may well be the largest and most dynamic such gathering of actuaries in the world" May well be?), lots of assertions' not much actual sourcing. My best friend's an actuary -- I'll ask his opinion when I get the chance. --Calton | Talk 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now. I agree there is too much weasel wording ("...it may well be the largest and most dynamic such gathering of actuaries in the world"), "lots of assertions' not much actual sourcing." If it is dynamic, it is becuase of the chat rooms, things like palindrome post count, what's the first thing that pops into your,.... I agree that the spin off site is not significant for it's own entry, but it is noteworthy to be included in the other entry, one voice, be it Patty Sheehan can be deemed significant (source unavailable). The poster glenn above also has a personal vendetta against the spin off site, he was posting IP addresses, employer information and other information in an attempt to intimidate users of the spin off forum. I would have been fine with a neutral intervention that was a compromise, but it is clear that Avarum and his sock puppets want the entry to be nothing more than an advertisement for the owner of the domain name, an actuarial recruiting firm. Such biased advertising has no place in an encylopedia, so I would say delete it.--Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA
The above account is 3 days old and it's only edits are to this afd and the article in question -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above account is only 2 days old -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above account had only 2 edits prior this AFD -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Saying that this is the most visited actuarial site/forum seems a bit misleading. How many other actuarial sites are there? And how many visitors do they get? --cholmes75 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many of the editors above. The NY Times article means nothing- it mentions actuarialoutpost. It's not like the article is about the site. The site fails WP:WEB, period. -- Kicking222 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notability has to be evaluated in context. The actuarial profession is a relatively small one and so should not be expected to achieve the same numerical results as Britney Spears. An Alexa return of 77,439 is extremely impressive in this respect. Please note the Alexa cut-off point is actually 100,000. Tyrenius 17:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think even most actuaries will agree that 77K is less than 100k. What context makes something notable? Is it the largest discussion forum for "actuaries" who aren't yet actuaries and may never become actuaries, who are still taking exams, who are under 30 years old and favor liberal politics, and is supported by a recruiting company and a non-actuary in Canada? I guess if you put enough constraints on notability you can make anything notable. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – With Alexa ranks, a smaller number is better. The site ranked at 1 is the most visited site on the Internet (by users with Alexa toolbars). Hence a site ranked at 77,439 is more popular than one ranked at 100,000 – Gurch 13:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Many, if not close to 50%, of the users of the Actuarial Outpost are credentialed actuaries. It is incorrect for anyone to say that it is "only" mostly aspiring actuaries, as that is false. It includes thousands of credentialed actuaries notable in their field. – TheActuary 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops my BS meter just went off again. I can claim 5% credentialed actuaries at your site and you can claim 50% because there is no source. In fact if you are the site promoter (former webmaster - glenn cooke whose blog is trashing me right now and calling for my employer to take action against me) then I can easily check the Soa.org directory of membership and see that even you are not a credentialled actuary. There is NO mechanism in your sign up to check if someone is credentialed, much less if they were signing up for multiple id's in the past (until the change to non-public email requirement). Given that much of your activity (as far as diverse posters - not the 10 who regularily post to the reef or political) is in the exam section - it is fair to say that those taking exams are for the most part non-credentialed and once they stop taking exams they rarely return (although your member list is rarely if ever purged of members who posted). Bottom line, you make outrageous claims with no data.Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A small sampling that indicates a large portion of Outpost members are credentialed actuaries: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=9141 .TheActuary 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and seriously clean up. Some people got pissed at the site and screwed up the article -- it happens. If we take out the silliness and ad-like language, we appear to be left with info on a website notable in its community. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above votes, as the original author of the article, I'd be glad to remove all traces of the immaterial dispute, as well as clean up the language to a more neutral form. -- Avi 02:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is not a vote, but I would be happy with the article as originally edited by an outsider ^demon, I do not believe that an insider such as Avi is going to present things in an unbiased way. From Avi's POV it is nothing more than a vanity contribution. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your need to try (but, unfortunately, fail) to damage the Outpost because your feelings are hurt is very sad. You need to grow up and move on. TheActuary 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. An actuarial web community- how refreshingly unusual compared to the average gamer forum that is frequently noominated on AfD. Looks like we need this as part of our coverage on the insurance industry. -- JJay 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Against my better judgement, I've decided to post my thoughts on the whole situation. When I first encountered the article {via a post on WP:RFI), I came across a POV article engaged in a minor content dispute. However, as time progressed (and I attempted to informally mediate), the dispute became more profound. An edit war has insued, reversions are nonstop, and I'm pretty sure the two primary contributors (Avi and Joe Smythe) have both violated the 3RR. But I digress. This article is obviously an outlet for the two of them (and their groupies/sockpuppets) to fight over some internal dispute on their website. The talk page has become very uncivil, and personal attacks are flying from BOTH sides. Now, I won't give my opinions on whether the article should be kept or deleted (I can justify both viewpoints in my head), but I just thought I'd throw some general commentary about these two users into this debate for consideration by others and the closing sysop. At this point, I'm washing my hands of this article and my involvement in it. ^demon[yell at me] /12:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel that way, demon. However, I would suggest you check both the article history and IP logs (if you have access) and you will see that nowhere have I reverted anything three times within 24 hours to my knowledge. As for the incivility, yes, I must admit I have been pushed to being somewhat less than absolutely proper, and that may be a personal failing for having a somewhat emotional attachement to an article I spent many hours on; I hope you can understand that human emotion. As for the person(s) who persist on trying to glorify a complete non-issue, all I can say is that if you have spent the months, let alone years, that I have as part of the community in question, your patience with some of their shenanigans would have run thin as well, I believe. Once again, I truly thank you for your efforts to both mediate and help out, and I hope it doesn't sour you from contributing to Wikipedia in that way in the future. -- Avi 13:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.travell.co/

  • Delete I admit this is a sock puppet id. I have another account where I regularly contribute to Wikipedia, but given the heated arguments and possible future retribution for my opinion, I prefer to use an alternate id. The site is not that notable to the profession despite the point of view of the author of the article, someone who clearly appears to be emotionally attached to the subject matter and lacking in objectivity. The actuarial community is better served by the true professional web sites of the academy, the two societies and numerous other more notable sites. I do not feel that the article is properly sourced or meets the requirements of a Wikipedia contribution. Anonymous Actuary 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established. The NYT article mentions it only as one of many obscure places that contain attempts to write "Fibs", haiku-ish poems with a syllabic structure based on the Fibbonaci_Series. Members of the site should remember that Wikipedia is not generally a place where you write about your own projects. If your community becomes famous, let others write about it. --William Pietri 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with statements like it may well be the largest and most dynamic... sounds and reads like an advertisement. JohnM4402 05:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW and more or less CSD:G3. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Genesis Plague (and Image:Donna-Wilkes.JPG, Image:GENESIS-Virus.jpg)

[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax, with some personal attacks at the end. I would have speedied it, but hoaxes don't qualify, and this isn't quite patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 03:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  1. User:ShadowOfAGirl created The Genesis Plague.
  2. The website answersingenesis.org is not a news site or a science website but a creationist website which describes its mission as "upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse". WP:RS
  3. the alleged link appears to be broken. WP:VERIFY
  4. ShadowOfAGirl (talk · contribs) and AlaxandriaDuvval (talk · contribs) are single purpose accounts. WP:SOCK.WP:RS
---CH 07:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, of course, they are new editors, who have an interest in the subject, but are being scared off writing any more by the attitude of others' seeming attack-dog mentality -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're interested in the subject, since they made it up. (And by "they", of course I mean "she".) Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!! Since when is it alright for Wikipedia to discriminate against something simply because Donna Wilkes was mentioned in it? That certainly doesn't destroy the validity. And Alaxandria is right! I saw this on the news as well. Although they were calling it "G109-Plague" - it doesn't make the fact any less true. People really need to be notified of this horrible risk. Definately keep! SimplyMagical 04:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I try to WP:AGF but here I must suspect sockpuppetry. There is no SimplyMagical (talk · contribs); the previous comment was added by an anon using 69.237.1.157 (talk · contribs), aka the irvnca.pacbell.net anon from Los Angeles, CA---CH 08:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the alleged virus image, Deathbyswitchblade (talk · contribs), more or less admits he made it on his computer! Compare interests and contribs of ShadowOfAGirl (talk · contribs). ---CH 09:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Although there are strong arguments for merging, this is a normal editorial action and may be performed without the auspice of a deletion forum. It should be noted that these articles stretch fair use to the breaking point, balance on the edge of reliable sources, may violate our bias policies about undue representation, and are highly unlikely search terms for anyone not already ensconced in this culture. These, and to a large degree the proposed target Counter-Strike maps, could use a lot of work making them more encyclopedic and less *groans to use the word* crufty.
brenneman {L} 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de_dust, cs_siege, cs_assault, cs_italy, cs_militia, cs_office, cs_estate, de_aztec, de_inferno, de_nuke, de_cbble, as_oilrig, fy_iceworld, de_survivor, de_train, de_vertigo, cs_747, cs_backalley

[edit]

Individual maps for a computer game? This is the very definition of cruft. Rory096 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into gametype pages, probably with trimming. The CS maps are notable, and can be sourced(Ugh, that is a BAD pun in context, isn't it?) They do not, however, deserve their own pages. I would compare it to having a page on Madison, Wisconsin that mentions a street (Say, State Street, that's a major street in the city) and that street having its own article. The street should be here, but not in its own article. --Kinkoblast 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I should be more careful. State Street DOES have its own article. That probably ought to be nominated for deletion too, huh?--Kinkoblast 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Chrisjustinparr 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, CS is notable enough, and these articles provide nice info about the development of these maps and associated trivia and criticism. - Sikon 05:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Counter-Strike is a very notable game. I have done a lot of work on (and written some of) these articles to make them not cruft. Those who are new to the game, and even veteran players, can learn things about the maps from these articles (I know I did!). Also, Counter-Strike is so popular that people who have never played the game might encounter references to these maps on the Internet, whether through forum postings, flash videos, etc. Additionally, cruft alone is not enough to delete an article - from Wikipedia:Fancruft: "[Things labeled as fancruft are usually deleted] due to the fact that [they] are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion." These articles are none of the above. Also, "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." - Varco 05:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see references in very few of those. Indeed, they seem a lot like original research. --Rory096 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of edits. - brenneman {L} 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although you are correct that they are not referenced (and I mistakenly said they were), they are not original research according to the page you provided. These articles do not fall into the category of original research based on the "What is original research" section of the page. A line from it which particularly defends my position is: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." These articles propose no ideas or arguments. The information is taken mostly from primary sources. As this is the case, and since they should have had references added long ago (my own fault), I will add sources to the articles. -Varco 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Counter-Strike maps or keep, my preferences in that order. I don't see a lot of expansion for any of these articles, and they are all somewhat short. Even a merge into Counter-Strike hostage rescue maps, Counter-Strike assassination maps, etc. would make the articles much better. Also, a lot of the articles are inflated by weasel words, e.g. "the map is often criticized ..." criticized by who, exactly? (Of course, that can be fixed, not deleted.) Sources would be appreciated, but the articles seem over-inflated.
  • One final note: I would appreciate some clarification as to the copyright status of the images. The screenshots -- are they fair use screenshots or not? If they are, I think we have a few too many for each page. (Actually, I believe we have a few too images on all of the pages.) Oh, and as for the maps -- it would be very nice if we could have free images of those instead. I don't imagine freely licensed maps would be too hard to generate. TheProject 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have updated the screenshots to use the fair use game screenshot tag. I do agree that there are too many and that some can be removed. -Varco 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was pleasantly surprised to find these here and now I'm even more surprised with the AfD nomination. If they were just stubs I wouldn't object but in their current state thay seem worth keeping. What I think is worth consideration are the images keep 1 per article as fair use. ~~helix84 06:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete fancruft. Stormscape 06:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure highly deletable cruft.--DV8 2XL 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless somebody can give a valid reason for deletion. TheMadBaron 07:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Counter-Strike maps. I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia, but as long as it is kept under control maybe these editors will grow up and write valuable WP articles.---CH 07:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit tense? Fortunately value is in the eye of the beholder. It is articles like these which give Wikipedia its long tail; and make it such a valuable and unique resource. Your comment almost had me change my mind and start a campaign to keep them as is; I don't have the time these days, but I have the will. - RoyBoy 800 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too large to merge, so merging would be silly. Fairly well documented, including maps. Very very geeky, agreed, but no harm in keeping. Kim Bruning 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I admit that the section has expanded faster than information can be added. It must be said that I feel that more information needs to be added to justify most pages, if anything the 'de_dust and de_dust2' page needs to be expanded as these are incredibly important maps, directly relevant to the history of multiplayer gaming. Counter-Strike's preminence as a staple of internet gaming needs to be documented, and the popularity of the game is directly related to the player's experience of individual maps. Oh, and of course the 'weasel' words are subjective, as there is no offical body commenting on Counter-Strike, it is left to bloggers, fanboys and the like.

