Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 15 June 17 >

Purge server cache

June 16

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.fabsurplus.com

[edit]

Article on apparently non-notable website with adcopy text.

Evidence:

  • Tautological non-notability: URL of website returns one hit to article subject [1].
  • Just fabsurplus returns 148 unique, and I found nothing substantiating notability [2].
  • Link search returns 6 unique: [3].
  • Google news=0 hits[4].
  • Alexa rank = 2,450,280. [5].

Criteria: see WP:NOT, WP:WEB, WP:CORP and precedents.

Note that SDI Semiconductor Instruments is probably not notable as well, but this article is not about that company, it is the notability of their website that is at issue. Prod removed. Feedback on my new afd format (above) welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the text before prodding. Can't find any copyright violation. The website that is the name of the article does not appear to contain the article text. If you can find that it is actually copy and pasted, please advise. Otherwise, I do not see any csd criteria this fits under.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, though it is obviously spam, I removed the tag as it wasn't a copyvio thus, as Fughettaboutit mentioned, it does not fall under csd criteria--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Ward

[edit]

Completing a 2nd AfD nomination. I take it this is for WP:NN. A councilman who made local headlines for getting some tomato sauce poured over his head. Read the entry for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete by consensus. Johntex\talk 01:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 Society

[edit]

Non-notable club at one college. Tom Harrison Talk 00:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous no consensus nom
... and not a web host for school clubs either. --Ezeu 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it a floor wax or a dessert topping. More to the point, Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a concise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not. - Gamaliel, in some AFD or other. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - the "keep" users have made the better case here. Metamagician3000 15:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Underground (blog)

[edit]

Completing a nomination: a doubt about the actual notability of this blog has been raised [9], of which I have no idea. The editors from Israel may help here. - Liberatore(T) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kotepho 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Artech Entertainment, Ltd.. Johntex\talk 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wanamaker

[edit]

There is no assertion of notability. The link provided just gives the credits in a few videfo games. Delete as per nn. Tony Bruguier 20:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kotepho 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Acropolis

[edit]

Existence not well supported; even its name is in doubt. Tom Harrison Talk 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Оfftoper

[edit]

Moved to Offtoper during discussion.

NN web community. No assertion of notability. Dismas|(talk) 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Wurst

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of non-notable biographies. This individual fails every component of WP:BIO. She generates almost no Google hits, no news hits, has not contributed in a lasting way to her field and the article will never be more than a stub. Working as a political consultant for successful politicians does not in and of itself make one notable. Kershner 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to It Takes a Thief (2005 TV series). Johntex\talk 01:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Johnston

[edit]

Non-notable actor, only significant role thus far is on It Takes A Thief on Discovery. UsaSatsui 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to It Takes A Thief. Johntex\talk 01:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Douglas Rainey

[edit]

Non-notable actor, also from It Takes A Thief, with an even smaller resume. In addition, all the info is lifted word for word from here: [12] UsaSatsui 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to It Takes a Thief (2005 TV series). Couldn't wait for the vote. --Uncle Ed 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler VanDenBergh

[edit]

Delete animator of unclear notability, best known for working with a 6-time deleted person [13] and a redlink. Does not inspire confidence. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Lucas Burge

[edit]

An employee of David Lucas Burge created this page. This is the same person, product, and reason as before (represented by the discussion below).Aruffo 03:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kesang datta

[edit]

I don't think Dr. Datta meets the notability criteria laid out in WP:BIO, although the article does kind of assert it -- according to it, she's the first female dentist ever in her native country of Sikkim, which I imagine must have taken her a lot of hard work. Nonetheless, I regret to say that I don't think she's notable enough for inclusion -- she gets about 160 Google hits, all of which appear to be various purely professional listings and almost all of which come from the same few sites. -- Captain Disdain 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Johntex\talk 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Budapest

[edit]

Another dead list. I have added the useful information at the top of the list to the Budapest article. BlueValour 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bellhaven

[edit]

This article has already been deleted once before. "Walter Bellhaven" is a (very) occassionally referenced fictional character on The Phil Hendrie Show. Not even the show's actual characters have their own Wikipedia articles, and he's already mentioned sufficiently in the show's article.72.224.146.182 02:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Johntex\talk 02:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slovak telephone codes

[edit]

List - no added value -non-encyclopaedic BlueValour 02:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the hopes that we can one day get rid of all of the aforementioned articles. If you're only voting keep because there are other, equally inane articles here, I'd urge you to reconsider. An encyclopedia is primarily a research tool, an d I can't imagine a circumstance where a person at some point in the future would look back and say, "I wonder what the area code in Bucharest was in 2006?" --djrobgordon 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia could become a one-stop reference for all the world's telephone codes. I'm willing to help organize this info. Is there a WikiProject:Telephony for this? --Uncle Ed 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per djrobgordon. JChap 01:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jcuk, but not exactly just because all those other pages exist - the reason they do is that the information is verifiable and likely notable, albeit moreso for bigger countries, but so what?. Jammo (SM247) 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Until the Wikipedia community grabs the issue of lists by the horns, there is no reason to start culling them one by one. Frankly I'd rather spin all list of..... entries into a seperate web space. Markb 10:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi Elementary School

[edit]

Non-notable school; original research Lbbzman 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I sense another school deletionist v retentionist row here! The hightlight for me was the comment:"The previous gym uniform ... may be worn indefinitely". you would think it might need washing sometime? BlueValour 03:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally listed "original research" as a reason for deletion. I was incorrect, there are inline links. My mistake. Cheers, Lbbzman 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As previously written the article was, quite frankly, rubbish. I have spent a little time knocking it into reasonable shape. We will see if it gets reverted. BlueValour 03:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 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 No consensus. Johntex\talk 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships with age disparity

[edit]

I have to admit, this one has me at a little bit of a loss. It appears to violate WP:NOT by being an indescriminate collection of information, as well as being unencyclopedic and impossible to ever make anything approaching complete thereby being POV in what it includes or leaves out. It is also POV and original research in the sense that the user who created the page created his own definition for what constitutes an age disparity (or at least does not cite a source for this definition). I believe that by nearly any measure this does not belong. Indrian 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to just hate the concept of lists. Lists aren't encyclopedic and were never meant to be, its just another tool for organizing the encyclopedic entries contained within Wikipedia. We use categories for the same purpose. Lists are almanacical, or almanac-like. Almanacs contains pages of information sorted by one of the variables. Since lists can be sorted by one of the variables they are inherently useful. I rarely use the index or footnotes in any of the books I read, but I don't call for them to be eliminated since they are useful to others. You seem to be confused and think that lists are not allowed in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:List. Lists have become so important to Wikipedia that there is now a featured list. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain more why you consider it "indescriminate"? It was written to be very discriminating and the inclusion criteria are listed and clear. Is it that you don't like the topic or are upset because you think that the entries are indescriminate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your deliberate ignorance annoys me. If I hate lists so much, why have I contributed to several? Your assumption of me basing deletion decisions on likes or dislikes annoys me. I have stated how I believe this list violates several wikipedia policies, and you are violating wikipedia policy by not assuming good faith that this is in fact my motivation. You are free to disagree with my interpretation of the policies, but you cannot deny I am making a valid argument based on policy. You are being civil, so you are not rising to the level of a personal attack or anything so awful, but you are being impolite nonetheless, and I would appreciate it if you stuck to rational policy arguements rather than making value judgements and lecturing me. Oh, and if you had read Wikipedia:List, or more specifically, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), you would see that it is explained that the creator of a list on a slightly unusual topic should be prepared to justify it to the community. AfD is merely a way to reach that community. You need to not take the process so personally; I will certainly not if the majority votes to keep. Indrian 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course your choices for nomination are based on your likes and dislikes, as are mine. If there were objective criteria for deletion then the software would be able to detect what was worthy of deletion and nominate articles on its own. I did read Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) that is why I sent you the link. You cited WP:NOT as your rationale not Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). If your going to use Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) as your rationale, cite a passage in it, don't just throw the link back at me.
So is every top 10 list and top 100 list. Is that really the best challenge you can come up with?
  • Delete No useful information, or navigation potential from the list. It engages in a bit of "guilt by association" (by mixing adult-only relationships with adult/minor relationships). It has great potential for attacks on living people. It has no citations whatsoever, despite the nature of some entries. That seems to be a violation of policy. Here's a dubious example: "Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, 35 years. She was his stepdaugher and 22 years". Now, to my knowledge, Woody was involved with Soon-Yi's mother (Mia), but was not legally married to Mia, and Soon-Yi was never a step-daughter. If she was his legal step-daughter, he would be guilty of a serious criminal offence. Further, there have been conflicting reports as to whether Soon-Yi's exact age is known. Now, my understanding of facts, may well be totally wrong. I would love to check the sources, to verify the information, but of course, no source is cited. --Rob 06:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a novel idea: click on the link and read the article. All the info comes from a source called Wikipedia. If you know there is an error ... correct it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, and especially WP:LIVING. Wikipedia can *not* use itself as a reference. That creates circular logic. Article X relies on Article Y, which relies on Article X. We need to rely on *external* reliable sources. It's not my obligation to fix articles screwed up by others. This article violates policy, and therefore needs to be deleted. I won't run and around and research every name on the list. That's a waste of time. It is essential to understand that the onus of proof is *always* on those wishing to add (or retain) information to verify it, and never on those challenging it (particularly so, with living persons). --Rob 06:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list, not a Wikipedia article. It lists the information within Wikipedia articles and sorts the data. It does not need its own external references because it doesn't include anything novel. Its a navagation device, like a table of contents, or an index. Adding sources would be redundant. Did you try clicking on a link as I suggested before? All the references you show, concern articles not lists. So, are you challenging the age of the individuals involved? or are you challenging my math in calculating the age disparity? What do you want referenced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. I thought it was an interesting subject for an article, and it's not like it's merely a list of name after name without useful information. As for indiscriminate, I agree the cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, but it could always be changed. David L Rattigan 07:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 08:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for much the same reasons as David L Rattigan. It does need some work, though. The formatting needs to be standardised. The final category "Less than 10 years" seems a bit pointless. It's open-ended, so presumably a relationship with an age disparity of only 6 months could go there. The smallest disparity currently shown is 6 years, hardly eyebrow-raising. I'd remove the final category, have a minimum disparity of 10 years as a criterion for inclusion, and rename the list "List of relationships with a significant age disparity" or something like that. But to remove the list altogether would be to decrease the sum of human knowledge about interesting things, and I could not possibly support that. JackofOz 08:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you go to edit the category of under 10 you see this "NOTE TO EDITORS: Please restrict to cases where one party is less than 18, or the woman is at least 5 years older than the man". It previously appeared in the text and was moved to the edit mode.
  • Comment. It seems to me that it is in keeping with the purpose of an encyclopaedia to organize information for the readers. The fact that the guidelines for selection are somewhat arbitrary is unavoidable. We run into that all the time when we discriminate between what is notable and what is not, and the criteria used in this article are analogous. Now I do not know whether the purpose of this article is best served by means of an article or by means of a category. But the accusations of "POV" and "OR" do not ring true to me. Would you say the same thing about an article on pornography? Haiduc 11:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think its an interesting subject. I do think the article needs some work done, however. The last category. "Between 10 and 5" needs to be removed; its not a big enough difference to warrant mentioning. --Geoffrey Gibson 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yet another list with vague and arbitrary criteria governing what can/should be included in the list. Who determined the cutoff of 10/5? Strictly speaking... one spouse being 2 years older would be an age disparity. Where was it decided that it suddenly becomes encyclopedic once the 10/5 diparity was reached? Why different criteria for men and women? The guidelines are simply too arbitrary and are inherently POV and possibly constitute original reseach--Isotope23 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is interesting enough to keep. Bubba73 (talk), 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Delete, Delete. This is a completely bizarre article list that rests completly upon the editors' POV, violating WP:NPOV. Why ten years? Is there something vital about that age difference? Why not nine? Why not three? To top it all, it's misogynistic by reducing the difference if the female's older. Ugh.

    Not to mention the fact that "relationships" is a very broad term.' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 13:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What point of view? Its done using math I learned in grade school, subtract the little number away from the big one. Try it. Are you sure you know what "misogynistic" means? Is it misogynistic to keep seperate male and female lists for all the Olympic records? And finally the numer 10 is no more arbitrary than using 10 in top ten lists...you have to choose some number.
The point of view is that you hold AgeX-AgeY=DifferenceZ>10 to be of some signifiance and something worth noting. As for misogyny, it indicates discrimination and prejudice against women, although sexism is perhaps a better word in this context. Regardless, it is completely idiotic to lower the limit for women, simply because they're women. No, your stupid analogy has no bearing on this; separate Olympic records is due to differing physical ability which plays no part whatsoever in age disparity between married couples. And sign your comments, for God's sake. Four tildes, right by the 1/! and Tab keys, just like we learned in grade school! Try it~! ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 14:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), sign your posts with --~~~~ so people know who is making a point... and both of you need to take a breath and try to be more WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, for the love of God. All those voting keep: Explain how this list will be completed. -

Kookykman|(t)e

What list is ever complete? That's why we have an edit button. Aside from new entries, its almost complete already. Relationships listed in Wikipedia where somone is 10 years older are rare. If you know of one missed add it.
"Almost complete"? How? You've documented almost every person in the world with a spouse 20 years younger than them? - Kookykman|(t)e 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the header to the list "where one person has an article in Wikipedia" Challenge: Find someone not includedand write back. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *rolls eyes mightily* you know, if the Keep arguments were stronger, I might have been swayed. But I stick with my original comment. There are a lot of these weird lists here though; 'Entertainers who committed suicide in their 50s' is one I came across a few days ago. Bizarre to think that someone even found the time to categorise things like this. TrianaC 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only violation of WP:LIST here is that the cutoff isn't defined, and there are no shortage of ways to solve this. The simplest might be to move the article to "List of relationships by age disparity" or some such thing. Also, it would probably be better to replace the word "relationship" with "romantic relationship" or even "marriage" (my mother and I have a relationship with a 25 year age disparity). If you're still concerned about having a glut of 1-5 year disparities at the bottom of the article, there's nothing that says we can't divide this by the decade, as in Category:Entertainers who died in their 20's, Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s. That way the boundaries are defined.
Frankly, I found this list both useful and interesting, although that's coming from someone who also finds Category:Entertainers who died in a road accident and List of suicides interesting. If you don't like celebrity articles, don't read them. I think this can be improved to the point where it will meet WP:LIST, as well as more general verifiability standards. --djrobgordon 16:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What list is ever complete? So if a list isn't complete, you remove it? What a nonsensical reason. Concerning the title, yeah, you're technically correct; every single relationship has "age disparity" but I'm sure the authors and readers would be thinking along age disparities which are significant. User:Gareth Owen: A name change would remove your reason for voting – your vote is powerfully thought out. OK, you might be able to say that choosing how many years is significant is original research but a source could be found. A possible solution is to create "list of relationships with x years age disparity", now that removes any bias. If there is any sexism, big deal, remove it. Skinnyweed 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This list is nothing but a lawsuit and vast wasteland of unverifiable information. Not to mention the blatant solicitation for votes that the main objector has been spamming people with [14] all day. Not a good faith action in my book. Decent articles don't need to have votes solicited to be kept. They stand on their own merit. pschemp | talk 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can subtracting two numbers bring about a lawsuit? Any lobbying was for people to vote, not to support or condemn the article. What are you considering unverifiable, their ages? It comes directly from the Wikipedia article linked. If the ages are wrong correct them. My campaign for people to read the article and vote is no different than a "get out the vote" campaign in presidential politics. The dissemination of information is what Wikipedia is all about...right? If I violated a rule somewhere quote it to me. Lobbying and "get out the vote" is only restricted in votes for admin status, if I remember correctly.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no issue of "lawsuit," or "unverifiable information" or "blatant solicitation" - This is how things get done here. Somebody who apparently has little clue about the above basic issues, and shows a lack of WP:AGF himself, should by no means be considered an authority on what constitutes a "decent article." -Ste|vertigo 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you call "get out the vote" efforts aimed primarily at garnering so-called "inclusionists" or "deletionists" to support your opinion may not be against any rules, but it is still tacky and shows an inherent weakness in your argument.--Isotope23 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SPAM#Internal spamming: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." This AFD has been poisoned. I agree with another comment made further down this thread -- any "keeps" from editors brought here through spam should be discarded by the closing admins, unless they happen to make particularly compelling arguments... and that certainly hasn't happened yet.- Motor (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected... apparently it is tacky and against the rule.--Isotope23 22:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should distinguish between historical or important people and recent people. Its a bit disconcerting to scan from Deborah Caprioglio to Muhammad and Aisha. Its tacky to mix busty Italian movie stars with religious figures. -Ste|vertigo 18:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or... take those historically important people and mention their relationships on Age disparity in sexual relationships, in relation to the time they lived and with reference to how it would be viewed today, making a really good article that discusses how the perception of age differences has changed through history and across different customs. But, naturally, that would mean losing the important "list" quality that makes for such excellent Wikipedia articles. - Motor (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having detected both the sarcasm in your tone as well as how misplaced that tone is, I will simply agree with your agreement with my suggestion of separating historical examples from trivial ones. If that makes this article a study in triviality, then I would be the first to delete. Its not that bad actually. Im sure a list would work if it was integrated to the main article, but see no reason why a little redundancy is improper. -Ste|vertigo 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to start a jihad against trivial articles, be my guest. Start with Category:Actors, and get back to me if you need some ideas. This isnt about celebrity, its simply about a social phenomenon of age disparity, listing some "notable" examples without being too exclusive about who constitutes as "notable." You might also consider how, in the two years youve been editing here, how much your concept of an encyclopedia article has changed - since Britannica of course. -Ste|vertigo 01:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually I've been here three years. My view of people compiling lists of trivia with strange arbitrary criteria hasn't changed much... my attitude to getting involving in deleting it has. Can we stick to the subject? There already is an article about the "social phenomenon of age disparity"... you linked to it earlier and we discussed it. You don't seem to have added anything to your argument. - Motor (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting enough, well-enough-organized, extensive enough, and doesn't duplicate an existing page. The existence of this article doesn't seem POV to me, nor do most of its entries. The article is not perfect (of course), but it can be edited and improved rather than deleted. Bob schwartz 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, this was... spammed, I suppose... to my own talk page as well. CameoAppearance 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind and my vote, see below.[reply]
  • Keep well-researched, useful, thoroughly encyclopedic list. Those voting delete should be ashamed of trying to destroy such excellent content.  Grue  18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, should my shame at opining delete be greater or less than that of someone who is rendering an opinion here just because they were user talk spammed here in an attempt to garner sure-shot Keep opinions?--Isotope23 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grue is a frequent contributor at AfDs. While I disagree with Grue's view (but would be interested in Grue expanding on the reasoning), I don't doubt that it is genuine. Andjam 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know he is... I've seen his comments enough. It doesn't change the fact that his comment was generic, made no reference to the article contents and was solicited. This is supposed to be a discussion about this article. - Motor (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that it is a unique enough entry that badly needs some sort of discussion on the topic. I don't think it should be deleted, just modified, and perhaps have the list reduced as well. Apatomerus 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have changed the excessively arbitrary criteria to a simpler and if anything overinclusive straight five-year cutoff. I have also added {{verify}}, since it doesn't cite sources. Obviously it will be hard to complete, but not impossible, and in any case that's true of many lists. But it's definitely verifiable; also neutral (it no more expresses the POV that age discrepancies are interesting than the existence Age disparity in sexual relationships does: both assume that the reader may be interested in their content, and it's certainly verifiable that some people are); and isn't inherently original research as we define it. It's a perfectly reasonable organization of preexisting information.