Keep, update, and make relevant and neat. Monchberter. 12.18 19 May 2006 GMT

I concur. --Tone 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may agree that it is better to merge. However, your average CS fan is as likely to search for de_dust and de_cbble than "counter-strike maps". They get used to filtering out the massive server lists by mapname, that's why. - Hahnchen 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mmx1 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Counter-Strike maps. Thunderbrand 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Counter-Strike maps is already a very long article. While I recognize that some parts of it could be removed, even if they were, the article would be extremely long after all of these map articles (and more, as they're still being written) were merged into it. --Varco 17:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Kicking222. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I personally think these are more notable than the starcraft related articles on Wikipedia. Just flicking through the server browser now, and there are over 10000 servers running either de_dust or de_dust2 with similar player numbers, in the thousands 24/7. I do not support a merge because the various merge targets are already overfilling, and I definitely think that showing the progression of long standing maps from conception to source engine is interesting and encyclopedic. For example, there is an article on Surfing (Counter-Strike) which collates all the surf map details onto a single page, note that currently on counter-strike there are only 237 servers running any sort of surf map compared to the thousands for every official map. It may be worthwhile creating an article for hostage rescue maps, one for defusion maps and then merging. Some maps, I believe are not exactly that notable and are possibly merge or deletion targets, de_survivor maybe, as_oilrig into an assassination maps article maybe. I'd also like people to consider this, although not very vocal on Wikipedia, the counter-strike community is very large, at this very second, there are over 200,000 players actually IN GAME according to the stats at Steam. I guess that the counter-strike community and the number of people who would find articles on de_dust and cs_militia interesting and worthy of an encyclopedia greatly outnumber those who find specific webforums or webcomic characters to be notable, yet due to their lack of presence on Wikipedia, their voices are not as well heard. - Hahnchen 18:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment despite the fact that there are many CS players, we have to ask ourselves the most important question. Is it a content appropriate for an encyclopedia? The game itself certainly is. Separate maps certainly aren't. It is ok to mention them in the central article, or even a separate one, but certainly not each one in its article. If someone wants to know details of the map, he/she should look at the official website. Not here. --Tone 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official site has very little information about map details. If these are not worthy of an encyclopedia, why are the individual articles for each of the 395 Pokémon, as well as all of the towns in the universe (e.g. Viridian City, Pallet Town)? (Note that I am not saying that those should be deleted; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, those articles, as well as the ones in question, are harming nothing.) The fan-base is not small enough to be considered cruft (part of the definition on Wikipedia:Fancruft is that it is only of importance to a small group of enthusiastic fans... This is important to a large group of fans, and those fans who would be interested might even be just casual fans. --Varco 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, or alternately merge into "Counterstrike Hostage Maps," "Counterstrike Assassination Maps," etc. as suggested further above. These articles are useful and interesting to the literally hundreds of thousands of counterstrike players. I know that I have looked at them in the past myself. I liked the comment above, these indeed may be very geeky articles... but it's geeks that get the most mileage out of Wikipedia! Stop being elitist and accept the fact that Wikipedia is a repository for MUCH esoteric knowledge that would probably not make it into a print encylopedia. This may fit the original mission statements or what whiny, power-hungry deletionists believe in, but it's what the site has evolved into. This is _not_ a bad thing. Wikipedia has much well-written information on extremely specialized, non-mainstream topics, which is part of what makes it such a valuable resource. The reason this is a "Strong Keep" instead of just a "keep" is because I believe deleting this article would be only be serving to strengthen the bias of certain wikipedia editors. (The Deletionistas) Tmorrisey 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: into Counter-Strike maps. - Tutmosis 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer keep and merge, grouping by map type; and redirects for goodness sakes: Crufty yes, but entirely notable for the most popular FPS on the planet. It is a tour de force in gaming industry; to not have them detailed in some sort of sub article is crazy talk. - RoyBoy 800 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer delete outright, or at best, merge into Counter-Strike maps. Way too fancrufty -- and before Mr. Junior-League Perry Mason leaps in here, yes, it's a valid reason for deletion, namely that an article of interest only to fans and no one else ISN'T encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Show me where in Wikipedia policy fancruft is labeled as a valid policy for deletion. Fancruft is too subjective of a term to be a sole reason for deletion. I noticed that you edit articles relating to military naval vessels... in your world, those should be deleted as fancruft because they're only of real interest to those interested in military history. Almost everything in Wikipedia can be considered fancruft to someone else. In regards to these articles, even if they were only of interest to fans, there are 19.5 million legal owners of Counter-Strike. I think that's large enough population to not be considered cruft. It's not up to you to decide what's interesting to lots of other people. --Varco 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are badly named, in my opinion. I don't think many people would search on those names. To use another example, say I was going to make an article on the Call of Duty 2 map "Moscow, Russia". While that map has a technical name similar to these (like cd_trainyard or something) it would be better and more encyclopedic to name the article Moscow, Russia (Call of Duty 2 map) because that's what would allow someone to find it. If I were the one who wanted these articles kept, I would be putting my energy into making them the best they can be and possibly changing some minds. Aguerriero (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're absolutely not badly named. Whereas players do refer to the maps as Italy or Dust, they just as much refer to them as cs_italy or de_dust. Do a search for Dust Counter-strike on google, and you'll see that most of the results come back with de_dust in them. Even in articles about counter-strike and strategy guides, they'll most probably mention the map prefix. And counter-strike players will have been used to filtering the maps by name as well as their name in the server browser. - Hahnchen 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're just arguing in favor of deleting the articles. You are implying that only CS players would look up these maps, which to a lot of people is going to mean that they don't belong here and should go to an online game guide or something. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them stay. But the way you are debating this issue, you are going to cause more delete votes than keep votes. Aguerriero (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. I ignored only those puppets who seemed to be talking crap, none of the rest. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Belmont

[edit]
Please remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ (four tildes) to the end of your comments. It is very difficult for administrators to determine what consensus, if any, is reached during this discussion.

This is essentially a vanity page, read the wikipedia entry on Vanity PagesBolfan 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this different from an entry for Leo Laporte, Tom Cruise or George Burns? Veronica is a bonafide podcasting celebrity and should be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.153.6 (talk • contribs)

Anyone who says Veronica isn't "famous" hasn't listened to the umteenth male-caller to the BOL Podcast ask her to marry him. The page should remain as an alternative source of information to those guys, otherwise they will overload her personal website with traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.130.28 (talk • contribs)

From the Wiki on Vanity pages: "Does lack of fame make a vanity article?

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.

The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.156.108 (talk • contribs)

Maybe delete quotes from personal webpage, but the Buzz Out Loud Podcast is a popular one for tech fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkinsjm (talk • contribs)

  • Seems to me that while Veronica Belmont probably merits inclusion in Wikipedia - after all, Buzz Out Loud is a popular podcast and its presenters accordingly well regarded - the article itself isn't strong. It's disjointed and interspersed with rather trite comments. It just needs more depth, more detail, and fewer flippant observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.135.98 (talk • contribs)
  • I think that this article going up for deletion has increased its value greatly. It has been changed from a vanity article, but I stand by my opinion that the previous iteration was much more like a vanity page. I think that we should now remove its deletion tag. If there are any objections to that discuss below, and if not I will remove the tag after 02:00 UTC. P.S. I'm a 4 month BOL fan myself and was just trying to adhere to what in my opinion was wikipedia policy. --Bolfan 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you wanted to adhere to wiki policy, but the deletion page is supposed to be used for articles that obviously have generated very little or no interest from the community as a whole. This is especially true if the article is very short and contains unverifiable data. What I disagree with what you had done is that instead of going in and changing the article itself to make it less vanity and more content, you simply opted to have it deleted. That isn't very responsible in my opinion. It took me less than an hour total to revise the page to a hopefully better version. Next time please, be careful with how you use some of these special wiki tags. They are not usually reversable once issued. --LifeStar 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI'm glad he/she changed their mind. I agree that it was not a very good wikipedia entry before, but now it seems to have been improved a lot. Thanks a lot to BOL Listener who made this page a lot better --Alexbrewer
  • Don't Delete! People are adding to this article everyday to keep it from being deleted. I see no vanity, give it a chance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.66.175 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - This deletion request was made by an anomIP user and has also tagged another article for a copyright infringment while there is nothing that has been violated. User IP on Wiki has a long history of random edits and even a wiki-violation logged on its talk page. This deletion request should not be considered seriously and should be removed ASAP.--LifeStar 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article - It is continually getting more depth as Veronica steadily expands her impact on the podcasting and web media universe. She may not be as well known as Leo or John C. now but that does not mean she won't be. As a member of the Cnet team she gets worldwide exposure on a fairly large scale. She is an up and coming net celebrity and is of interest to enough netizens to warrant an entry on wikipedia. --68.126.216.232 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepVeronica is a key contributor to the Buzz Out Loud Podcast, which has become a key source of tech news for it's growing number of listeners. She may not be a celebrity yet, but she is approaching that level more and more every day. --michaelkpate
  • Keep Fame should not constitute keeping an entry or an entry being classified as vanity. Veronica is an important figure in the podcasting world, as the producer and commenter on a very popular technology podcast. Ethan 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every page for an up and comer in entertainment, new or even podcasting could be considered a vanity page when first set up. There does not appear to be anything that is over the top self promotion, instead it currently focuses on her duties with the Buzz Out Loud podcast, and other contributions she has made in the podcasting community. --

Keep keep keep -- she's hott and getting hottter User:OMGponiez 09:44, 19 May 2006 (BST)

Anyone who (on her own) has enough influence to cause an afdnoobs tag to appear is -I hazard to guess- probably notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Not that I'm advocating the "get 100s of fans to spam wikipedia" approach here, mind you. Kim Bruning 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I think 'famous' is a real strech here, and my sockpuppetry alarms are going off, I do think she meets the standards in WP:N. Also, please please please sign your posts, folks. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i see no vanity in this post. veronica belmont is a producer at one of the largest tech news companies in the U.S. , and is also one of the great names in podcasting. she may not be famous, but is definitely well known. there is no reason why she does not deserve to keep this wiki. indy1333


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Antonaccio

[edit]

non-notable, possible vanity. Only 212 GHits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was obvious keep. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sams

[edit]

Non-notable participant in mildly-notable historical event for which he did nothing noteworthy. Delete as non-notable and unexpandable. --InShaneee 04:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously notable-only the brazenly ignorant would state otherwise. I expect a genuine apology from 'Yanksox' and 'InShaneee' for wasting my and other peoples precious time.Lentisco 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am changing my vote only because of other people that have expanded the page. I am annoyed at Lentisco for attacking and harrassing me and my nationality. I am glad OTHER people were able to show significance and not be vicious. Yanksox 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All members and investors of Port Phillip Association should have seperate pages. Melbob 05:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not apparent why being an investor of this Port Phillip Association makes one notable. Sandstein 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the point of Oz history Port Philip Association is important. To quote from the page: ...formed a company in early 1835 with a view to purchasing a large tract of land from the aborigines on the unsettled south coast of Australia, founding Melbourne and the future State of Victoria in the process.TransylvanianTwist 05:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the supporters can't think of anything interesting to say about him he's not notable. jbolden1517Talk 06:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and allow to expand. I agree that notability needs to be established, but it needs to be given a chance. As for mildy-notable historical event, I think not! -- I@n ≡ talk 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep have added to page . Keep as he was founding member of Melborne Cricket Club. Investor to Port Phillip Association. Held judicial post in Hobart and Launceston. Page to Duke of Kent etc. Its obvious to anyone with any interest in Australian history why this page should be kept. Why two Americans under 21 should hold sway over this page is beyond me. Eric A. Warbuton 07:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IMHO adding that he once played a game makes him appear less notable... And please refrain from discussing other editors' ages and nationalities in a derogatory manner, please see WP:CIVIL. Weregerbil 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I wouldn't presume to know what is or isn't notable in US history, or Brazilian history, or Norwegian history.... When there is an article about the history of a country or region, it's at least polite to defer to the judgement of the people who hail from said country or region. -- Synapse 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no particular notability established. Google does not suggest notability[9][10]. Weregerbil 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Google is a long way from being a comprehensive reference source on anything, and is of almost no use at all in determining the "notability" of historic subjects recorded largely in paper documents (ie anything before the 1990s) - although I know how difficult it is for most people under the age of 30 to come to grips with such a crazy notion. Lentisco 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many people have helped build the path to a greater city/society, but I'm not sure that William Sams is worthy of his own page. Just because he was one of fifteen doesn't warrant him deserving of a page. Yanksox 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. a 30 second net search found - noted in the National portrait gallery of aust website [[11]] , listed as a character in a play "Johnny Fawkner: Apostle of Freedom" [12], and still being written about 130 years after his death. Relying on Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? for many historical figures requires more than Ghitting. Looks to have been notable in his time in enough areas to still be notable in ours - Peripitus 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Was the bookseller/publisher Sams the same as the sheriff Sams? If the page quoted above is correct the publisher died 30 years before the sheriff. Then there is another bookseller William Raymond Sams[13] who died about the same time as the sheriff. Weregerbil 18:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per above - Varco 16:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good piece of history. Wiki has the space. It is not a paper encyclopedia, you know. Tyrenius 17:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous 3 entires. --Supercoop 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In an encyclopedia where pets in Harry Potter get their own articles, this man is notable. DJ Clayworth 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Port Philip Association and Melbourne Cricket Club are both notable institutions in Australia. The Melbourne Cricket Club is notable as it owns the world's biggest cricket ground and one of the worlds biggest stadiums the Melbourne Cricket Ground. I will check whether the Dictionary of Australian Biography has an article on him which will allow for expansion and verification of the article. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think people are missing the point. This AfD is not challenging the MCB or the PAA, those deserve a page. However one member who helped with it doesn't deserve a page. Especially, when it just states that's all that occured. It's just as easy as putting their name on the original page. Yanksox 00:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is making too big a deal out of a "page", as if it's a great honour. It's not like a page in a paper encyclopedia. It's just a way of organising information. It's just a few KB. It's more convenient to find it this way and can be easily linked to from other articles mentioning him. Tyrenius 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important figure in the history of a major capital city in Australia. In conclusion, notable. -- Synapse 00:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone who lives in Melbourne I consider this person to be notable, but the article certainly needs expanding. --Bduke 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a notable historical figure. The article has come a long way since I first marked it as needing clarfication for reasons of notability. I'm convinced this subject is now worthy of inclusion. -- Longhair 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable person in history, but expand it further. --Terence Ong 04:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is worth keeping for its historical purposes. It may be obscure but who says the event has to be that well known. Keep. (JROBBO 15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I think the notability argument is missing an important point, which is the inclusion of valid historical information. A person does not in themselves have to have any outstanding characteristics to make them worth including, if they are relevant to something which is worth including. This provides context which is necessary to understanding the full picture of an event or time. The "notability" argument is based on the values of contemporary celebrity culture, not in depth research.Tyrenius 09:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Figure of historical interest. David Sneek 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per multiple arguments presented here. Cnwb 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being this man played a vital role in the formation of the city of Melbourne I do not believe he should be deleted. History is important and should be perserved --Kev62nesl 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. The article now directs to Wizard of Oz experiment, to which I have moved the former "Wizard Of Oz (experiment)". Metamagician3000 12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard of OZ Methodology