    I will note that I came here because Mr. Norton contacted me on my talk page due to my self-categorization as a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I don't think that makes my opinion worthless, but it should be noted by the closing admin. See his contribs: he contacted somewhere around forty inclusionists. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bit of devil's advocacy, but why don't you consider a 5-year cut-off to be excessively arbitrary criteria? Why not 4 years, 3 years, or 10 years? Why is 5 a magic number of years where an age difference suddenly becomes a "discrepancy"?--Isotope23 22:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a magic number. It's picked for the sake of convenience. Alternatively, the article could be changed to List of articles by age disparity, and all marriages included, but it's unlikely that anyone is interested in even a five-year gap. It's just a nice round cutoff to approximately balance the competing interests of length/maintainability and usefulness. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as valid almanac content, just interesting and non-indiscriminate enough after cleanup. But note that the talkspamming violates the WP:SPAM guideline, which says "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view". Accordingly, I submit that "Keep" votes by those so contacted should be discounted. Sandstein 21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how do we know they weren't planning to come here anyway? Some certainly would have. JackofOz 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote Just noting (as I see others have) that I was spammed with a link to this debate.[15] —Mira 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult to determine what is included, regardless of criteria. Difficult to maintain accurately. Not really encyclopedic. Also not keen on vote stacking behaviour and tendentious behaviour of key defender but that's no reason to delete, I'm just sayin.... Merge the key info somewhere but delete the list. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting almanac type list, if is no more cruft-ish than other articles. And yes, he spammed me too, but I saw this before I got the spam, but wanted to refrain from commenting until some others had. --rogerd 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It simply isn't useful and the criteria for inclusion are so arbitrary that it could not possilby be considered NPOV ever (I cited sexism on the article's talk age, but I agree that fundamentally it simply is not a workable list). Theshibboleth 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article has possibilities, but far too many problems to be a useful article. --Kerowyn 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this list has possibilities and is interesting too Yuckfoo 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (or failing that, give it a severe pruning) Age disparities can be notable, for example with J. Howard Marshall and Anna Nicole Smith, or Muhammad and Aisha (the article on Aisha has a Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy section on her young marriage age. But most of the disparities are not noteable. Much of the article is original research, which states that original research includes "new analysis or synthesis of published data". Also, I doubt whether this list can be complete. As far as having "documented almost every person in the world with a spouse 20 years younger than them" (to quote Kookykman), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is one of the most frequently mentioned people in the past few weeks, yet this list doesn't note that he's reported to have had sex with a 14-year-old wife when he was 38. But thanks for your invitation for me to "please take a side". Andjam 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the arguments on this page are long-winded and redundant, so I shall endeavor not to do the same. This article is meant to educate the reader, and also to serve as a collection and congealing of knowledge and information spread among hundreds of other pages. Any argument about usefulness is as POV as anything else. The information included in the article is factual. If you have an issue with the facts, CORRECT THEM. If you don't like the 10/5 issue, make your opinion known, but don't vote for deletion. If every article was deleted from Wikipedia simply because it was in error, or someone disagreed with the design, layout, or information included, Wikipedia would be just another unheard of website. Socrates said that "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." This page, while not necessarily knowledge unto itself, is nonetheless a collection of information from diverse other places - just as Wikipedia itself is. Milton 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I apologize that I failed to diligently comment on every entry on the article. Perhaps a few copied and pasted samples will make it less generic? Maybe I should summarize a little? Or perhaps I should simply comment on your own diligent discarding of many keep votes as "generic and spam-oriented" as you have. That certainly isn't generic. Please don't turn this discussion page into a list of "very intelligent keep votes" and "generic and spammy delete votes." Milton 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you like... but when I comment on AFDs I read the article first, then I try very hard to find information... often going to considerable lengths... and then make my decision while listing what I did to justify that decision. At the very least, I recreate the work and reasoning of someone else and verify that what they have said is correct before stating my agreement with them. I don't respond to spam requests, and I don't use cut and pasted, pre-prepared speeches that quote ancient philosophers. Perhaps I'm working too hard to this "discussion" lark, but that's just me. - Motor (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to congratulate you on being original in that last comment, and also in forming your arguments. By not descending to baseless accusations and unsupported arguments, as many others on this page have, you've shown your genuine opinion. I read the article completely, and made my point thereafter, I assure you. --Milton 19:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you did... your detailed and accurate references to the article's content and use of quotes from ancient philosophers, just screams diligent and careful judgement of the material under discussion. The suspicion that you were WP:SPAMed as an inclusionist, showed up, copy and pasted an argument from a pre-prepared list, modified one line to include an argument that was mentioned in the discussion and posted it in an effort to add another "keep" vote and try to stalemate it all into a no-consensus is completely unfounded. Your follow up comments further show that you have given careful consideration to the material. You are a shining example of proper AFD conduct, and I urge others to examine your contributions and see for themselves. - Motor (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Motor, yes my argument was pre-prepared, I admit: after reading both the article and the discussion on this page, I sat at my computer and took the time to organize my thoughts into an intelligible vote. Motor, I disagree with your assertion that Socrates doesn't matter since he lived so long ago. Thanks for your very kind comments about my AFD conduct, I was very surprised, after our recent discussion, that you would take the time to compliment my comments, and furthermore finally admit that your entire "Inclusionist spam means no vote" asininity is ridiculous. It means a lot. Have a good day, buddy.
  • Who said Socrates "doesn't matter"? Accusing me of trolling because I point out certain inconvenient facts about the mass-spamming that happened, and conduct of some of the inclusioninsts summoned? And finally, there's still not a single point that is relevant to this article in any of your posts. No doubt the admin who closes AFD will still obediently headcount it though. So congratulations. - Motor (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too was wikispammed by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Redneckgaijin 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. The explanatory sentence starts out fine with "The older partner is listed first" but "followed by the magnitude of the disparity" smacks of sensationalism. "followed by age difference" would be less *gasp*like in tone. The explanation is effectively forgotten when the entry has "x was older" even though the older partner is listed first. Women are given almost three times the "was older" notation than men. I counted three with men, eight with women. That strikes me of the entertainment magazines trumpeting in surprise that the woman's older. And does 10-5 years really constitute a remarkable age disparity between two adults? ..Jaguara 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given free reign, this list will eventually grow to encompass a staggeringly large fraction of humankind (or its notable subset), if we consider times and places in which age disparities have been normal. (I note in passing that I've had a relationship in which I was 5 years older, and another where I was 5 years younger. One of my Wikipedia axioms is that I Am Not Notable. [wink]) --Victor Lighthill 07:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though this article appears destined for no consensus keep, I feel that it needs to be stated that this list is just plain cruft. It's information, sure, but it's an indiscriminate collection of information. Aplomado talk 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to be dragged into anyone's sparring, but neither am I going to accept being branded as a shill. I had already commented on this matter (see above) and only waited before voting to see what arguments were brought pro and con. My vote is the result of their consideration. Haiduc 10:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one branded you as anything... I merely pointed out the facts. Incidentally, your other comment was also entirely list generic with no reference to the content of this article (I encourage others to check for themselves). In addition, you also removed two of my comments from this talk page with no justification at all, and which I had to restore. - Motor (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to apologize for inadvertently removing your comments, but I checked my edit and found nothing of the sort. I will assume that your accusation itself in an innocent error. I still object to what I see as an attempt to devalue my comments, but at this point this is academic. Haiduc 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't check very carefully, did you? - Motor (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Motor, just because a keep voter has the linkspam on their talk page does not mean that they came in here mindlessly bleating "Keeeeep, keeeeep!". Haiduc, why do you keep coming on back in to debate this when you protest that you don't want to be in the argument? "Inadvertently removing" comments.. how? It's not like you clicked the wrong checkbox and pressed "delete". -- Jaguara 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I didn't say that they did... you will find quite the opposite if you over my comments. I made a point of noting those who were spammed *and* then showed up posting generic "keep" comments, not just anyone who was spammed. I do, however, expect the closing admin to look at the contribution history of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and take it into account. - Motor (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the list needs neatening and the boundaries between sections better defining. However, this is the kind of thing which people frequently note about relationships, so I think should be kept around. Mrjeff 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and GWO; an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems like the sort of thing that could only really work in some sort of Wiki-database. As a manually-edited list, it seems hopelessly underinclusive and unmaintainable. Kickaha Ota 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rework and rename Although the subject matter is potentially the subject matter of a Wikipedia article, it suffers presently from three inherent defects - a) potentially excessive length due to the fact raised that all such groupings have an age disparity; b) apparent non-verifiability at present; and c) What is a 'relationship' and how do we ascertain whether two (or indeed more!) people are in one? [[List of marriages with age disparity [of a given number of years, feel free to decide]]] might be a far more encyclopaedic entry as it is easier to verify and there is no ambiguity about that which is being treated. Jammo (SM247) 20:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Personally what I'd like to see instead of this is just a real article about the phenomenom, with things like significance and social acceptance in certain cultures, and with a few (half a dozen at most) examples. Lists like this belong in the Guiness Book of Records, not Wikipedia. -- Hirudo 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per everbody else that voted keep. Luka Jačov 00:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There is little need for a list like this as almost all marriages have an age disparity of at least one day (my mother was born 38 days before my father.) But on the whole, this is a point of interest as there are some sizable age disparities (eg. Hugh Hefner is at least 50 years older than even the oldest of his live-in "girlfriends.") Scott Gall 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, cases like Hugh Hefner are worth discussing... but there already is a specific article on Age disparity in sexual relationships in which such notable case can be discussed. This isn't about removing such information from Wikipedia. It is about discussing it in context, in an article, with other relevant information... and not just compiling a pointless list of age differences that is effectively a list of celeb gossip. - Motor (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it encyclopedic... my paper Encyclopedia Britannica has lists in it, like a list of all institutions of higher learning in the world; and Wikipedia is not paper. I found this list to be useful and stimulating, just the sort of thing I like to find in Wikipedia. I don't find it indiscriminant at all, except perhaps the 5-10 year portion; there is an obvious unifying theme.snug 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I too was talk-spammed. As an inclusionist I lean against deletion in most cases, but this article had me really, really tempted- there's a lot wrong with it. The gender disparity in the list should be addressed. The criteria for list inclusion should be tightened seriously. The minimum age disparity should be at least 20 years (a generation). Marriage of minors should be moved to a different list entirely. Sources should be provided. The list should require committed relationships such as marriage for inclusion. That said, the list makes a good reference of examples for an article on the social effects of May-December marriages and the like, so it shouldn't be junked entirely- just MASSIVELY reworked. Redneckgaijin 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is a frequently discussed topic in celebrity gossip, at least. The less than ten years section definitely needs to go and I'm not entirely sold on the 10-19 category, either. Ace of Sevens 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic. (Also see above.) Skinnyweed 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is worthy of note, but the list needs some serious work. A 5 year age difference is hardly notable. Even 10 or 15 years probably isn't enough to justify inclusion on a list, given the sheer number of such relationships. However, a very large age disparity is unusual, and due to the unusualness, is notable. The list needs to be winnowed quite a bit, but the topic itself is worthy of inclution. NoIdeaNick 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "generic" keep opinions: there is no reason that anyone has to look at an article before making up their minds as to whether it should be deleted. Deletion should arguably be determined by the topic of a page, not by its content; if someone first started up Grammy Award for Best Album Notes - Classical (yes, that was random) with the content "faksighewigu84", it would be reasonable to say "replace with a quick summary and keep" (if it weren't speediable, anyway). Likewise, if someone started ajg399399999 with a brilliant article on [insert topic here], it would be correct to say "merge anything useful and delete" even without having to read the actual content. Whether people have read this article is irrelevant.

    Frankly, I don't get what anyone is supposed to say about the specific article altogether. It's basically just what the title says: a list of relationships sorted by age disparity. I find it disturbing that not alluding to this directly puts some people under suspicion of being shills or something.

    And finally, I would like to note that it is definitely good to point out that people's opinions were solicited; I don't object to that (which is why I did it for myself). But questioning the legitimacy of those opinions based on the logic that they must address the content of the article rather than its subject is unreasonable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not important to check the content, and do a bit of research to check what other articles are available... y'know, basic research before commenting (merge is an option, you know). Right-oh. That's certainly an... interesting argument to try. As for you being disturbed, well... I highlighted only those people whose votes were solicited *and* at the same time rather obviously did not put even the slightest effort into their comments. I feel that was a good compromise, since the kind/size of spamming engaged in here is explictly discouraged. I'd also like to note that votes of the kind "Keep, the topic is worthy of note" is not any kind of argument, since there already is an article on the topic of Age disparity in sexual relationships -- and the difference can be/is discussed in context. - Motor (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Motor, by your logic, one could say that "Delete per nom" or "Delete, listcruft" or "Delete, it's gossip" are "no-effort" comments. A reason for delete/keep doesn't have to be a tome. You're on the verge of being one of these . ...Jaguara Jaguara 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you talking about "tome"? Would you like to try again, after reading back over the comments (as I asked you to do last time) and without the overstatement and attempt at an insult? This AFD was heavily WP:SPAMMED to anyone in Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. There's absolutely nothing wrong with me pointing out those users who did *all* of the following: responded to the spam, made no effort at commenting on the article beyond a simple generic statement, and did not reveal the fact that they had been requested to come here. I *specifically* (and noted this publicly) did not criticise those users who did not fulfill the above criteria -- and I have a list of users who were spammed, and many of them did comment in this AFD, with no reply from me. But hey, why let things like simple facts get in the way of confusing this issue further? - Motor (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Highlighting people who were spammed is valuable. Criticizing them for not putting effort into their comments is not. No, it is not necessarily important to check the content of an article, for the reasons I stated. And yes, "this topic is worthy of note" is a valid argument despite the existence of Age disparity in sexual relationships, because "X" is a different topic from "List of X". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't "highlight people who were spammed" -- as I explained above, I was more selective. Yes... criticising people who were spammed, didn't reveal it, and not putting the slightest effort into a comment is perfectly correct thing to do... and if it happens again, I will do exactly the same thing. And yes... it is necessary to examine the contents of an article before commenting, again, as I explained above since delete or keep is not the only option. And no, "the topic is of note is not a valid argument" since there already is an article on this topic (which a commenter might know if they'd done more than just look at the title)... and in this case it's not just a crappy list made up of gossip. But apart from that lot, you're absolutely correct. - Motor (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simetrical, I said I wasn't going to comment further, but your remarks compelled me to. I agree with your comment completely. I too was messaged by Mr. Norton, and I didn't mention it. I also didn't mention that I was living in Tennessee, that I was a male, or that I was a college student - any of these facts are readily available online. Thank you for your comment - you may have noticed that I accused motor of trolling earlier - while he may not be doing it intentionally, the vast majority of his comments on this page have been inflamatory and, while perhaps not intentionally so, aimed at belittling those he was commenting on. He has been attempting to reduce their comments to worthlessness, all the while behind a thin veneer of caring about the integrity of this page. Anyway, I just wanted to show my support for your statements. --Milton 21:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I confess, however, that in the past I've read this article myself and enjoyed it, although this temporal cold war business serves as an object lesson to any writer who thinks time travel is a substitute for creativity. Memory Alpha has made it clear that they don't want it, as has Wikipedia. I suspect, however, that this article, or one very much like it, could have a long and fruitful history on someone's personal website or wiki. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems

[edit]

There is additional discussion of this AFD on the Talk page. Please visit it for more indepth discussion of various issues regarding this AFD.

This article is severe fancruft and full of opinion. While the fact that there were continuity problems with the series may be encyclopedic, the nature and discussion of those problems on wikipedia are not necessary. During the last AFD it was proposed that the article be moved to the Star Trek wiki [16]. It would be prudent to do so and simply mention in the original Enterprise article there were continuity issues and let people goto the Star Trek wiki and read about it if they so wish. This article contains a lot of original research, referencing many alleged fan opinions that would be impossible to source properly here. Not to mention the title of the article is "alleged" problems, which conveys a clear message that this article is opinion. Crossmr 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Star Trek wiki. That's what it's there for. RedRollerskate 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Transwiki if anyone can be bothered. — Haeleth Talk 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Usefull, and what the hell are you going on about star trek wiki? i assume you mean memory-alpha? Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it useful? I asked on the talk to provide any evidence this was encyclopedic and all you did was resort to insults. How do you justify the opinions expressed in the article? You also don't need to assume anything. I provided the link to the site in question that I recommended it be moved to. --Crossmr 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is now the third time this has been AfDed, and it survived both previous times. No convincing reason given to overturn those results. "Cruft" is always a weak reason for deletion, and an oft-misunderstood one at that. Isn't original research either, as it does cite sources. Slap a cleanup tag on it if there are problems, but I see no reason to overturn two previous AfDs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is original research when just about every paragraph contains sentences like "Some fans..." There is no citing for that. The last AFD wasn't a keep either, it was a no concensus. Cruft isn't weak when you consider that no one outside trek fans care about continuity issues in enterprise like vulcan eating habits, and even then not every fan cares about it. --Crossmr 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, not every fan cares about it. Just like not every Simpsons fan cares about the List of vehicles in The Simpsons. I guess we should be deleting this one too? Or any other page where not everyone interested in the topic cares about the specific information given? -- Ritchy 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated below, we're here to discuss this article. If you can't keep your comments to the article at hand you might want to withdraw from the discussion as arguing the validity of one article based on another adds nothing to the discussion. --Crossmr 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Original research. Wish I could hand this one to the Trekkies, but OR is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, and this article seems largely to be unverified OR. David L Rattigan 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Words like alleged and weasel words such as some fans make this problematic. The article reads as original research and does border on cruftiness. It would be better off cleaned up, substantiated - i.e. nothing alleged about it - and placed on Memory Alpha, where it would have a greater audience.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It reads like original research. Very few notes. In a real article of a topic like this, there would be dozens of specific citations. Ted 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Very few notes"? There are 49 different ST episodes referenced in there! How many more do you want? -- Ritchy 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As has been noted, this is the third time someone tried to have it deleted, and both previous times the VfD failed. This is starting to look less and less like a serious request, and more like a "Star Trek doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" campaign.
    The article is not original research. People keep saying that it is nothing but fan stuff, hoping perhaps that people won't read the article itself to check? Because, in reality, the article cites no less that 49 different Star Trek episodes and 3 books. This article has more sources than roughly half the articles on Wikipedia -- if this gets deleted for being unverifiable, then so should most of Wikipedia.
    The article belongs on Wikipedia. "Star Trek" deserves more than a single page saying "TV series aired from 1966 to 2005, see MemoryAlpha for more details", which is what it will be reduced to if some people had their way. But more than that, this page provides useful and relevant information on the last Star Trek series, and how it fits (or doesn't fit) into the huge and rich Star Trek universe. It is necessary to understand the public reaction to Enterprise, which led to the first cancellation of a Star Trek series since TOS in 1969. Not exactly an event that will go down in History, I'll grant that, but then again, Wikipedia is not Britannica. There are less relevant articles allowed to stay on Wikipedia -- one need only think of Ketchup on hot dogs or List of neologisms on The Simpsons, for example. -- Ritchy 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hot dogs article is in the process of being merged. Neologisms from the Simpsons have had more cultural impact that fan discussions of Star Trek continuity errors . Bwithh 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If its okay with you two (Ritchy and David) I'm going to move the discussion stemming from Ritchy's point to the talk page where specific examples can be discussed and I'll leave this comment and put a note at the top mentioning that additional information can be found on the talk page? Just to keep it a little cleaner and more maneagable for people to vote. I'm not sure if there is policy against that, but I don't want to have some unwieldy discussion going on why people are trying to express their delete or keep opinions.