[edit]

The article was written originally by one user Jfkelley. He hasn't made tons of other contributions since. The text basically refers to one John F. Kelley's dissertation in 1980, and its only sources are from it. While "no original research" can and should be loosened up a bit in the cases where your research was actually published, nobody else seems to know anything about this particular project to write it up to proper encylopedic style while not subverting the intent of the author. As it stands, the article just isn't encylopedic.

Suggestion: Suggest to Mr. Kelley that he write up the current article at his own website, then include said website as an external link in the article that someone else suggested merging it to, Wizard_Of_Oz_(experiment). SnowFire 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:OR. Sandstein 05:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm finding other sites [14] [15] [16]. So Kelley is correct that his ideas are used by others. Why not { {wikify} } and let someone fix up the tone problems? jbolden1517Talk 06:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR WP:AUTO WP:VAIN article created by Jfkelley (talk · contribs) who is apparently the J. F. Kelley who is said to have invented this alleged methodology. I don't think we should encourage psychologists (or anyone) to write their own WP biographies! ---CH 07:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Google search for "Wizard of Oz methodology" turns up 138 hits, with some apparent usage by psychologists. However, I don't think that the term is in common enough usage to warrant an encyclopedia article. The article is also poorly written and inadequately referenced.--Nydas 09:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So-Weak-it-can-barely-lift-its-finger Keep per jbolden. Steveo2 10:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munchkin-sized keep as per jbolden1517. Vizjim 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Published paper, so keep. But needs cleanup. Kim Bruning 11:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not interested who wrote it. I'm interested in what they wrote. It is not that widespread, but does have some credibility. Tyrenius 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - refrenced so somone wants to work on it. --Supercoop 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references show that the article subject is in common use. Kevin 01:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain (As the author, I didn't think a vote was appropriate). My purpose in writing the article to define the "alleged methodology" (cute) is that I know (from reprint requests, among other things) that the methdology, as named, is in wide usage globally by psychologists and user-computer interface designers. I have often been asked about the origins of it. I did not take the time to add subsequent references and implementations. I will do so, and, perhaps provide further grist for this interesting debate. P.S. It wasn't my intention to violate any protocols for WP; I thought that the topic, by virtue of the publication in peer-reviewed journals and the wide-spread adoption of the methodology, it warranted encyclopedic coverage. And, vanity considerations notwithstanding, who better to document it than the guy who invented it? In any event, I'd like to ask for a Hold while I attempt to make these enhancements. Jfkelley 16:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the person who originally submitted the request, I'd have no problem putting the issue on hold. That said, have you considered the merge then delete option? To put it another way, the concepts between the (experiment) article and the (methodology) article are basically the same, right? I can't entirely be sure, but if that seems reasonable, then might I recommend doing that? I'll also add that adding references isn't the only thing needed. While short, the (experiment) article is simply written and "gets to the point." Now, more detail is great, especially from a person who helped originally research it, but the article isn't entirely clear with what the extra detail means. What were the other systems of the day like? Why did having a human experimenter make it easier to do the keyword recognition for vocabulary-building? What were later experiments able to do other than calendar/date syntaxes? I guess I should probably go read the original linked research to find out, but it seems like there's some work to be done on the article as well. SnowFire 20:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I like the idea of a merge. I'm embarrassed that my newbie search failed to pick up on the Experiment article when I wrote this one. I'd just go ahead and do it now, but I'm afraid of another blunder, so I propose to study the instructions on the merge instruction page and get everything right (for one thing, I'll have to find examples of the referring link that they speak about). I will also try to explain what the extra data means (I'll start by addressing your specific questions). I will try to do so concisely and in "encyclopedic" fashion. Thank you all for taking the time to contribute your feedback. WP is an amazing resource! Jfkelley 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up Response Ok, I think I did the merge correctly. I merged this article with the prior one Wizard Of Oz (experiment) and left a referring link in the redundant article Wizard of OZ Methodology. I also attempted to address the suggestions of SnowFire. Thank you for taking the time. Please let me know what you think.
  • I'll fix the redirect. Metamagician3000 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pscad

[edit]

PSCAD and EMTDC are adds. Both these articles started as cuts and paste of some sort of text version descriptions for a commercial product probably from a brochure. The author's name User:HVDC is the name of the company that makes these products I am also nominating Emtdc for deletion. jbolden1517Talk 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Merge makes most sense, and appears the most popular view, but, as TheMadBaron says, the information already exists in a much better form within the Pope Benedict XVI article. A quick note, if you will, on "merge and delete": it is possible to merge and delete, since we have things like history merges and the like. However, these things are bloody difficult, and not one user has given a good reason for it to be done. If the article wasn't a straight-out delete, no admin in their right mind would merge then delete the resultant redirect just for the heck of it. Please be a bit more sensible. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German universities affiliated with Pope Benedict XVI

[edit]

It's just a simple list of universities, and furthermore it'll never grow beyond the stage of stub. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Please note that despite Stifle's comment above, merge and delete really isn't a valid vote for AfD. That being said, is there any harm in a merge and redirect? Will Wikipedia be harmed if this article were to redirect to Pope Benedict XVI? Or is it best to delete this article entirely? Deathphoenix ʕ 05:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but place contents on Pope Benedict XVI. I don't see a redirect being worth the trouble. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this information is already contained within Pope Benedict XVI, so a merge is unnecessary. Pope Benedict XVI is the only page with a link to this article (apart from AfD), and no-one's going to search foe "German universities affiliated with Pope Benedict XVI", so a re-direct is unnecessary. Delete the link from Pope Benedict XVI, and delete this article. TheMadBaron 06:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge and delete as above. ---CH 07:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - duplicate material. No redirect, as no one's going to search for exactly this title. Tyrenius 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, merge and delete is permissible, inasmuch as there are other ways to retain contribution history; nevertheless, we look with disfavor on merge and delete because, FWIK, the requisite work is arduous, and because redirects such as this aren't really harmful. Second, I agree with Stifle that the list is such that, were the text even slightly reworked in a merge, no attribution would be required. On the whole, though, this information already exists in the Pope Benedict XVI article, and I can see no reason for which we ought to have a separate page enumerating the universities at which one studied/taught. While the information is notable as part of a biographical article (or even an article apropos of the education of an individual, where such education is of particular importance to the subject overall [as, for example, in William James Sidis]), where it exists solely as a list, WP:NOT is certainly dispositive; a redirect, further, is wholly unnecessary--as Tyrenius says, it is exceedingly unlikely that one would ever search for this phrase. Joe 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant as information exists in Pope Benedict XVI. --Terence Ong 04:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZQuake BF1942

[edit]

Non-notable mod, gamecruft.--Zxcvbnm 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 06:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inertron

[edit]

Comic-cruft, perma-stub--Zxcvbnm 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material is not unique to DC comics. It was first used in the Buck Rogers novels starting in 1928. If you delete this, then delete Adamantium. If you delete only this and not adamantium, then state exactly why. Joema 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you're trying to do. Wikipedia needs help in many areas. However deleting this article isn't one of those.
The fictional metal inertron was first used in 1928 by Philip Francis Nowlan in his Buck Rogers stories. These stories are an important part of science fiction and cultural history. They helped popularize the genre and essentially had the same cultural impact in the early 1900s that Star Trek had in the late 1900s. In essence inertron was the Dilithium of early 20th century science fiction. As such it's clearly notable from a historical literature standpoint, even if younger generations are unfamiliar with it.
There are dozens of Wikipedia articles on fictional substances. Most have less impact on literature, history and culture than inertron. Deleting inertron is pulling a string that's attached to a large ball. What about Ice-nine? Transparent aluminum? Uru metal? Corbomite? Adamantium? Where does the deleting begin and end, and by what objective criteria?
If there's a specific item in the article you want changed or improved, indicate that and I'll do so. However I strongly recommend this article not be deleted. Joema 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added it to Fictional chemical substances, A-M, but there is too much in the article to merge it all, IMHO. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video artists

[edit]

As with the discussion about the list of photographers, this list is prone to link spam and adding redlinked video artists, notable & non-notable alike. I proposed to delete this page and instead create a 'Video Artists' category. I'll add the category to all people listed in the list. The people without articles will be dropped. Clubmarx | Talk 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fresh category:Video artists and populate since it's around now! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 06:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any redlinks should either be stubbed or removed, but any other video artist with a Wikipedia article must be notable, or they would not have an article at all. Kevin 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raid2 Media Library

[edit]

This is an advertisement. Dfinch 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped cheese

[edit]

Hoax superstition. No references provided. No relevant Ghits. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 07:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It also applies to Limburger namespace. Fg2 09:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Moriori. Kimchi.sg 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Conrad Sequeira

[edit]

Non notable actor. Also a vanity case as the creator has the same name as the article. Has an IMDB entry, but has only acted as an extra in one film. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Seiya Brasil

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rectory Farm

[edit]

Completing AfD nomination by User:Czolgolz. This estate doesn't look notable to me. DarthVader 08:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine squad for the 2006 FIFA World Cup

[edit]

There is already a 'master' page of 2006 FIFA World Cup (squads) and this page just feels like an unecessary expansion. It would lead to us having 32 individual pages that are just replecated on the squads page, a waste of time and space, it would seem to me --Robdurbar 08:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did read it and I'm not the only one who was confused by what you were trying to do. I imagine that the result of this will either be delete or move to template space (is that possible directly or would it reuqire an admin anyway?). Even if it is delted then there's no reason why it can't be recreated as a template. Apologies if I jumped the gun a bit but I had visions of 32 articles duplicating the content of the current squad page for no reason. --Robdurbar 10:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry for the reaction, it just seamed a bit precipitated. If a move to template space is decided, I'll be glad to delete to redirection left by the move. Mariano(t/c) 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2006_FIFA_World_Cup_(squads)#Argentina. Redirects are cheap and useful. Reyk YO! 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to template space, unlikely to be a search term because of its length, and hence not useful as a redirect. If Marianocecowski had read further down the same talk page he links to, Oldelpaso says, "this sounds like an overlap between article space and template space, which I'd have reservations about. Can this not be solved by using templates?" Marianocecowski probably doesn't know about the template namespace yet, where information to be included in multiple articles can be put in. I have to applaud him for realising the usefulness of transclusions though. Kimchi.sg 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I wrote that more than half an hour after Mariano made the above comment. Oh, and move to template space. Oldelpaso 10:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My opinion to this has been elaborated at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup (squads)#Consistency. --Pkchan 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy decsion, there is already a page with this same exact information.Minfo 03:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not a valid reason: if this article/template was used the the page you name would not have the information at all, but would include it from this article/template. That's the hole point of the page I created. Mariano(t/c) 08:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.L.L. Productions