Yep, please do. David L Rattigan 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you dont want people to read it so you can get what you want, hmm. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted that, I wouldn't be linking at the top and leaving this comment in place. --Crossmr 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has just made two points, can you not read? Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, can we dispense with the personal attacks already? David L Rattigan 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your talk page full of several mentions of WP:CIVIL. It seems you still haven't gotten around to reading it. The fact that this article isn't solid has already been address several times. If you have something to add to this discussion I welcome it. If you're just here to continue the behaviour you've displayed elsewhere I'm going to kindly ask you to leave. --Crossmr 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, this is something people want to read about though, no one wants to read about you toe (bad comparison), so your childishness is totally inappropriate on here, let's try to debate this like adults. Thankyoubaby 05:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am debating it like an adult. I was illustrating the point that hard work doesn't justify the keeping of an article if it has problems that make it inappropriate for wikipedia. If you'd like to debate like an adult, why don't you provide some adult reasons on why it should be kept? As its been pointed out by endless people it violates WP:OR and WP:V and no amount of "hard work" justifies keeping it with those problems --Crossmr 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transport send to Memory Alpha. Fancruft AND Original research. Not quite a hat trick, but bad enough. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant transwiki to Memory Alpha. The amount of weasel words and OR in this article is just too much for me. May consider keeping it if someone gets rid of the OR problems. BryanG(talk) 06:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately there is so much OR in there, I think it is going to be very hard for someone to get it up to Wikipedia standards, as it's going to have to include references to verifiable sources for every one of the claims. My best suggestion is that someone take it into their userspace where they can work on building up the references, and then repost the article when it is in shape. It is such a mammoth task, it would be unfair to leave it in the namespace while people try to build up some sources. David L Rattigan 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, no matter what. The subject and overdetailed writing into apparent continuity flubs in a television series is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Of interest to Star Trek fans and those who wonder why it was considered a 'controversial' Star Trek show. Magic Pickle 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
which is exactly what cruft addresses. Things that are of interest only to those within a small group aren't appropriate for wikipedia. --Crossmr 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A general reader who reads that the show was considered controversial in a canonical sense may be interested to know what the issues were. Without this article they will not know what those issues were.Magic Pickle 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is the only source of that information and you believe that, you should change your opinion to delete. That would imply this article is the sole location of this information and thus original research as defined by the policies of wikipedia. Thank you for making the case for us. --Crossmr 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This information is available at other sources. Magic Pickle 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then they would have access to this information without this article then? If the opinions and justifications and drawn conclusions are available in another credible form please source them. That is the crux of the problem with this article. --Crossmr 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your definition of credible source - for which Wikipedia has guidelines, but not policies. But on a more positive note, if the article is deleted does anyone have a web site where we can host it? Cheers. Magic Pickle 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 The guideline Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_online_sources points to this as the governing policy. Since none of these fans have likely had their opinions published by a credible 3rd party, they can't be used in the article to support the conclusions drawn as they are a tertiary source. As for keeping the material. I believe Ritchy mentioned he'd kept the material and you could contact him for a copy if you wish. David also mentioned you could take it to your user space (paste it in your userpage if you want with comment tags around it, or keep it in a subpage to work on if you like)--Crossmr 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia guidelines the information in various licensed Trek reference works would count as a verifiable/credible source, yet as all good Trekkies know, they are not considered canon. Magic Pickle 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the article isn't quoting licensed trek reference works. Its citing fan opinions, likely derived from posts on message boards. Its also drawing conclusions which aren't sourced at all.--Crossmr 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. well I could dig out my encyclopaedias and whatnot and reference the conflicts with Enterprise, using those sources, I suppose. Magic Pickle 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem. No one will. They just leave it and it looks like unsourced OR and unsourced opinion. If there IS a credible publication that actually details this information it would be good. The alternative is to trim it down and if its more than a stub, rename it to something like "Star Trek: Conflicting Canon" and just list some of the encyclopedias that cover it as further reading. --Crossmr 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning? --Crossmr 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, I'm not sure on the normal wait time between listing and relisting, but as this is the 3rd AFD I'd like to reach an actual concensus which means giving those who don't read previous AFDs a chance to weigh in. --Crossmr 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I acknowledge and commend the hard work that went into this article, but, alas, the content is not suitable for an encyclopaedia, even though Wikipedia is not paper. The original research is nearly inextricable from any other content. Perhaps Memory Alpha can house this, but it's just not for Wikipedia. GassyGuy 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, quite blatantly original research and WP:NOT. The fact that it is reasonably well-written and is formatted properly, and has obviously had a lot of work put into it, does not change the fact that it is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. This won't stop mass voting by Trekkers stalemating it into a no consensus... as usual. (oops, no-one's supposed to admit that AFD is actually still a vote tally done by the closing admin are they? It is officially a 'discussion' now, isn't it). - Motor (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the sole basis that it has survived several previous AFD attempts. I no longer contribute to this article (which originated as a breakaway article to reduce the length of the main article), and I do feel it can be argued that it might no longer be needed. But the fact previous AFD's passed in favor of the article being kept means IMO enough people still feel it has a place, so I vote to keep. 23skidoo 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it on the sole basis it survived previous AFDs? that makes absolutely no sense, especially when you consider it actually failed the last attempt 9 deletes to 7 keeps. It only passed on the generosity of an admin as far as I'm concerned.--Crossmr 17:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's an issue you have to take up with the admin in question. The record still shows it survived AFD. 23skidoo 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well done, but pure WP:OR. Beam up to Trekkie Wiki if so inclined. ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft, send it Memory Alpha if they want it. It's original research, or at best unsourced, and contains a lot of statements like "theories put forward by fans", etc. But I don't buy this argument that putting two contradictory statements next to each other and stating that they contradict constitutes original research. Opabinia regalis 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's said that, Opabinia. Problem with the article is that it doesn't stop at putting statements next to each other and declaring them contradictory. The article goes on to propose harmonisations and interpretations of the data - that's OR. David L Rattigan 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, what I mean is that the expansion on fan-originated theories is the original research, not the list of contradictions in itself. That's just fancruft. Opabinia regalis 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure WP:OR fancruft, sorry. Sandstein 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki. As other commentors have noted, the WP:OR content and use of weasel words ("alleged", "some fans") can't easily be removed from this article. That said, I'm sure it'll find a happy home over on the Star Trek wiki. -- Docether 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's OR. It's as simple as that. The nature of the article invites OR. There have been cleanup tags present for over six months and they haven't helped. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and for what it's worth it doesn't belong on Memory Alpha either because they don't endorse OR. It belongs on fan forums. I tried to clean this up months ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, but even my edit left opinions in (partially my own). This article can't exist without them, and verification of lines such as "many fans suspect..." cannot occur without linking to biased forum discussions. Star Trek should be on Wikipedia. This shouldn't. - Hayter 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. I think this is an excellent article for Memory Alpha, and I'm glad people wrote it, because I've felt the same as the article's authors. But it violates Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy, despite the references. I also think it has a case to make, and thus leans towards one side of the issue (ENT being non-canon). — Mike • 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optional Transwiki. Five references for 35K of text? This is original research. If it has been through two prior AFDs and remains in this shabby state, there is no reason to believe that it will be cleaned up. Finally, this is about fiction, and at least in my opinion the only portion of the article that has any hope of being encyclopedic is the introduction, but without the body the intro isn't article worthy. We already have a summary at Star_Trek:_Enterprise#Continuity, that might be able to use one paragraph (tops) about specific continuity issues. GRBerry 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is pure cruft and OR. After two AFDs, it still hasn't been cleaned up, which seems to imply that it cannot, or at least will not, ever be cleaned up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR - BigDT 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwookie trekkie port to Memory Alpha, if they'll have it, and then delete. Too much original research. In order to be listed here, each point must be noted in a secondary reference. (tv.com and imdb.com might also be interested, if there's a way to preserve the GFDL in so moving.) Make it so! — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. —Ruud 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems quite a bit of effort went into this article. Frankchn 11:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, effort does not mean an article should stay that violates policies or guidelines--Crossmr 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not very encyclopedic, and draws so many conclusions that I'm ready to call this OR. Can be gladly transwikied too if you somehow figure out how to deal with the licensing (Last I checked Memory Alpha isn't GFDL), so it probably needs to be rewritten in that case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tough call, but with cleanup the article can be salvaged. Some of the more egregious speculation needs to be trimmed, though. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, This is the last bump as this will be closed tommorrow. Remember to visit the talk page of this AFD for further discussion --Crossmr 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (transwiki if anyone cares to, natch): don't be fooled; though there are 5 references, they don't back up conclusions of discontinuity, just basic facts about the Star Trek universe. This is original research; it's a new analysis of published work (namely the show), unless the conclusions the article tries to reach can be backed up. Mangojuicetalk 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it you haven't read the article? Because there are a lot more than 5 references. Counting all the episodes referenced in the text, there are over 50 references. -- Ritchy 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the article and I enjoy reading wikipedia for precisely this kind of information. - Richardcavell 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you like the article is immaterial to the discussion. No one here is saying its not a good read. Its the fact that it contains original research and opinion that is the problem. That type of article isn't appropriate for wikipedia. I find it interesting that two admins have left comments that are entirely inappropriate to the discussion and process, one with no comment at all, and the other who justifies keeping an article with no real basis.--Crossmr 05:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