[edit]

Non-notable company, does not explain notability per WP:CORP. Contested prod. Weregerbil 08:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a company, it's just a bunch of friends ganging up to make "stupid and pointless" videos. And delete, nn bio, almost CSD but it asserts notability somewhat. Kimchi.sg 10:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn group.--blue520 11:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being just a small step away from speedy deletion. -- Kicking222 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Kukini 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm afraid, as it's not notable in the cruel wider world of wikipedia, but keep up the creative enterprise and come back when you're Hollywood directors.Tyrenius 18:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. DVD+ R/W 02:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Yes, I know I'm a part of A.L.L. so my opinion is kind of biased. We are looking at copyright information and, as far as the wikipedia criteria goes, I'm sure our name has been published somewhere (in a newspaper article most likely) but, please, give us a chance. We just want to do good. We are for hire and are a very eager to get "out there"...pwease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypoguitar214 (talk • contribs)
    Comment: You'll have to "get out there" first before having an article. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting new art, music or video groups unless they have been given coverage elsewhere (in a newspaper for example). Kimchi.sg 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Agreed. I would just like to know how long I have until the page is deleted and who decides whether or not the page stays up.
    An AfD usually last 5 days, which leaves another 4, but it could be closed early with an overwhelming consensus. An admin decides on the consensus. Tyrenius 07:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn studio. --Terence Ong 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good lord, talk about WP:NFT bait - Delete it A.L.L. MikeWazowski 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah....yeah, you're right. Even though I don't see any negative outcomes of the page staying up, I guess there has to be one if so many people are against it. Oh well. Maybe someday.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SecuritySafeGuards.net

[edit]

Non-notable spyware. Google for SecuritySafeGuards turns up 283 hits [17], mostly to forum posts from people asking for help removing the spyware from their computers. The only significant mention is the obligatory page in Symantec's virus database. Would have silently prodded if dissent had not been raised on the talk page.Delete. Kimchi.sg 09:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Roleplaying

[edit]

A non-notable type of forum/chatroom game. A google search for "wolf roleplaying" or "wolf role playing" turns up a several hundred hits, mostly to do with the white wolf roleplaying company. Nydas 10:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, after ignoring invalid votes by new users and anons. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truth Movement

[edit]

This suffers from the same faults as the recently-deleted 7/7 Truth Movement, which is to say that there does not seem to be any evidence that this movement actually exists. (As one user says on the talk page, " Every time I stumble across this article, I'm confused about just what exactly is the "Movement"?") The article cites numerous books by various authors, speeches by various politicians, studies by various academics, protests by various groups, and even famous individuals such as Charlie Sheen and Larry Flynt. What it does not cite is any evidence that these people belong to any common organisation, or even that they are in sympathy with each other. This article appears to be very carefully written, constructed to give the impression of impartiality, while in its very existence it promulgates the idea of a single "movement". As such, it violates Wikipedia guidelines on original research and opinion. The most notable groups and individuals questioning the official 9/11 narrative are listed at the category "Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks". In making this nomination, I am explicitly not questioning the validity of questioning the American government's description of the events surrounding 9/11, but I am urging the community to delete this specific misleading article. Vizjim 10:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Either keep or merge it with the article "Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks" (maybe as a re-direct) but Do Not delete it. If it is merged or re-directed, then all of this information should be in the "Alternative theories" entry (maybe a sub-section of that page can be called "9/11 Truth Movement" and all of this information can be copied accross.). Personally, I'd like to keep it though. FK0071a 11:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question, I can find the category [18] but not an article Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks, where are you sugesting merge to?--blue520 11:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer I guess it should be these:
Note - the following articles are listed in that category: 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, 9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is in Your Hands, 9/11 conspiracy theories, 911 In Plane Site, Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert), Loose Change (video), Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up. In addition, we have Amateur investigators researching the 2001 anthrax attacks, The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report and People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report. The useful content of this article is largely replicated across these already. Vizjim 12:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • valid point, but perhaps we need to apply a standard for notability as a movement. certainly, the civil rights and other "movements" have been referred to as such by reliable sources. Can the same be established for the 9/11 Truth Movement? --mtz206 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For me, the sole real requirement of a movement is that it is moving in a definable direction. According to this article, half of the 9/11 Truth Movement believes there were no terrorists, half believe there were but the government helped them. Half are communists, half are right-wingers. Half want a Congressional enquiry, half want a revolution... you get the picture. I don't think this is a question of notability, just existence. Vizjim 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Movements can have fairly diverse beliefs and goals. The Civil rights movement encompassed MLK and Malcolm X. The Pro-life movement/Anti-abortion movement encompasses people opposed to ending all life (fetus or adult) and those who would bomb abortion clinics. I can't really speak for the 9/11 truth movement, but the unifying belief seems to be a desire for more information about 9/11 than is currently available, not conspiracy theories about what happened (although that defines a segment of the movement). I think it's reasonable to expect that sources other than WP refer to it as a movement. If not, that may mean the article should be retitled and/or refocused, not necessarily deleted, although that could be an option. An Amazon.com search brings up 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies and 9/11 Revealed : The Unanswered Questions using the phrase, though these would all seem to be ones written from advocates for it. Google books also brings up Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and A Real 9/11 Commission. Google scholar[19] and Google news[20] turn up hits too. Шизомби 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they all seem to want us to link to their wedsites. Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In 10 years none of these crackpots will be anything more than a historical footnote. To even try and list them here is to lend them far more credibility than they deserve. --Bachrach44 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe it will be like the Berlin Wall: it seemed so permanent, right up until the day it just suddenly fell. Now, 17 years later, "of course" we collaborate with the Russians on shuttle launches, etc. But in this future one envisions a cult of people who still believe in the official story, something like Holocaust denial reborn. Maybe there will be a desire to delete wikipedia pages about them, to sanitize the future politics, keep it neat and orderly. I won't be among those folks. Kaimiddleton 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But move to wikiinfo. Think about it for a second. The arguments against 9/11 depend on taking a lot of isolated events and putting them together to form a cohesive "plot". The author of this article does the same thing by connecting the sceptic's actions to make them into a "movement. Terrific analysis via. the use of irony. wikiinfo is the closest we can come to wikieditorial. 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Deleting this has nothing to do with how the 9/11 events happened, or who was responsible. That is covered already in the fifteen articles (and one category) that are linked above. No actual data will be lost if this article is deleted. Please read the preceding discussion, including the nomination, before voting.
  • Delete. Yes, wikipedia should write about theories about the September 11 attacks and those who promote them, but this article does not help in creating an encyclopedia. Andjam 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 1652186 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this delete/keep process intended to be a show of hands? If so, it is obviously open to abuse, and won't produce reasonable results. 'Delete per above' doesn't really clarify much.--Kolateral 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh yes, finally someone with balls to delete an article about this non-notable (and probably non-existent) "organization". Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for every political rant. Completely non-encyclopedic. Morton devonshire 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same standard as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7/7 Truth Movement applies, so don't introduce US-centric systemic bias by keeping it. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONT DELETE THIS! the 9/11 truth movement is maybe a difficult thing to define but you have to be extremely stupid to believe in the official story presented for sept 11th as its scientifically impossible.its all a coverup of the highest order, if it wasnt then why would the commission report state lies about towers 1 and 2's construction.stating it was a hollow shaft! this is not true! it had 47 huge steel central columns that bore the majority of the weight, these were destroyed by internal explosives by those who STAND TO BENEFIT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.67.183 (talk • contribs) (again)
  • Keep, but merge from researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Wikipedia should be covering the people behind the conspiracy theories as well as the theories themselves. The number of people outraged at this perceived deception is notable. LWizard @ 06:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Name is misleading, even if sometimes used. Alternatively, merge TO researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, if any verifiable material can be found. (Again, this has to do with the verifiability of the assertion that the people questioning the orthodox 9/11 theories form a "movement", or even talk to each other, rather than the verifiability or falsifiability of the theories themselves.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically a POV fork off of 9/11 conspiracy theories and/or researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Page exists only to list random people or groups that "question 9/11".--DCAnderson 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Googling "9/11 Truth Movement" brings up 87,000 hits. If we delete this entry, then it would be necessary to delete any other movement or group which has less presence on the Internet. Also, the 6th ranked hit of those 87,000 is the Wikipedia entry, "9/11 Truth Movement". This means that Wikipedia is the 6th most popular place to check it out, and that people rely heavily on the entry. Please also note that the 9/11 Truth Movement has formally organized groups of people from various countries, walks of life, and especially, those who were directly impacted, including families. There is also a veteran's 9/11 truth group. As a movement, they hold local and national meetings within the United States and in other countries. It would be an insult to all these people to not respect them as belonging to a movement, which they claim to do, in the Wikipedia. Their meetings should probably be organized under a link, Meetings, at the Wikipedia entry to satisfy doubts regarding same.--PureLogic 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That the Wikipedia entry is high up the list is not necessarily positive and can actually be a negative point when it comes to supporting an article's usefulness. Wikipedia is the number one reference for any number of low-rent porn actors, unheard of neologisms and class projects, a fact that is often remarked upon shortly before they are cast into the pits. The question is should this topic be on Wikipedia - if yes, then of course we want this to be an important place for people to read about it, but the visibility of Wikipedia means we have to cut out unnacceptable content or risk losing credibility. Deizio talk 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Self promoting.--MONGO 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, collection of random people. Dr Zak 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The Peace movement is also a random collection of people. This doen't not prevent it from being a movement. Googling finds widespread use of this term. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll build on my sentiments and repeat my question noted above: while many historical movements also represent a loose group of people, they have gained such notability/notoriety as a "movement" mostly due to media and popular culture calling them a "movement." Can the same be established for the 9/11 Truth Movement? Does the mainstream media or the average person on the street recognize that there is such a thing as the 9/11 Truth Movement? --mtz206 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The 9/11 truth movement's common goal is to question the official account (which is the media account) of what happened on 9/11. According to Princeton University's WordNeta lexical database for the English language"movement" may be defined as "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals". The American Heritage Dictionarydefines "movement" as " "an organized effort by supporters of a common goal". The 9/11 truth movement has held many national and international meetings since 2002, with a common goal to answer the many and disturbing questions which were not addressed by the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore it would be an act of censorship for Wikipedia to deny this entry in the encyclopedia.--PureLogic 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The so-called movement, according to this article, have no common ideology. They have no common goals. They share a scepticism about official accounts, but for wildly differing reasons. The example of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X given above demonstrates this - they may have had wildly differing personal beliefs and ways of achieving their goals, but they also shared a common drive towards a more equal society, where "black" did not mean "second class". The people gathered together in this article do not share a clear perception of the current state of affairs, or a common goal (at least according to the article), and they are not working together to acheive anything. The 9/11 truth movement, as a formal organisation, does not exist and has not held a single national or international meeting since 2001. Specific groups have. It is an example of the original research bias of this article that these groups are being lumped together as a non-existent movement, when some of them deserve their own articles, and some are just, if you'll excuse the term, a couple of loons with a photocopier and/or access to email. All verifiable information on individual groups from this article should be kept in some form or another, just not in this one, POV-pushing place. Vizjim 08:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion seems to have boiled down to whether or not the collection of groups, individuals, and researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 can be called a movement. Crucially, if the definition of 'Movement' is judged by the community to be misleading then should the article be deleted, or should the term 9/11 truth movement be renamed to use more clearly defined terms, such as 9/11 truth demographic? 81.156.195.227 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's just silly. How do people talk: "The rank-and-file among protesters are becoming more interested in the 9/11 truth movement." Or: "The rank-and-file among protesters are becoming more interested in the 9/11 truth demographic." This is a widely recognized term, much like "mass media". Let's call a spade a spade. Kaimiddleton 17:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Belive me when I say that I understand the anger at the massive POV pushing by some users who follow this movement here. I've had to deal with alot of it and am quite frankly tired of some administrators who do nothing to stop it because of fear of "looking like a bad guy" because the users are organized here and would gang up on them calling them "unfair". But this, unlike the "7/7 Truth Movement", actually has some backing in the U.S. and does name itself by the name "truth movement" which in my honest opinion does not make the title "POV". If the administrators and users actually want to do something about the mass POV pushing in 9/11 articles, instead of deleting articles that reasonably deserve a page on Wikipedia they should demand that admins do something about the revert wars/POV pushing that goes on in every single 9/11 article on wikipedia. Not just warnings and reverts but actual blocks and bans for POV pushing and refusal to adhere to the consensus. Otherwise we'll be at this forever.--Jersey Devil 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes! I am a professional librarian with 30 years' experience serving the medical community, the last ten of which were Internet-based. Knowledge workers, including dictionary and encyclopedia makers, refer to "inclusion criteria" as guidelines for what is relevant or non-relevant to a particular topic. I am astounded and appalled that after working for an hour or two to make an evidence-based submission to these pages, I find that a "POV/original research" judgement can be applied to my work to demolish it with a single stroke of the pen. If the administrators continue to allow this to happen on Wikipedia, the encylcopedia will lose its well-earned international reputation AND the particpation of experienced people who have built that reputation and whose time should not be wasted by capitulation to the "POV/original research bullies". --PureLogic 03:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please re-read my post. I am not siding with you and I would appreciate it if you did not make assumptions about my views on this.--Jersey Devil 03:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most casual investigation is enough to show that this, in fact, is a grassroots 'movement'. This movement does have a diversity of points of view, but they all coalesce around an underlying conviction that the truth, far from being properly revealed, seems to be purposely hidden. Considering the immense change brought to our ‘post 911 world’, the truth about that day must be made plain and clear. The 911 Commission Report did more to raise questions than to answer them. Now, as more government secrecy and apparent deception comes to light each day, large numbers of people demand answers. All the elements of a ‘movement’ are therefore present; there’s a focus, a welling of popular interest, and a resistance by authorities to satisfy this search for truth. --Kolateral 04:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a genuine (and growing) movement. Gets very large results on search engines, so the term is obviously in use quite a bit. The fact that the movement isn't unified by a single, narrow political orientation is indicative of the breadth of skepticism directed against the official 9/11 theory. --Serpent-A 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given above, and also because the title is irrevocably POV by implying that the "truth" is something other than the official version. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no need to have an official organization to be called a "movement". It's not clear what kind of "evidence" would be required according to the deletion request.--Pokipsy76 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Versions other than the official one should definatly be recorded. Quite a lot of people think in the way refered to by the article, surely this classifies it as a "movement".Merging it with "9/11 conspiricies" would posibly make it easier to navigate. -- Tamroonii 10:57, 23 May 2006
  • Strong Keep This movement exists definately. So many pages, videos, even official webpages. Google User:Macieksk 12:23, 23 May 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep the exact phrase has 126,000 google hits and 10 google news hits. This article would be a good place into which to merge all the other redundant articles.--Bill 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There definately is a movement out there as there has been many protests in the United States about it and its not uncommon to see 9/11 truth signs at peace demonstrations. Also according to a recent Zogby poll 42% of Americans believe in some type of government coverup. -- Jade P. 21:04, 23 May 2006 (EST)
first post from above anon user[27][28]--DCAnderson 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The movement is growing by the minute and does indeed exist. This page contains its history and key events which cannot be found anywhere else on the internet. Congress people have been involved, scientists, educators, political parties, actors, columnists, etc. and increasingly so over time. This is certainly a movement and whether the people on here agree or not, it exists and has a history and continues to grow. With the recent release of the Pentagon videos, and the new Zogby polls, interest is rising as never before. The movement has been defined both by its events, its publications and its media coverage over time. bov 01:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "This page contains its history and key events which cannot be found anywhere else on the internet". In other words....it's original research? --Mmx1 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that a number of people active in the movement have contributed to presenting the facts of the history on this page, to work together toward a comprehensive coverage of the significant events, publications and activists. Most individual groups promote their own events and don't spend the time to compile a history of the efforts of the entire movement, although some have made good efforts[29],[30],[31]. bov 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying the page itself is 'original research'?? If so, then each wikipedia page is also 'original research' since they don't exist anywhere else in their wikipedia form -- they are each created by interested parties and derived from real events, the same as this page is. bov
  • Keep - This is a very real movement. A simple Google search shows the existence and notability of the movement. It is difficult not to conclude the desire to remove the WP article is anything more than an attempt to impose a political view that wishes the 9/11 Truth Movement did not exist. —204.42.24.32 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd be wrong: in the lst couple of days I have voted to keep or merge other 9/11 movement articles. Read the nomination: I explicitly state that I am not questioning the validity of interrogating the official version of 9/11. Look at my edits, and you won't find the sort of political POV-pushing that you suggest. Please assume good faith. This article is nonsense - the idea of intelligently questioning official reports is not. Vizjim 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We are at a crossroads now. Half the nation believes in the official story and half the nation doesn't- for exact figures see the latest Zogby Poll results at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421. There is an enormous attempt to drown out the most serious issues raised by the 9-11 Truth Movement with Straw Men attacks, disinformation, and of course heavily subsidized propaganda pieces produced cooperatively by the government and corporate interests. We don't know how long it will take for the 9-11 Truth Movement to come of age, but according to Bill Moyer's MAP of the Eight Stages of Social Movements, so well articulated in his book- Doing Democracy http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3694, we are entering Stage Four- The Take Off Stage. After years of activism, street demonstrations, organizing, the mainstream television network news is interviewing 9-11 Truth activists on the evening news, and we are being featured on the front pages of newspapers. Another major international 9-11 Truth Conference will be held in Chicago June 2-4th. All social movements pave the way for those to come and build upon the work of those before them. Humanity has never been faced with so many serious problems; the Truth Movement's experiences/history will help the movements that follow it, if humanity is to learn, evolve, survive and thrive.``Carol Brouillet
  • In other words, you believe that the article should exist so that a particular POV can be pushed. Read the nomination: no information will be lost by deleting this article. Vizjim 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely - The term "9/11 Truth Movement" covers any group of people who question the official story of 9/11. It does not signify a particular organization, such as the "9/11 Truth Alliance" or "From the Wilderness". An organization such as ANSWER might have a faction that is interested in promoting the "9/11 Truth Movement". This is a term of discourse that is widely used. I can do a wikipedia search for Peace movement or List of literary movements and get a result. Similarly, it is of value to keep this topic, because I have a feeling the "9/11 Truth Movement" will be ongoing for quite some time and some folks might like to know about it even if others wish it didn't exist. As to the aspersion "POV Fork": has anybody noticed the incredible volume of content that is posted on this topic? There are folks who would like to document a cultural phenomenon and this is a legitimate place to do that. Wikipedia has room for these pages, it is not wrong to have them, except that some people, arguable with their own point of view, do not like this point of view and wish to quash it by resorting to every nasty wikipedia trick they can find. Even if the 9/11 Truth Movement is wrong, and 9/11 was in fact everything the mass media says it was--basically 19 Arab hijackers who were able to pull off the crime of the century, nothing more, nothing less--why shouldn't the opinions of those people be documented? Some might argue that the world is flat and that it's Turtles all the way down; I notice that wikipedia documents those ideas. Should those articles be put up for deletion as POV, or maybe they should be merged together? I dare even one of the proponents of deleting 9/11 Truth Movement to propose such an action. Under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_that_may_require_deletion we have:
    • Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)
    • Original research (including the coining of neologisms) - but if it's a source text, it should be moved to Wikisource (see below).
    • Vanity page
    • Advertising or other spam
    • Completely idiosyncratic non-topic
    • Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:
    • Article is possible copyright infringement
    • Image is possible copyright infringement
    • Image or other media needs deleting (but not because of copyright violation)
    • A useless redirect
    • A category scheme gone awry
    • A redundant or misguided series box
    • A redundant or misguided stub template or category.
    • Can never be other than a dictionary article ("dicdef")
    • Article is a source text (but not a copyvio)
    • Article is a hoax (not an article about a hoax)
    • Article is a candidate for speedy deletion including:

So what's the case here? I think the strongest argument anyone could possibly come up with is WP:NOT. Can you people who are so hungry to delete this article make a case for that? Otherwise, please go away and do some constructive content creation instead of trying to bring down what others are trying to put together. Kaimiddleton 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first two on that list seem to apply: WP:NOT and WP:OR--DCAnderson 05:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A new point: perhaps what is bringing this matter to a head is the May 17/06 Zogby Poll which finds that "Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support a New 9/11 Investigation". Over half the American public of voting age distrusts the 9/11 Commission Report and supports a new investigation of possible US Govenment involvement in the attacks. If 70 million Americans do not constitute a movement on Wikipedia, how many people are needed? Would someone in the Wikipedia administration please answer this question?--PureLogic 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a misunderstanding, this group wants more information and a new investigation, that is their common goal. MLK and Malcolm X both wanted equality for blacks, though they believed it was possible via different channels. As stated the common goal of a new investigation and more information is what makes it a movement. It is errie how these are being put up for deletion so close in time, no insinuation meant. --Zer0faults 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is misleading. The word 'truth' in '911 Truth Movement' is a form of newspeak. There isn't really any truth involved in the actual movement. Which really isn't a movement either. It's more of a gyration. THE KING 04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Wombdpsw 06:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I've commented above, I hadn't actually made an explicit recommendation yet. I disagree that this article presents the same case as the "7/7 truth movement", that it is not a movement, and that it is not notable. I don't see strong reasons for deleting the article, only for improving it. I would recommend that the article be retitled 9/11 truth movement (lowercase) though. While some might not like the name, movements, etc. are given the name they themselves use. For example, the article on the U.S. domestic spying program is called by its euphemistic name Terrorist surveillance program since that is the more or less official name. My recommendation does not constitute an endorsement of the group, only a position on whether it warrants an article. Шизомби 07:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one of the existing articles that cover this viewpoint already, for that is what it seems to be, a viewpoint rather than a movement. CovenantD 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TONIGHT WITH BRADMAN (TWB)

[edit]

Public-access TV show from Iowa City, Iowa. About as low as you can get in show biz -- and I'm not sure it even qualifies as show biz. Article created by Bradmantwb (talk · contribs). Was prod'ed, but tag removed by anon IP without explanation. --Calton | Talk 11:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (whoops, forgot to sign)[reply]

  • Delete It is not accepted by the mainstream media. It isn't supported by any rich companies. Only a small minority watch the show. Wikipedia does not cater to small minorities. When he becomes rich and famous then he can have his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportTerminal (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy userfy. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barun Kumar Sahu

[edit]

This article is a thinly disguised CV, complete with address, e-mail, & phone number. It violates WP:Autobiography & WP:VANITY. Mr Stephen 12:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Industrial

[edit]

Neologism attempt... non existant genre.

Similar to the "post goth" situation... WP:SPAM promoting the same "Glass Project" band.. promoted by the same spammer(s). Deathrocker 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that knowledge will always stay the same? What do you mean by non-wikipedia? If I am signed up as a member of WIKI...doesn't that make me a wikipedian? The authoritative structure of this website I might add seems to be run by trolls and gnomes...the endless list of people that make small or large changes to knowledge that is seen. Kevin in response to your comment-how much of what you consider real knowledge actually is untrue...what about the pages of history? How much is verifiable truth? What really is notable...as the very things to what people adhere to could very well be lies. Have you noticed in "google land" that mispelled words appear right along side of correctly spelled words? How much information on the net is regurgitated? Deathrocker...in your response to "spammer" there is no need in attacking me-it only makes yourself look bad..and the same for Adrift. If space industrial culture is not accecpted in as a musical genera, perhaps it will be accepted as a sub-culture in it's own article. We are peaceful people seeking to make aware new culture...I have not even been offered assistance by any of you in maybe helping to write an article about these subjects. Instead...attacks. Does that give a good name for trolls and gnomes? As you may or may not know, space industrial aside, It is the conduct of gnomes and trolls that is the greatest concern here. The reputation of gnomes that I have gathered so far is that Deathrocker is an outspoken gnome and has a mindset in his brain to what history of certian musical generas are. He also may have an issue with myspace as a verifiable source, or one that notes credibility...Myspace has become the standard for the underground and the mainstream worlds. Just like Bill Gates creating Windows...Tom maybe be on the verge of a monopoly...Look at X space for example...An X men myspace..modeling the myspace sucess...Will someone like to help me write a WIKI article about new cultures? -Keodrah

First off, personal attacks (like calling people trolls and gnomes) are against Wiki policy. Second, indeed MySpace is not a verifiable source. As absolutely anyone with computer access can create a MySpace page, it is therefore proof of nothing more than internet access and some spare time. It certainly doesn't illustrate a "movement" or a "genre" just because someone has a MySpace page. IrishGuy 17:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keodrah sez : "Look at X space for example...An X men myspace..modeling the myspace sucess...Will someone like to help me write a WIKI article about new cultures?" Or, better yet, a NewCultureWiki, where essay-style speculative articles like the one under discussion are acceptable. Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia, and they aren't. Docether 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Cheng

[edit]