crossmr, do you have to leave a counter-point to every person who votes for keep? let them have their say. Thanks. Magic Pickle 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion not a vote. If someone raises a point, I'm free to discuss that point, especially when the point that is raised has nothing to do with the question at hand. --Crossmr 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 08:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optional Transwiki. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangojuice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I too concur with Mangojuice.--Isotope23 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's original research. It doesn't matter if you reference a few basic Star Trek facts, the gross majority of it is OR, and removing the OR will leave us with nothing about continuity errors. Therefore the article is pointless. I don't care if you 'like reading the article' - many people like reading fiction, but that doesn't mean people should post short stories on Wikipedia, and I hope the closing admin takes into account the abjectness of many of the 'reasons' to keep ('it passed the last AFD'? Irrelevant. 'it's fun to read'? Irrelevant. 'effort had been put into the article?' Irrelevant.) If I were to close this, based on the strength of the above arguments, I would delete it into the ground based on both the conensus and the quality of the arguments, and that is, therefore, my vote. And do not transwiki - what right do we have to treat Memory Alpha as our dumping ground? Proto||type 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even remotely perfect, its completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia, and whether or not you were looking for this information has no bearing on whether or not its kept. When an article is full of original research, opinion, improper sources and can't be verified, no matter how well its written or how interesting it is, there is no justification for keeping it. They've had a year to clean it up, and it didn't happen. There is no evidence anymore time is going to change that. --Crossmr 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"whether or not you were looking for this information has no bearing on whether or not its kept" That right people, the fact it's information people want to read about shouldn't influence the decision on whether or not it deserves an entry in Wikipedia! And am I the only one appreciating Crossmr's hypocrisy? He spends most of the VfD arguing that almost no one cares about this topic, and when people reply that they do care, it’s suddenly not a relevant argument anymore. -- Ritchy 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to read short stories, it doesn't mean they have a place on wikipedia. The fact that it appeals to only a part of a fan community is again only part of the problem with the issue. You're also bordering on the line of personal attacks. If you can't keep it civil, I suggest you stay out of any further discussion--Crossmr 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it appeals only to part of the fan community isn't a problem. Every single article can be said to appeal only to part of the community interested in the overall topic. Oh that's right, I forgot, we're not allowed to consider other articles here, or how your arguments are so broad and aimless that they would allow us to delete most of Wikipedia. And pointing out that your arguments are self-contradicting is a "personal attack", too. So basically, our options here are to agree with you, or "stay out of any further discussion". Well, that certainly sounds fair in a VfD. -- Ritchy 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every single article isn't based on fiction. But even if it wasn't fiction, the original research, opinion and unsourced conclusions wouldn't be permitted in the article. If you want to discuss the article you're free to do so, if you feel the need to discuss me you can stop. Doing that only continues to show the weakness of the article and the need to muddy the waters by trying to make the discussion about something its not. --Crossmr 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolute fancruft and original research as pointed out before. Prior AfD discussions can only guide deliberations and be use as an intepretive aid, they are not precedents. They need to be restricted to their facts because a) they are relevant to an article at a point in time (usually) and b) they are not determinations, but collections of opinions and hopefully consensus. Jammo (SM247) 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important problem involving important show. Also too many renoms and extensions to this discussion. --JJay 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    it was renomed for a reason. To reach a proper concensus rather than have it muddled into the ground. Generating input by relisting doesn't invalidate an AFD. No one here questioned whether the problem wasn't important. The problem is how the article is written and the fact that its had a year to change and hasn't done so. --Crossmr 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one way of looking at it. Another explanation might be that no consensus = no consensus. If the subject is important, as you have claimed, but the problem is the writing, then the article should be edited. It should not be debated endlessly through excessive renominations...and debates should not be left open on AfD indefinitely. --JJay 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No..its the nature of AFDs. When opened, they're left open for 5 days, but the AFD is so busy people often do not go back 3 or 4 days to see what was nominated then. After the first day or two the only people who generally see the AFD are people going to the article who may have a biased opinion and not represent wikipedia as a whole. Renominating the AFD, especially on a controversial subject ensures that you get a more general concensues of what wikipedians feel on the issue rather than it being lopsided. Not relisting the AFD leads to situations where you have fan groups muddle the process and hurt wikipedia because they're able to just show up in a force of a few and muddle the discussion. If admins closed properly and actually considered the arguments on both sides like they were supposed to instead of just tallying it up like a vote (which they'll claim its not) this wouldn't be a problem for many controversial issues. If you read the talk page you'll see that the artcle can't be edited. Its been tried and the nature of this article is that its opinion. There is no cleaning it up. Once you take out all the unsourced opinion, conclusions, etc. you don't really have anything worth being an article. --Crossmr 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion and the informative lesson on AfD history and procedure. Incidentally, I see nothing particularly controversial about this article, nor do I think there is any potential to "hurt" wikipedia, whether it is kept or deleted. I don't think those type of scare tactics are necessary, nor do I think you score any points by attacking admins. The article has been here far longer than you have, and during that time wikimedia has gotten much stronger. I also think your logic is badly flawed concerning relisting, since if everyone relisted on a daily basis, following your lead, it would make a total mess of the process. You further claim you want participation in the discussion, but not from "fan groups" (whatever that means). People interested in a given topic, if that's what you mean by "fan groups", are responsible for contributing almost every article on the site. They should be allowed to speak. Their contribution shoulld not be belittled. In fact, you only want participation from people who agree with your opinion, and you feel entitled to argue with everyone who disagrees. Returning to the article, the talk page gave me no indication at all that this "can't be edited". If the topic is viable (and in this case "important"), the article can be edited. --JJay 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it is and has been for the last year consists mainly of original research and unsourced opinion. That hurts wikipedia, which is why there is a policy against it. My logic isn't flawed. If the article is listed once and forgotten about, on the first day you may get a general idea of what wikipedians feel. I never said I didn't want input from the fan groups, I said that if you leave the AFD that is all you get and it becomes lopsided. Relisting helps balance the AFD and ensure a proper concensus on a controversial issue. It doesn't allow a fan group to stack the discussion by posting to their project page or any other method they may use to keep inappropriate articles on the site. They're free to speak, but this IS a discussion. Any point they make I'm free to counter as that is how a discussion works. To this point as myself and others have poitned out, there hasn't been a single comment made to counter the claim of original research and unsourced opinion. The bulk of the responses have been "keep it because its been worked on hard" or "I like it". These are not valid reasons to ignore WP:OR. As to the talk page, not the talk page of the article, the talk page of this project page. I'm not the only one who has expressed the feeling that this article is beyond saving. There is lots of talk about cleaning it up when its nominated for AFD, but it hasn't been done. --Crossmr 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to repeat your views on the "controversial" nature of the article, or how fan groups are distorting the process, or "hurting" wikipedia. Essentially, it looks to me like you are trying to engage in some type of vote stacking deal by flagging an article you nominated on a daily basis on the AfD page. It is unfortunate that noms feel they have to seek new ways to game the system. Other than that, regarding this article, your opinion has been quite clear. I thank you for restating it. I would encourage you now to continue the "discussion" with some of the delete "voters".--JJay 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm free to continue the discussion with whoever I choose. If I have nothing to say about someone's opinion I won't and if I do, I will. When you are dealing with groups who can sometimes contain over zealous members, sometimes you have to be diligent to ensure a process is fair. For even mentioning that I felt the article wasn't encyclopedic I was attacked on the talk page. I'm also not gaming the system, I'm ensuring a balance to prevent gaming from the other side. I'm also not the only one who feels that fan groups will post in force to muddle debates. I might be gaming the system if I was out actively posting on people's talk pages and speaking with people outside wikipedia encouraging them to come here and vote against this article but I am not. I'm simply using the system laid out to ensure a proper concensus. Maybe you look down on that because with a proper concensus the article will be removed? If you think it has merit, I might suggest you go about editing the article to remove all of the original research, conclusions and unsourced opinion. However at that point the article would likely be too small to be an article on its own and would likely be required to be merged with the Enterprise article. --Crossmr 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, regarding over-zealousness, you have shown me that AfD noms and glazed-eyed Kirk lovers have much in common. I hope you live long and prosper on AfD. --JJay 03:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd question the "original research" point, since the inconsistencies ARE present within the sources. Wikipedia is not a conventional, paper encyclopedia, and has room to appeal to all. Ace of Risk 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inconsistencies are not the OR - it's the conclusions being drawn to explain the inconsistencies that are OR. It's fine to say, X happens and Y happens, but then to start proposing explanations is original analysis. The OR policy is quite clear that new synthesis or analysis is original research. David L Rattigan 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Star Trek continuity problems should have place on this encyclopedia. // Duccio (write me) 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
any particular reason? Wikipedia is no an indiscriminate collection of information. But thats not really the problem with the article. Its the original research and unsourced opinion. I'd be interested to see someone say they want it kept and to actually address the problem with the article --Crossmr 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is not the relevancy of the topic but the lack of sources, I'd like to point out that many ST episodes are cited, like others have already said in this page (see Ritchy's comment, point 8 from top) // Duccio (write me) 15:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the lack of citation on the actual continuity errors its all the conclusions, and unsourced opinions it presents to try and rationalize those. That is the original research and the problem with the article --Crossmr 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's edit the article removing them. But to do so, we have to keep it. // Duccio (write me) 09:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be edited while the AFD is ongoing. In fact its often encouraged. The article has had a year to clean up since the first AFD and hasn't done so. While its been written neater a little more professional, the bulk and purpose of the article is still OR. To remove all of the opinion, conclusions and unsourced information you would end up with likely a very short list. Have a look at the TOC. Thats essentially the length of information that would exist, which would be an unexpandable stub and should be merged with something anyway.--Crossmr 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it. Even the trekkies don't see its value as encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested it be merged with star trek cannon so I'm not sure how that is relevant. And has been pointed out several times, previous AFDs have no bearing on this one. The problem is original research and unsourced opinion which violate wikipedia policy. --Crossmr 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this is a sub-catergory of Star Trek Continuity, which is a valid topic. If there's suspected OR, it needs to be sourced or removed, but this is a legit topic, so delete isn't justified. Ace of Sevens 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an article built from speculation and original research... the nature of the article guarantees it. It is not a legit topic for an encylopedia and should be deleted. - Motor (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Memory alpha has come in to let us know that they don't want it either. To me that should be a big heads up to the closing admin. --Crossmr 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, after spending a week telling us that referencing other Wikipedia articles is not relevant in this VfD, you will not ask us to consider a completely different website, will you? Is there no depth of hypocrisy and doublespeak you will not sink to in your quest to delete pages from Wikipedia? And before you retort "personal attack!", it's not. Personal attack is what you've been doing to every person who voted "keep" on this page. What I'm doing is pointing out that your arguments are so weak that you can't even stand by them yourself. -- Ritchy 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments and those of the others who have argued for deletion have stood on their own. And not one single person has managed to address the issue of unsourced opinion and original research in the article. Countering a person's irrelevant argument isn't a personal attack. That is called discussion. There hasn't been a single good reason to ignore the WP:OR and WP:V issues in this article. What happened at memory alpha only illustrates that this article isn't the important piece of information to the Trek community that some claim it is. Even though its completely irrelevant to the discussion if the people insisting on keep feel the need to bring it up, then something equally irrelevant can be brought up to counter that point. In 5 days all we've gotten from the keep side is "Just because" and "I like its" and "I worked really hard on it". These points thrown against WP:OR and WP:V are as relevant as saying "We should keep this article because I'm wearing blue shorts today". So if you want to continue to put forth irrelevant points and pretend they have some meaning in this context, well I don't think you get to have a monopoly on that. You were given an opportunity on the talk page to continue the discussion on the points of OR and V, and when the picture was drawn very clearly for you, you stopped talking. So I commend you for at least making the effort to actually try and defend the article and the point you tried to make, but no one has come up with a good reason for keep in the face of that, nor have they gone ahead and improved the article by removing that content even though a couple have claimed its salvageable. --Crossmr 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page has now been deleted from Memory Alpha. Their discussion can be seen here. -- MemoryAlpha:User:Jaz, Josh a z 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sow with salt; we don't need OR, unverifiable TrekCruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks this article is going to go the way of the dodo. I would advise anyone who is seriously interested in cleaning it up (ie finding verifiable citations to all the original claims it makes) to save it to their userspace before it disappears. Whether someone does that and makes the necessary (drastic) changes will be the true test of whether those who have argued it should stay and merely be cleaned up are really serious about bringing it up to Wiki standards. David L Rattigan 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So is it OR or copyvio? If it's copyvio, then the article needs to be deleted/rebooted regardless, but I haven't seen the proof of such as claimed on Star Trek Wiki and (lately) here. If it's OR, then perhaps elements of it can be re-integrated into the Enterprise article. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio was only pertaining to the discussion on memory-alpha. He was just pointing out that they weren't interested in it even before it was discovered that it was a copy of the work from here, and considered a copyvio by them. The problem here is just the OR. If someone wanted to make a very basic and sourced list of the opposing items and include it as a section of the enterprise article (As it shouldn't be very long) that would be fine as long as it didn't turn into another bit of justifications and opinions, etc. --Crossmr 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the way forward. So we would have: TOS Episode says A, notably Enterprise episode says B, without further comment. I do believe that this neutral approach can be more than a stub. As an example I will do a rewrite here of the Cloaking section:

Cloaking In the episode "Balance of Terror" (TOS) Spock states that such technology had been, until then, only a theoretical possibility: "Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain — selectively bending light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that. " Yet previous to this, the NX-01 encountered several races with cloaking technology, and even took possession of and used a cloaking pod from the Suliban. In the episode "Minefield" (ENT), the crew of the NX-01 encounters a Romulan ship with cloaking abilities as well as a cloaked Romulan mine field.

-Would we agree that there is no OR in the above passage? If so can we not do a similar job on the other sections? Thanks Magic Pickle 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clean up the usage of "several" its ambiguous it could be 3 it could be 10. The quote doesn't add anything to the paragraph it just serves to lengthen it, its already been stated what Spock said and it what episode. I'm also not sure I like the "Yet previous to this" transition. It gives the wrong tone to me. I'll think about that. --Crossmr 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - How about this:

'In the episode "Balance of Terror" (TOS) Spock states that such technology had been, until then, only a theoretical possibility. Previous to this, the NX-01 encountered races with cloaking technology, and even took possession of and used a cloaking pod from the Suliban. In the episode "Minefield" (ENT), the crew of the NX-01 encounters a Romulan ship with cloaking abilities as well as a cloaked Romulan mine field. '

Any good? I'm happy to remove the quote from Spock - but I know you want it all referenced and that. Magic Pickle 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is better. You can quote how many races Enterprise encountered if you wish, thats factual. I think thought it was just the Romulans and the Suliban? --Crossmr 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the new-cut down version of Cloaking (above) to the article. I respectfully submit that it contains no OR, and that if the rest of the sections were rewritten in a similar way, they would be more than a stub. If no-one else volunteers I guess I could do it - but I would need a few days. Magic Pickle 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably do have that time. THere is currently a major backlog on the AFDs, and the relisting I did actually extends the AFD. It isn't scheduled to close for another 24 hours or so, but there is a 3 or 4 day backlog beyond that. We should also consider a new name for the article, because alleged is a loaded word, and like someone mentioned perhaps this could be made into a broader article to cite all Canon contradictions between all series. Continuity Contradictions is a neutral term, it could be spiced up a little if needed as long as the tone and meaning aren't changed. --Crossmr 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Here's another attempt which I will add to the article. If others want to revert they can.

Weapon technology According to "Balance of Terror" (TOS), the Earth-Romulan War which took place around the time of ENT was fought using atomic weapons. However, the NX-01 is armed with futuristic 'phase cannons' and 'photonic torpedoes', and the Romulan ships seen in ENT have a similar armament.

-No OR in that, I think... (I hope) Magic Pickle 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might take out "According to" it makes it sound authoritative or correct. When writing try to make it so that you could transpose the two contradictions in the paragraph without changing how one might interpret it. Using "In" there or some derivative of that would be more appropriate. Its also unneccessary to put attention on phase cannons or photonic torpedos like that. Perhaps refer to them as energy-based weapons, everything about the series is futuristic. Something like this:

Weapon Technology In "Balance of Terror" (TOS), reference is made to an Earth-Romulan War which took place around the time of ENT, it was reported to have been fought using atomic weapons. Through-out the series the NX-01 is armed with phase cannons and photonic torpedos both energy-based weapons. The romulan vessels are also similarly armed. --Crossmr 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete or Merge: Most of the subtopics in this article have their own entries (c.f. Borg and Ferengi). If you strip out the POV, unsourced hypotheses, and debatable conclustions, portions of this article could make sense as subsections of those more specific articles. Wikipedia shouldn't be defending away Star Trek's writers' mistakes (which parts of this article seem determined to do), but describing them seems legitimate, as long as it doesn't turn into crazy fan-nitpicking. Michael Bauser 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. If you think it tries to explain away the writers mistakes now, you should have seen it when Hayter was editing it. :-) Magic Pickle 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. I guess it won't end up on Memory Alpha, but that might be a precedent that is wirth following. Eluchil404 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to stand on its own merits. You can't justify keeping it just because we some other equally pointless article.--Crossmr 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INCL for an explanation some of us have been working on with regard to this salient point. Jammo (SM247) 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to imitate crossmr for one second: could you explain your reasoning? Magic Pickle 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have asked that same question in a much different manner. Make sure you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Crossmr 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not intended as a personal attack, crossmr, merely a homage. Magic Pickle 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're on the other side of the debate, you'll forgive me if I don't view it as that. --Crossmr 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you. Magic Pickle 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Players who have converted from one football code to another. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of football converts

[edit]

duplicated info and better dealt with at Players who have converted from one football code to another. I initially changed it to a redirect and then reverted back to get a consensus. Colin Scotts is the only one not on the main list, and he didn't really convert as such anyway. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal magicko

[edit]

Not notable, advertisement. After browsing the site I found this "We have 277 registered users". Also the website isn't in english at all. Andeh 03:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in Pokémon

[edit]

Not notable. Arbitrary criteria. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. No actual references or sources. No verifiability. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Before we start, let's get a few things straight:
    • The last time it was put up for AfD was November. No concerns about short time spans between AfDs this time around, please.
    • Deleting this will not cause the sudden existence of multiple shit articles. This is not a merge target.
    • There is no verifiability whatsoever, and this will not improve with time.
    • Every time it has been up for AfD, there was no consensus, with many keeps relating to things irrelevant to the actual article: Pokémon Hydra fear, and time spans between AfDs that didn't satisfy some.
My nomination counts as a delete vote. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alofoque

[edit]

Non-notable band. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alofoque for a translation of the source for the claim of their appearances. This is a group with no albums, and the only source we have for their tour appears to be a press release/booking solicitation for the band. Previous AfD was closed early due to speedy deletion of the article; at the time, the source mentioned the "tour" but the article did not. However, the speedy deletion has been reversed now, but as the previous AfD was closed, we have to start over. This article is blatant promotion of a non-notable group. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1965-1968 were in Wiki, so wouldn't judge this until 2046. Snugspout 14:24, 16 June 2006 (OTC)