Previously deleted, brought to deletion review where it was decided another go-around was appropiate. I have no recomendation at this time. brenneman{L} 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking at his entry at Matthias Media [33], it seems clear that he's a church worker of long standing, but he doesn't seem to meet the WP:BIO criteria. Vizjim 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he is more than just a church worker of good standing. He is a senior editor of the The Briefing. According to the notability guideline, he fulfills the "published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". The Briefing is circulated to way more readers than that. He has a great deal of influence over the readership as he writes a great deal of editorial content. Gordon has also created several evangelistic aids. Basically, Gordon is extremely notable in his sphere of influence, that is, Sydney Anglicanism. He was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on a spat and defamation case between Dr Belinda Goodenough and South Coogee Anglican church (see article). Evidently the SMH believes he is a notable spokesperson for the Anglican church in Sydney. Gordon was also the former Pastor of St Matthias Centennial Park, the church that basically sets the agenda for conservative evanglical Sydney Anglicanism. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at that link when researching my vote. Nowhere in the article does the Herald give the impression it thinks he is "he is a notable spokesperson for the Anglican church in Sydney". It quotes him because on the forum debate the article discusses, his was the lone dissenting voice. Vizjim 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Herald is not in the habit of just quoting non-notable bloggers and chat posters. The only time I have ever seen them do this was when a sport scandal erupted, and a riot happened in Cronulla. In those cases they certainly didn't call the posters and ask for their confirmation of their comments! Therefore, I stand by all my statements. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know whether the Herald quotes unnotable bloggers as a matter of course, but it does so three times (apart from Mr Cheng) during the course of the article you cited. Vizjim 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, you can believe that he isn't notable if you'd like. However, you haven't addressed any of my other points. Out of interest, are you familiar with Sydney Anglicanism? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your other points aren't backed up with proof. In this process, the onus is on editors who want to keep an article to provide proof of their claims. If you can provide a source for the statement that The Briefing generates sales of more than 5,000 (freesheets don't count), then I will change my vote. Otherwise, it sounds as though this person merits a mention in the article on Sydney Anglicanism, but not his own biography.Vizjim 13:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Briefing costs $55 for a years subscription. I'm afraid I don't have exact figures on circulation, but I have been informed by Matthias Media themselves (the publishers of this monthly magazine) that they have figures of about 6,000 subscribers. They are not a free newspaper. The Briefing is one of the main publications of the Sydney Anglican church, and is published by Matthias Media. As I have said, the Herald quoted Gordon because he is quite outspoken and is a senior editor of the The Briefing. I'm sure if you would like to verify the circulation figures that they would be quite happy to confirm. Their email address is thebriefing at matthiasmedia.com.au (kept non email address format to reduce spam). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from Matthias Media website biography for Mr Cheng - "As ‘Resources Editor’ his brief is just about anything that’s not The Briefing." Vizjim 14:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Teeth Thief

[edit]

This is primarily a track list from an album whose notability is not established in the article. AAMiller 07:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although I know nothing about the notability of that album, or indeed whatever sort of music this is, and I instinctively want to delete articles about anything released by a label with the distinguished name of Violent Turd, there is a third-party review, in coherent English, linked to by the article. Sandstein 13:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Getting an album review published by an independent website is surprisingly easy. --cholmes75 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's only a mixtape, but it's a mixtape created by an artist who is notable enough to have a WP page and released by a label notable enough to have a WP page. -- Kicking222 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. --Tone 19:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kicking222, also considering that a surprising number of mixtapes actually have WP entries (whether they should or not is debatable, but they have them nonetheless). Also, while it's not linked on the page, the album has a review on AllMusic Guide--fuzzy510 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HotBasic

[edit]

Prodded with "Non-notable. Failed VfD before; 107 unique google hits; official site has no Alexa rank." B/C of VfD (which contained a keep), sending it here. For that matter, prior VfD wasn't ever closed. I say speedy delete as closure of the old VfD, or failing that simply delete. Mangojuicetalk 12:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT People

[edit]

Prodded as "non notable", but due to their role on The Apprentice, I'm inclined to think that's not so obvious, so I brought this here for a vote. Neutral myself. Mangojuicetalk 12:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Radiokirk with reason "non-notable, promotional". Stifle (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese for Chee Day

[edit]

Non-notable -- at best -- school fundraiser, at some school in the UK (article doesn't even mention the city). No Google hits whatsoever; no sources provided, not even a webpage. Prod tag AND (sources) tags removed, with the only comment being from the talk page: This article was not written as a hoax. It is a serious event that takes place at the aforementioned school. It is a relatively new and held by a small charitable organisation. The idea of setting up the wikipedia article was to raise the profile of this event and making it more widely known to the public. Deleting this article is discriminating against the community who do take part. Calton | Talk 13:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer's intuition

[edit]

Unsourced, looks like original research. At some point deteriorates into a description of a game some guys once played. Contested prod. Weregerbil 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know if you are a slight illiterate. The paragraphs under Pure Pwnage are meant as an example of the given subject. Otherwise I'd hate to think I was dealing with an overzealous internet atricle purist (as I've dealt with before). - Tacitus666, creator of Gamer's Intuition article

Oh come on! I had no problem reading WP:NPA, but the others are too complicated for me to go through. You seriously expect new users to go through all of these and perhaps MORE before they sign up? By the way, that wasn't written as a personal attack. Now if I can just find some way to get those sources back... - Tacitus666, creator of Gamer's Intuition article

  • Comment - Why, yes, we do. A gamer ought not have trouble with the concepts that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has standards for admission and inclusion, that articles need to conform to those standards, and that editors have rules by which they ought to abide as well. Those unwilling to learn about those standards run the perpetual risk of their articles being heavily edited or shot down as a result, in much the same fashion that console gamers who don't learn about the games they play do. RGTraynor 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete by agreement of creator and subject. Just zis Guy you know? 14:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Legends

[edit]

Vapourware. Non-existant game. Ifnord 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete a game that is not vapourware? --Forsaken Gleeman 14:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable game (I certainly believe if a game was notable then someone other than its creator would write an article about it) and not even completed. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (software). Ifnord 14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not exactally a "non-notable game" as already it has a growing fanbase (mainly those that have debugged/tested it), but has only been released to public for two days. If anything, can I keep this page up till the 27th? --Forsaken Gleeman 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid it appears to be the definition of a non-notable game. Take another look at Wikipedia:Notability (software). Which of the notability criteria listed in that article does it meet? Gw

ernol 14:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, might as well delete it, Sorry guess I just don't have the knack for wikipedia work. Ah, gives me more time to read the wiki :) --Forsaken Gleeman 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Sigh. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mout (goddess)

[edit]

Duplicate of Mut. This romanization of the name appears rarely used in English, although it may be more common in French. I know little about hieroglyphs, but what I do know suggests that the version on Mut is accurate, and not the one here (which has no determiner).  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Z Performance

[edit]

prodded 2006-05-11 for nn; fails 2 and 3 of WP:CORP; no notable inbound links[36], no Google News; author removed tag, added more content, and linked to project car article in Sport Z Magazine (independent author?) -- though still fails criteria 1 (i.e., multiple independent sources) Robocoder 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Freshies

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as unverifiable, but that's not a speedy criterion - although I agree, it's unverifiable. Claims would be very significant if true, though. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Trettien

[edit]

Tagged nn-bio but there is an assertion of notability. Not a particularly persuasive one in my view, but there you go. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a friend of Whitney's. Since she founded the first successful Green Party in the state of Maryland, I have met numerous people who have wanted to get information about her. Wikipedia is the place.

Plus, let's be honest. If Bill White (neo-Nazi) can get a page, then so can Whitney! (I asked why he has a page, and the editor responded that since he's been in the Washington Post several times, so he deserves a page; the conversation should still be up on the talk page. Well, guess what? Whitney has been quoted in the Washington Times several times, mostly for her work with the Green Party. Furthermore, she has given radio interviews, corresponded with Ralph Nader, edited a book that is to be distributed nationally ("The Cost of Freedom Project"), and so on. Bill White's page was written by a bunch of neo-Nazi friends (or maybe parts by himself), and is replete with extraneous personal information. Whitney's page is succinct, and provides the sort of relevant information that people curious about her public activities are looking for.) Carnaptime 14:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And when this article is as well-sourced as the White article, including sources for Washington Post and radio interviews, when said book actually is distributed nationally and meets the WP:BIO bar for editors, then I would vote to keep it. Until then, Delete per nom. I suggest that if you want to put out information about your friend, she either have a website or use the Green Party website, if she is a founder. RGTraynor 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the citations now. And acutally, she already has a book published. I'll find a link for that too.

And yeah, Bill's page is really well-sourced. I mean, he's got a video that a friend took of him being wrestled to the ground. And the Washington Post mentioned him a few times. That is well-sourced (check out his own website - or check out Whitney's!), and definitely relevant. Carnaptime 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete from me. She sounds like someone with a fascinating future ahead of her (and having gone through five pages of Google about her I feel well informed enough to make that comment!), but the Green Party of Maryland don't credit her as their founder, her book hasn't been independently published, her band isn't yet signed, Wikipedia doesn't do bio's of individual Harry S Truman scholars, and her website doesn't get the necessary billions of hits. So, all good luck to her, but no entry yet. Vizjim 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No vote because I actually go to college with her. Metros232 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you saw the front page of the Hood paper? What does "No vote BECAUSE I actually go to college with her" mean? If I were to say "Vote because I know her," would that cancel out your comment? Try giving a reason (like she only has 500 google entries with her name) for deleting other than going to college with her!

Um...if you read my comment, it says I'm not giving an opinion either way period, that doesn't mean I'm voting for deletion because I go to college with her. I'm choosing to abstain from this since I'm attached to it on a personal level which I don't think should drive people's motives in discussion in creating an encyclopedia. Oh, and yes, I saw the front page of the Blue and Grey today. I've been on the front page of it before, do I get my own article? Metros232 15:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "In Frederick, the Green chapter came back to life after Hood College student Whitney Trettien, 19, organized a meeting March 30." I'm working on the other citations, since this seems the be the main problem! Carnaptime 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - in other words, she didn't "found" it. The Green Party of Maryland was founded in 2000, several years before Ms Trettien's involvement. Vizjim 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, and this from the lead Google hit on her, on how she is "covering a large variety of topics under an even larger number of ridiculous pseudonyms and falsified bios. Don't trust anyone over the internet." Do tell. Counting her Yahoo group and Myspace page, by the bye, she has 62 unique Google hits (I, by contrast, have half again that). [41], and if she has published a book, Amazon.com has never heard of it. RGTraynor 15:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the quote here? I can't seem to find it on Google.

RGTraynor's quote comes from this page. Metros232 15:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, guess who writes the bios? The individuals themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnaptime (talk • contribs)

What do you guys do for a living, if you don't mind me asking? As a professor, I do not have the time to continue a discussion about this page! Why don't we just delete it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnaptime (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadek

[edit]

Possible hoax. A Google search fails to find anything relevant about a "Joseph Sadek", which would be surprising if he were really the father of two significant family lines. Delete unless someone can cite a source of all the information in this article. Kimchi.sg 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Marciano

[edit]

Tagged nn-bio but there is some kind of claim to notoriety here. Janitorial nomination, I have no opinon on the notability of the case, but should probably be titled as baing about the case not the victim. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Australian Google has exactly one hit [42]; this doesn't sound like an overwhelmingly notable case. RGTraynor 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged it for speedy as there was no claim about the poor woman's life which asserted notability, and I didn't think that being murdered qualified either. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Murder is terrible, but being murdered doesn't qualify you for an article in an encyclopedia (paper or otherwise). -- Kicking222 16:48, 19 May 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Non-notable website. Article previously PRODed, tag was removed by article author. cholmes75 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call Centers in Panama

[edit]

I'll be concise; advertising. I recommend a Delete. Colonel Tom 15:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.HY

[edit]

The first versions of this article started with "W.HY is a fictive company". When {{prod}}-ed, the author removed the word "fictive" and then the prod tag. It's still fictive though... Weregerbil 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall Of Exone

[edit]

Non-notable fan film. Not on IMDB, zero google hits on title. Prod tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterpulse

[edit]

Egregious spam tagged speedy A7 but that does not apply to companies. Needs deleting or aggressive cleanup, not sure which. Janitorial nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 15:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. Now, it has one. Colonel Tom 10:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. However, per PJM, it should be noted that CSD-G1 does not include hoaxes. Let me quote: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." - brenneman {L}

Alistair Norrie

[edit]

Unsourced, google doesn't find[43], and then there is the last sentence of the article. Weregerbil 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Costello

[edit]

Can't find famous physicist by that name on google[44], hoax or non-notable. Articles recently started by User:Doctoroctopus have that problem. Weregerbil 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ear and how it works

[edit]

New article which duplicates Ear. I put a prod tag on it, and explained to the author why. S/he removed the tag, so I'm bringing it here. Delete as duplicate Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy userfied (to User:Jacob Kosoff) and then deleted as vanity. --Nlu (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Kosoff

[edit]

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to user space. It's fine if it's there. Mission accomplished. --Tone 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 11:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation emulation

[edit]

Delete Neologism. What Mattabat is describing exists but is called virtualization. Please note a Google search for "translation emulation" will return a lot of results, but most of them are talking about "tranlation OR emulation" not "translation emulation". Also please don't recommend redirect as we don't want this to start being linked and then appearing in Google searches. AlistairMcMillan 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. The term is sound and not virtualisation as virtualisation a generalised term can apply to a range of emulator types. Translation emulation is specific, comparable I suppose to native virtualisation but not necessarily in isolation. See the article I linked, and the examples I highlighted (especially Shapeshifter). Goodonya Google, I'm glad someone knows how to use you.. :) Mattabat 12:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source you just added never uses the phrase "translation emulation". AlistairMcMillan 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 03:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fleet Battle Group Omega

[edit]

Delete Starship battle group that never appeared on screen. That only featured in a few lines of dialogue and a computer display for a few seconds. The very model of non-notability. AlistairMcMillan 16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SO what? it is a still an event that is known to have happened in the fictional universe of Star Trek. there are dozens of articles that mention battle group omega(all of which i have now linked to the page). it also sheds light on the Valient and Archer which are heard very little of. And As Far as non-notability goes, have u even read half of the stubs in the star trek genre? they're a lot less notable than this article, which has a pic, external link, and links to the ships involved. Why is it so important to actually see something to have an article on it(especially when u know it happened/existed?) please help me understand. User:Wiki ian 15.30 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP per nom. -- Trekyman 16:24 20 May 2006 (UTC} -- I consider this to be an important article in the history of Star Trek, in my opinion a lot of other star trek articles should be deleted if this page is.
User with NO prior edits. AlistairMcMillan 09:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Keep per nom" is completely meaningless. "Per nom" means "for the same reason that the nominator had". The nominator is asking for deletion, so agreeing with his reasons would mean you want the page deleted. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa-skywarn.org

[edit]

The article appears to be simply an attempt to advertise a web site. The page creater's only other contribution was listing this article in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural Sciences. The content is mostly just copied from the entry for The Weather Channel. Dsreyn 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Taggins for WP:PROD might have been better than AfD. The Land 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caustic (band)

[edit]

Does not appear notable - the only matches in a Google search were mirrors of this article. The only contributors to the page are User:Authoritarian guitarz and User:81.131.111.39; the only other edit from either contributor is adding a link to this page to the Lochcarron article. Dsreyn 01:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as spam. TheProject 17:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigrx

[edit]

Blatant advertising, prod'ed, removed by original contributor. Accurizer 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no advertising involved, just letting the public know about a new alternative for a growing problem. There is no difference between this article and Viagra or Cialis except for Vigrx is not as popular. Kemkeris


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, The Land 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polylogue (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Could I just ask all closing administrators that when closing an AfDs where the outcome is to transwiki, that if there is a consensus to delete after transwikification, that this be specified? Otherwise, I have to come back here for a final disposition of the article. Anyways, this article's been transwikied now. TheProject 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music industry of Pakistan

[edit]

There is not much in that article worth saving apart from the first "paragraph". It looks like a series of copy-and-paste jobs, without any references or sources being provided. I propose that Sangeet to music [now moved to the title discussed here] be put up for deletion instead, unless someone cleans it up and wikify's it. Green Giant 23:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [Copied from Talk:Music of Pakistan. -- RHaworth 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)][reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poodlefaker

[edit]

Poodlefaker dates from the early 20th century and denotes a man given to attending tea parties and other female-dominated events for the purposes of social advancement. 100 years on and it is newly relevant, to denote a man prepared to feign feminist sympathies (and roll on his back like a poodle) for the purposes of social (or more usually sexual) advantage. Don't delete it!

It appears that this article was nominated for deletion in April, but the nominator never got around to editing this template page. Meanwhile, someone else went to the template and added the above text the next day, which is the only version of this template in the history. I am listing this now. TheProject 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied orphaned dicdef. TheProject 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutty Chipmunk Productions

[edit]

With an alexa rank of over 5 million [45] and an article that completely fails to illustrate notability but instead reads like ad copy, I think this site is non notable. IrishGuy 17:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime: Diaries

[edit]

Future game, google knows nothing of it[46] (there is a book by that name so "-bland" in the query to skip those). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sole contributor to article sock puppeteer User:Krabs502, User:Krabs514, User:Krabs600 with a history of articles about upcoming movies and games nobody else can find [47][48] et al. Prod tag deleted by article author. Weregerbil 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball, and this game has never been mentioned anywhere ever. -- Kicking222 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it can come back when there's actually enough info for an article. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Oakster (Talk) 10:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is a crock and it hurts wikipedia's reputation having this kind of stuff here. In fact, I would go so far as to kick the creator of this page off of the site and ban his IP address. What the hell does he think he is pulling with this crap? It's not funny or informative and in fact it is REALLY SAD. Does he have mental problems? (Matthew Jones) unregistered contributor 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: 0 evidence that the game exists. I have checked with various major gaming sites. I also recommend blocking the sockpuppet as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - obvious speedy candidate! The Land 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confo

[edit]

little info, little context, and it looks like personal vanity Aleph-4 17:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Punkmorten 22:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime: New York City

[edit]

The gameplay issues would make people not to read this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krabs600 (talk • contribs)

listing orphaned AfD entry. Weregerbil 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo2herotrainerexportstats

[edit]

Not sure what this would fall under. Gamecruft? cholmes75 18:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grassfairies

[edit]

Users harassing other people, no notability established, constant removal of tags Delete Yanksox 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Project

[edit]

Probably an interesting endeavor, but no notability has been established. cholmes75 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep, but delete quotes.. Rje 11:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Sanders (professor)

[edit]
  • Someone's favourite university professor? I'm not sure this passes notability. — Timwi 18:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Might be more notable if he actually -was- a Pulitzer Prize nominated finalist for 1998 and 1994, as is implied in the article (as far as I can tell, that's not true). However, his books were offered by major publishers (HarperCollins and Vintage Paperbacks, f'rexample), as you can see if you look 'em up on Amazon. Do his books help him meet WP:PROFTEST's test for "author"? Maybe. Is there a better standard to apply? Anyone? Docether 19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if I remember correctly, any published author can become a Pulitzer nominee, if someone fills out the nomination form for them. It's only when you become a nominated finalist (ie, when the Pulitzer committee actually says "OK, that's a nomination to consider") that you approach the kind of stature that we call "notability". See the Pulitzer submission guidelines here. Docether 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stages of Intimate Relationships

[edit]

Seems to be an original research work of some sort. It's also the only edit made by the article creator, for what that's worth. cholmes75 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, after ignoring duplicate votes and new users. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superhorse

[edit]

prod ((NN band) was contested so I'm bringing it here. no opinion. Bachrach44 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete I have contributed extensively to this article and I believe that notability has been established according to Wikipedia's policy. I have included several links to major local publications (Mainly The Savannah Daily News. You will, however, be required to register to read the publications and it is free to do so) and the band's debut album (High Impendence Of The Majesty Of Super Horse, 2005)was voted as one of the best albums of the year according to Georgia Music magazine. The band has been together for over 12 years and is a well known "undreground" indie rock band (The links to The Savannah Daily News will verify my claim).

The band has been voted as "The Best Of Savannah" for 2005 and has performed for the St Patrick's Day Parade, which is the second largest in the country.

Below are excerpts from Wickipedia's policy for notability for performing artists:

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." - The article in question meets this criteria since the band has been cited on major publications (see links on article) over 50 times over the course of 12 years.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - Again this requirement has been satisfied. The links on the page will direct readers to various publications reconizing the band as one of the most influential (If not the most influential) indie rock band of Savannah, GA.

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). The band's debut album (High Impendence Of The Majesty Of Superhorse) was released under Blast-O-Disc, which is related to Elevated Basement recording studio. This studio has worked with major regional and national acts such as Greg Allman (Allman Brothers) and The Atlanta Rythm section (Major rock band from the 70's and 80's) I vote for this article to stay. >+</19 May 2006 (UTC) User = Meanax Meanax(&Meanax;) 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless Meanax can provide more critical sources. You have four articles about the band, but they're all from the same paper, and I couldn't find anything on the Georgia Music Magazine web site (BTW, said magazine has only been around for a year, which means it probably isn't a highly recognized source) about albums of the year. At this point, the band simply does not have enough notability. -- Kicking222 22:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is also highly POV, not just about the band but about each individual member. That has to change if this article survives the deletion voting process. It also needs to be wikified ({{wikify}}). -- Kicking222 22:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I have added more links to news papers from Charleston SC, as well as radio interview from the Georgia Gazette (GPB). Also remember that under Wikipidia requirements for notability, one or more members of the band must be notable. The lead singer Keith Kozel has won best supporting actor for an indie movie and was recognized by the Savannah Morning News. Kozel's GAM (His main band until recently) was voted "The Best Band In GA" by a public poll conducted by Creative Loafing Magazine in 1999 (Link on article's page will direct readers to Creative Loafing's archives. Creative Loafing is a weekly magazine with circulation of over 40,000). Creative Loafing in Savannah has changed its name to Access Savannah.

I am working on obtaining the documentation for Georgia Music Magazine. I am sure the members would not have misled me. >+</19 May 2006 (UTC) User = Meanax

Sir, you already voted. One to a person, please. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead singer Keith Kozel is also listed on the iMDB film database @ http://wwwimdb.com/name/nm0468819/

    • Comment

I have added two additional links to the page, one of which will direct readers to a radio interview broadcasted by the Georgia Plublic Broadcast radio. As of now I have provided articles from 2 major paper publications with circulation of over 40,000 (The Savannah Morning News and The Charleston Gazette), along with a state wide half hour long broadcast. I am claiming notability under "regional" standards and I feel that I have satisfied Wikipidia's requiremnts thus far.

All articles and radio broadcast will reveal that the band has somewhat chosen to remain low key and underground. All articles and broadcast will also reveal that the band has an enourmous, and loyal regional following despite its lack of ovewhelming media exposure.

I invite you all to read the articles and listen to the broadcast and ask you to please allow this article to remain. The information provided seems satisfy the two Wikipedia requirements listed above for regional notability.|+]]</22 May 2006 (UTC) User = Meanax Meanax(&Meanax;) 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE ! If all worthiness requirements have been satisfied...why is this article being offered up for deletion? I certainly hope prior justification can be provided before removing.|+]]</22 May 2006 (UTC) User = Amyjo75231 19:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User's only contributions are to this AFD discussion. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After carefully reviewing this article and the supporting sources it appears that this article deserves to be permanently included on Wikipedia. I am familiar with the region and the publications and given the sheer amount of bands in the Savannah area to be mentioned on its largest publication repeatedly is somewhat unique. Also it is very unusual for GPB (Georgia Public Broadcasting) to grant air time to bands. For them to have been interviewed by GPB and had their show broadcasted is a huge accomplishment not achieved by the vast majority of bands in the region. If notability is all that is in question to keep this artcile I believe that criteria has been clearly established. User = Silvah 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, user's only contributions are to this AFD discussion. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This band is a known entity and is of consequence. Anyone who uses Allmusic.com as a source of credibility has never been listed. 70% of my credits are wrong and 80% of them are not listed at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fibes (talk • contribs) .

Are you surprised that this user's only contributions are to this AFD discussion? I'm not. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite attempts to claim notability, this still seems like just your run of the mill local band. Also, if you can't afford your own website, that says something about your band's notability. --Hetar 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My understanding when I decided to contribute to Wikipedia was that there was an eitiquette in which editors were not supposed to attack or belittle new contributors. This rule appears to not apply to Mr./Mrs. Hetar.

I have written this article according to the policy of notability written by the scholars and academics of Wikepedia, not mine. To answer to Mr.Mrs. Hetar's comments (which I find completely innapropriate and bordeline that of someone who is completely closed mind an uninformed)having a web page does not denote "notability". Not by common standars and definitly not by Wikipedia standards either. Had Superhorse had the most glamourous site on the internet and nothing else I am sure that would not be acceptable. I have looked up for Aunt Teresa.com,.net, .org and found nothing no such a domain. According to Hetar's (absurd) remark that implies that Aunt Teresa is a less notable than Jimmy Swagart, who not surprisingly has a domain of his own.

Another comment from M/M Hetar is that he uses the words "seems to me" to discredit my article. Am I trying to satisfy Hetar's or Wikipedia' standards for notability. If it is Wikipedia's I have pasted them on my comment above and presented verifiable documentation to satisfy those standards. If it is Mr/Mrs Hetar' standards that I must satisfy, then I would like a copy of such standards so that I may attempt to satisfy them as well.

It seems to me that the article is not being deleted for lack of notability as required. I sense a strong bias toward a subject that so far all editors seem to have not fully considered all the information presented. It appears from all the votes for deletion that the editors are requiring that notability be proven as one would that of an internationally known band.

Wikipedia's policy on notability has a room for "regional" bands, and this is where I think the direction of this discussion should be focused. For regional standards, media and type of media coverage, Superhorse is without a doubt a "notable" regional band. This fact is not argued by our local radio stations, public radio stations, paper print, internet media, but to somehow it is being contested over here. It is as if all of us who live here and rely on our local media to determine what is is not notable are incapable of telling the difference between the two.

All I ask of all editors is an unbiased discussion based on facts and Wikipedia's policy. Nothing more, nothing less. As of this moment I feel that the article is being deleted just because... Just because no one heard of the band. Just because someone didn't find information about it in some source that he or she considers "the ultimate" determining factor for a band's notability (i.e. Allmusic.com). Just because the band does not have a web page???? Please tell me that this vote/comment will not even be considered! Most bands,epecially regional bands are opting for pages at MySpace.com over their own domains because it allows them to interact with their fans at no cost. This is exactly the case with Superhorse. On the same note, if Mr./Mrs Hetar had taken his/her time to go over the information presented he.she would've noticed that Superhorse indeed has a web page. It just is not called Superhorse.com. Why is it not? Well... Let me see... I guess we all have watched the news lately and we all have heard of a "notable" (And by God I hope you will agree at least with this statement) horse called Superhorse, who has been around since the band has been around. Ahhh... Perhaps that domain name was taken. What do you think? Hetar's remark on web presence is without a doubt the most absurd remark I ever heard in my life, especially coming from someone who is suposedly 100 times more intelligent than I am. Hetar's remarks on my opinion cast a huge dark shadow of doubt on his reasoning, research of the material presented and his/her ability to make an unbiased up or down recommendation.

I personally believe that if this articles survives this discussion that it should be re-written. I agree with one of the editors where the POV language should be removed and the article reformated. But to overlook the facts and facts are: "The band has received media coverage over the years from various sources", and therefore is "notable" by common and Wikipedia's policy on notability is to deliberately delete an article that otherwise should've been included in this encyclopedia. User = Meanax

Sir, you've already stated your position at least twice before. Saying it again doesn't help your position. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mr. Zeta, I cannot accept the comment from Mr.Mrs, Hetars. I will look for his or her articles because I refuse to accept "It seems to me", as an argument to discredit my article. I am sorry!

I will continue to speak my mind everytime an editor brings a new objection (i.e. Lack of a web page). Had this editor researched prior to nominating this article for deletion he/she would know that the band has one. I only continue to speak because you (The editors) continue to discredit the article on different basis. Thank you for your understanding. I am not doing this for fun or anything, but this feels much like our legal system. Ultimately this article will remain or be deleted based on someone's interpretation of the Wikipedia's policy, not what is clearly written on the policy.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now & Forever c/w GRAVITY

[edit]

The article talks about a new single from Ayumi Hamasaki to be released on May 3. As you can see in the page history, some fans have been stating the single was faked. Since there hasn't been released [50] I am assuming this is a hoax and sending this to AFD. ReyBrujo 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Spanoa

[edit]

Contested prod. Prod concern was "non-notable biography. The "popular site" is a Myspace page." I agree, delete. Mangojuicetalk 20:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Tower (Hong Kong)

[edit]
Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball), WP:V

Supertall building supposedly planned in Hong Kong. No sources, and at any rate, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball — write the article once it's under construction. Delete the image also, which is an apparent copyvio from some obscure Geocities page. Sandstein 20:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid

[edit]
Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball), WP:RS

Supertall building supposedly planned in Japan. No reliable sources - this looks like someone's pipe dream with no substantial chance of being constructed. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball — write the article once it's under construction. Sandstein 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article should not be deleted since it states possibilities of actual creation there as several sources which actually claim that this design is a *possible* solution to Tokyo's overcrowding problem one such source can be found on the Articles Site, In Addition, this Article does not make Wikipedia a "Crystal Ball" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThomasVI (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sky City 1000

[edit]
Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball), WP:RS

Supertall building supposedly proposed (in 1989) to be built in Japan. No reliable sources - this looks like someone's pipe dream with no substantial chance of being constructed. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball — write the article once it's under construction. Sandstein 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Come on don't be so strict, the fact that it was shown on the Discovery Channel means it's just not useful information. I mean i watched the documentary's episode and then searched wikipedia about it... AND it says it's not entirely DEAD. Besides, plans of possible solutions are always interesting! This is not a Crystal Ball issue, it's the fruit of many people's work in Japan whether it's going to be built or not. If that's the case, we should also remove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Millennium_Tower (Norman Foster's Millenium Tower)!!! Zisimos
There are no reliable sources for it being shown on the Discovery Channel (the link is dead) and at any rate, a mere mention of this project wouldn't make it notable by itself. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Incidentally, you are welcome to propose London Millennium Tower for deletion. We do not keep unencyclopedic articles just because there are other unencyclopedic articles around. Sandstein 18:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the link works, the problem was with my browser. But even if the Discovery Channel likes pipe dreams, this doesn't mean Wikipedia does. Sandstein 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Illinois was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It's design and some of Wright's solutions to the problems that would have been encountered have been used in later designs of buildings.Patken4 19:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting article that is varifiable by many sources. it is the work of alot of people and is still under consideration. There are many other projects also being considered in replacement of this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batchelert (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. I cannot speak to WP:RS, but it seems clear that WP:NOT does not apply here. This article, along with the one on the Illinois or X-Seed 4000, does not exist to predict some future event, but rather to discuss what has happened and is quite verifiable: that is, that plans were created for the construction of a superstructure that, by far, exceeds normal proportions. It seems natural that that in itself makes this phenomenon a cause for curiosity and justifies keeping the post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.18.56 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Seed 4000

[edit]
Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball), WP:RS

Supertall building supposedly proposed to be built in Japan. No reliable sources - this looks like someone's pipe dream with no substantial chance of being constructed. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball — write the article once it's under construction. Sandstein 20:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God is a DJ

[edit]

Author making repeated efforts to sign articles (see history). Page contains no useful information that is not included in other Faithless-related articles. Delete as unneeded. haz (user talk) 20:21, 19 May 2006


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo-Detecting and Image Capturing

[edit]

Enforcing traffic rules with cameras is well-known, but I can't find any info about the topic (as described in the title) on the net. It seems to be a very specific version or name of a Road-rule enforcement camera. I didn't see any novel content that needed to be merged to that article. Chaser (T, C, e) 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Drini 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC) from Official policy: Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day![reply]

+10 -1

[edit]

nn, made-up "game" for comparing the relative numbers of asian-white relationship in which the woman is white vs. when the woman is asian. Despite many links, none of them reference this game, though all talk about interracial dating. I could find no references to this on the web, but obviously it wasn't that easy to search for it. Contested prod. Delete per WP:NFT. Mangojuicetalk 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where God Went Wrong

[edit]
  • Keep. I've also read the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sidma (talk • contribs) 14:38, May 24, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've read the book. It was ok. Not the greatest book ever, but not so bad that it didn't exist. I should know, it's gathering dust on my shelf. Amy12
  • As long as google remain the source of what is "verifiable" then a lot of thing s will remain unverifiable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.215.6.50 (talk • contribs) 17:31, May 23, 2006

While there is something (podcast?) by this name it's not as described here. Found it on CSD, bringing it here, no vote from me. The Land 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swissters

[edit]

Reads like ad copy. The company isn't very notable, either. Rholton 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkadelicious

[edit]

Article does not give sources to verify claims. Notability is also quite questionable, although I have found references to the term being used [51]. It does seem to be a brand name, although I question notablity per WP:CORP. Kukini 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: See also The "Dunkadelic Era" In America, 1984-Present (up for AFD here) and Dunkadelic, also by the creator of the above article. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franco the Mobster

[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable short film, article written by writer, director, producer and star, so WP:VANITY as well. Google and imdb hasn't heard of it. eivindt@c 21:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you guys. Sorry about making that stupid article. I'd like to delete it but I'm unsure as to how.

Eric Bruchmann


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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Star Camps

[edit]

Completely unnotable. The article is two sentences one, the first has the name and its location, and the second describes the activities offered at the camp, which are typical of all summer camps. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Avoda

[edit]

This article is basically an advertisement for a non-notable summer camp in Massachusets. It has no qualifying information apart from advertising copy. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you cannot show that the nescesary conditions for a WP:POINT violation have been met. While we could discuss the merits of an accusation of disruption, that's now moot. Kim Bruning 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. No point having an ugly great AFD tag on this article any longer (see WP:SNOW). kingboyk 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Goma

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

Please note that Wikipedia's deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Credit to Mr Goma for making the best of a bad situation he found himself in, but I don't think it makes him notable enough for an entry here - certainly not according to WP:BIO. In a few days time he will be (probably gratefully) extremely anonymous again. The error the BBC made might deserve a sentence in their article, but I'm not even sure about that. Also, the transcript is probably copyrighted. Worldtraveller 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Noar

[edit]

Non-notable. Written as an advertisement for a summer camp, and has almost no encyclopaedic information apart from its location and founding date. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. It's how you check articles. Kim Bruning 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr xuan

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Could be bollocks? Punkmorten 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS WAS NOT ME! THIS WAS MY FRIEND WHO FOUND MY PASSWORD! Was not me ! --MUBOTE 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zifeco

[edit]

Not well known - "still devoloping and has not reached it potenial to grab the complete public's eye", 157 Google hits. Advertisement - "Tim is one of our top comics having sprung up to have over 40 strips." Punkmorten 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amitiz

[edit]

A non-notable organisation that pulls up no Google hits for itself apart from the Wikipedia article. The article is poorly formatted and not in any way fact-checked with references or any other source information. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems you took out some non-existing wikilinks. IMO this has no real bearing on the reasons to deletion: WP:NN, WP:RS - please review these articles. An organization, to be wiki-notable, must have reliable unrelated publications referring to it and describing its notability. Crum375 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think SlimVirgin specifically excluded this AfD from her Speedy Keeps. I assume that's because she felt this one is bona-fide AfD, possibly due to nn, db-club. Crum375 23:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article may be one of several nominated for deletion but that does not mean it's worthy of retention, even if other articles nominated at the same time by the same editor are "Keep"able. Do you have an argument for retaining the article on its own merits instead of merging it with Aleph Zadik Aleph as has been suggested?Homey 23:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with parent organization. -- JJay 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is out of line. The original nominator gets one vote, if that. The rest of us here have nothing to do with the nomination, and we put in our time and effort to improve WP. We try our best to be NPOV, so please stick to the issues. The issues here: nn, db-club. If you feel you can address these issues, you are more than welcome. Crum375 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, this article isn't about a summer camp. Please read the article and consider it on its merits or demerits rather than voting on an article you haven't seen because you disagree with the nominator's actions elsewhere.Homey 00:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - non-notable groups of people are covered by CSD A7. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Technology Tv

[edit]

Non-notable podcast by some high school kid. Can't even afford its own website. The article also has this puzzling phraze, "Shows have not yet been released and will probably never be released." --Hetar 22:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 12:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast Plaza/Directory

[edit]

del a list of businesses at a South Coast Plaza. Wikipedia is not Yellow pages. Who's going to maintain the correctness of this list forever? Mukadderat 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crum375 23:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article completely lacks context as it doesn't even advise where the South Coast Plaza is. While that mall appears to be notable, its tenants aren't. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crazynas 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 04:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was created to get the listcruft out of the original South Coast Plaza article. I thought that removing the directory as a whole might be too WP:BOLD, so that's why this page was created. It is notable, as are its tenants - and the question of maitenance isn't one that I often see in question - anyone can edit it, therefore anyone can maintain the correctness of this list forever. Therefore, I ask if it might not be better to merge back to the original page in an abridged form (see King of Prussia Mall or keep and expand lead-in (which I'll go ahead and do right now for the sake of argument)
    • "Anyone can edit", but why would anyone want to? In don't think there is a crowds of volunteers to edit, unlike George Bush or Penis articles. I can see it from the amount of red links on the page (and 25% of blue ones point to irrelevant pages, being non-disabmiguated). I bet my moustache that 40% of them will be out of business in next 6 months. This information is bound to be outdated, not to say of dubious notability: are we going to list every Pizza Hut and every Nordstrom outlet all over the world? If not up to date, the page is basically useless (more precisely, people would rather not use it as a reliable source) Mukadderat 04:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guildall performing arts boarding school for girls

[edit]

Nothing on Google, and author even admits it only exists in the mind of a 13-year-old girl. Bill (who is cool!) 22:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted as an attack page and a page on an unremarkable person. Prodego talk 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger from maplestory

[edit]

Patent nonsense, some text copied from other articles, was prod'd and removed Aguerriero (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of extraterrestrials in fiction

[edit]

Delete List cruft. If a fictional extraterrestrial race is notable enough it'll have an actual page on Wikipedia and be listed in the "Fictional extraterrestrial species" Category. AlistairMcMillan 23:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also don't have enough good editors to go through the list and filter out all the anon contributions. Are alien species that appear in a single episode of Star Trek notable? For example Angosian, Antedean, Vaadwaur... AlistairMcMillan 10:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of resources for learning Japanese

[edit]

"Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories." This, on the other hand, is nothing else. It should not be here.
I anticipate inclusionists arguing that this should be kept because it "might be useful" to people. Allow me to preemptively point out that this is irrelevant. We do not attempt to provide all potentially useful information, we attempt to provide encyclopedia articles. The place to go for lists of links is the Open Directory Project. — Haeleth Talk 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_19&oldid=1081096921"