  • Delete - They've released nothing, there's no decent sources. They absolutely haven't toured internationally as claimed above. Playing a gig at various bars in another country doesn't an international tour make. The local music bar had an Irish band in recently, OMG INTERNATIONAL TOUR. - Hahnchen 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. So even though they toured internationally, they...didn't? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trying to promote themselves in a foreign country is not an international concert tour. The difference is, in an international tour, people go specifically to see them, these guys just show up at clubs. According to your definitions of an international tour, any half baked school choir who have been abroad are international sensations. - Hahnchen 13:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They'd meet the touring requirements, sure. And you don't think people go to see groups at clubs? That's an interesting rationale. You don't listen to much obscure music, do you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You'd be surprised, I listen to a lot of obscure music, although not as obscure as alofoque. Bands do promos at clubs and bars all the time, doesn't mean they're notable. And the majority of the audience don't goto clubs to see a group that plays a 10 minute set, shouts "I LOVE YOU COVENTRY (mispronounced)" and then proceeds to hand out flyers to the people who just wish the DJ would get back to business. - Hahnchen 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, toured internationally have they? Got some reliable press sources for that? Playing a bar abroad does not make an international tour. If you don't have any sources to suggest an "international tour" then it fails WP:MUSIC. Ephemeral bands may well be interesting, but as far as an encylopedia goes they are cruft, and cruft with no reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for plugging wannabees. - Motor (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem as I see it is in interpreting the language at WP:MUSIC: "international concert tour." There is no guidance on what this includes and I think there needs to be based on this afd. A number of bands I have known (in college etc.)—completely non-notable in every way and which never garnered any wide fame—went on "tour," playing gigs in bars and other small venues in other countries. Does this fit the "international concert tour" standard? I think not, and it fails the 'Potter Stewart test' of notability. This is separate from the question here of whether the source of the reported tour is reliable. I would propose that we think about giving the ambiguous phrase some limiting parameters. A band that has played a few gigs in other countries but is not famous by any standard should not have a loophole claim for notability solely based on their ability to travel --Fuhghettaboutit 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think that if a band has shown initiative to tour outside of their "home base" if you will, it shows that they're not some random guitar band. The WP:MUSIC guidelines are designed so bands with some assertion of nobility can be kept, it's not designed to keep bands and groups like this, who appear to do some actual touring in and out of their "home base." I have no clue what the "Potter Stewart test" is, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their initiative is irrelevant, their actual notability is not. Likewise, WP:MUSIC guidelines are not designed so that bands with assertions of notability can be kept, the guidelines are an attempt to define standards for what is notable; assertions of notability simply take an article of the no-investigation-necessary-to-delete, speedy criteria. Potter Stewart was a U.S. Supreme Court justice best known for his opinion in an obscenity case, where he said in sum and substance that it's hard to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it. The concept has become generalized. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Knew the case, not who said it. It's interesting to note that it was probably one of the single worst rulings ever, and I'm appalled that it's being applied here. Regardless, I think the basic standards here have been met. If you want to change the basic standard, I think it's a discussion at WP:MUSIC, not here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I'm not proposing changing the standard. I'm saying that your citation and interpretation of the words "international concert tour" is idiosyncratic and overbroad but understandable given the lack of interpretive guidance for that expression. The standard should not be changed. It should, however, be given the clarity necessary so that people don't make the mistake of thinking, at the extremes of rationalizing interpretation, that a band which plays in someone's backyard in another country has met that standard. A band that has played a series of nightclubs abroad is not, I think, what is meant by "international concert tour".--Fuhghettaboutit 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so what kind of venues are okay for you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How bout those that imply notability? I know, that sounds tautological. Look: Notability is not conferred by playing or not playing in certain venues but by what the type of venues played in implies about a band's importance. Things are notable because of their impact. The criteria is used not to show that things are notable because they meet the criteria; rather, because notability is difficult to measure, they set forth criteria that things that are notable tend to share so that we can recognize their notability. So we can't take an autocratic approach and apply standards blindly. In the case of bands, you know that booking at bars and the like is easily done by band solicitation. Filling a 30,000 seat stadium is done by invite because the band is already recognized as important by third parties. There is a middle ground between these two, and it is to that knife's edge that we have to apply some pure Potter Stewart judgment, which is why afd's on articles which are not clearly one way or the other are difficult. Here we have indicia of the band being nobodies (google lack of results, etc.), and no reliable source but an online radio write up existing in a vacuum, and what text there is doesn't give us anything but nightclubs and local appearances. We're meausuring whether the band is well known, cited, thought about, referenced, influential, groundbreaking, etc. Since playing in nightclubs doesn't help us measure this, it's a poor basis for establishing notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, for one, even some of the most notable local venues (for instance, I'm in the Boston area, and the Middle East is a very well known club, and is mostly booked - even by quite notable indie bands - by "band solicitiation." At some point, we simply have to recognize that the touring requirement is designed for bands that take the initiative to expand their notability as opposed to possibly using Wikipedia as a springboard. In the example of this band, however, calling a band that doesn't speak the english language and which plays a rather obscure form of reggae nobodies because we struggle to find sources we can read is a bit much. We obviously disagree on this one, and that's fine as a matter of interpretation, but I do feel you're being unnecessarily - and possibly unrealistically - strict on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I say nobody, I mean it in the sense of notability— they are nobodies the same way I am a nobody. But I think you're right, that that might have been a poorly thought out vocabulary choice. Look's like the article will be kept on no consensus anyway. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a no consensus defaulting to keep would be a bad result: we should be able to get to a consensus here, if enough people participate. Mangojuicetalk 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by KimvdLinde. Yanksox (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lachesis Falling

[edit]

non-notable [17] website/online game. Fails WP:WEB. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sohh

[edit]

(As of this version) Unencyclopedic. The whole page is full of nonsense, and libelous comments. Also, an article about the posters of an online forum is not encyclopedic. --Ragib 04:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Protomen

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protomen for the last time this was deleted. This has been deleted many times before and nothing has changed since then. Delete again. Wickethewok 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. To say that the Protomen have gone unnoticed by a large portion of society is an extremely ignorant statement, one which I believe would be awful for a longtime user of Wikipedia to say. As this place has been created to provide the masses with information about everything that can be documented, would it not be proper to include even the most unknown bands that exist? The Protomen, however, are by far well-known, especially when compared to the three-piece group down the street that broke up after a gig. The aforementioned publication, Nintendo Power, has been in print since 1988, and has millions of subscribers. Many start-up bands who happen to receive some attention in professional music-oriented magazines usually do not receive as much press. Furthermore, the website GameSpot.com has linked to the Protomen's website, a small piece of advertising provided by a community which receives hundreds of thousands of hits on a daily basis. As if that weren't enough, nuklearpower.com has a similarly high number of unique hits every day, and they, too, have mentioned the Protomen. On one occasion, the sheer amount of traffic that the site endured put it under, yet it was not run on a home-based server with very little bandwith; it is, in fact, hosted by a professional hosting company. Also, the band has sold out of several pressings of their albums already, which is more than some artists manage even if they are licensed by a significant label. On top of that, they have sold their albums to people all around the world, ranging from places like Japan to Sweden. Though they have not toured internationally, they have in fact toured in several different states. Therefore, I conclude that they are not in fact a simple "garage band" and do not deserve to be labeled as such, nor should their Wikipedia article be deleted. --RazMasters 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... please see WP:MUSIC regarding notability... no one is saying they are not notable, period... they just aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia... no offense, but we can't let just any garage band have an article, not that they are "just a garage band"... maybe a little later once that fan base has grown some more, and they have a couple more albums, tours, and magazine articles under their belt(s)... - Adolphus79 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree against the requirement of needing more magazine articles under their belt. Wiki states that multiple features are needed, but does not specify a number. Two should by all rights count as multiple. Additionally, in regards to tours: the band has traveled to other states for shows, most recently to Clarksville, Indiana. As for a wider fan base, fans have traveled from literally all over the country (I happen to be from Arizona myself) to be present at their performances. The band has shipped many copies of its album overseas. Even if one might consider them to be a 'garage band', then one would have to conclude that they even more notable for being a garage band that fits these criteria. User:soyenhighmount Soyenhighmount 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am strongly against the deletion of this article. Two different charges have been leveled against it: That the band is not noteable enough, and that the article is a repost of a previously deleted article. First off, The Protomen are notable. As stated in the article, the band has had articles published about them in Nintendo Power, Mix Magazine, and other various publications. The concept behind the band is unique, and their popularity is growing rapidly, especially for such an independent, underground production. The main avenue for gaining new fans is the internet, and as such, they have been linked to from popular internet sites. Most importantly, they have many devoted fans and are gaining more every day. Secondly, this article is certainly not merely a repost of a previously deleted article. It is newly written. Even if it were a repost, it has been modified enough since its creation so as to disqualify this charge. This article should not be deleted; please reconsider. --Timzor 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: user Timzor's 8th edit, of which 7 are related to this band somehow (page edits, redirs, etc). ~Marblespire 05:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it happens, I have used Wikipedia for a while. However, I mostly confined myself to reading and making anonymous edits. It was only recently that I decided to create an account for myself, and since then have mostly been concentrating on making this article suitable for wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure what the point of your note is, seeing as how we're worried about an article, not me. --Timzor 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The number of edits you have is relavent to a certain point. A user that votes in Afd but has less than about 20 edits is often a sockpuppet of another user that is being used to fake consensus. While this is not always the case, it should always be noted during discussion.--SomeStranger(t|c) 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nintendo power is pretty big as far as magazines go. They have a large reader base and just the fact that they covered the Protomen says something about the attention they are getting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.97.239 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per adolphus. I just don't see much of anything on Google showing more than a local fame. AdamBiswanger1 05:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CODENAME:Adolphus79 and CODENAME:AdamBiswanger1. ~ trialsanderrors
  • Delete, per Adolphus79 and AdamBiswanger1. --Coredesat 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 12:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't quite fit for a speedy, sadly, as it's not the same unencyclopaedic garbage as it was last time. Although I really like the name ... Proto||type 13:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the deletes above. Nice concept for a band, hope it works out for them. Tychocat 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Snugspout 14:26, 16 June 2006 (OTC)
  • 'Response - We all understand that, but you've left this as your response to many AFDs. "Wikipedia is not paper" is not a justification to keep anything/everything. I for one would appreciate it if you left more detailed responses in the future. Simply "because Wikipedia has more space" isn't good enough for me. Wickethewok 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, fails in a fairly profound manner in attempting to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines.--Auger Martel 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As if my former entry on this page were not enough, as people are stating that the band does not meet the criteria mentioned in the linked-to article, here's what they do meet: 1. "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." 2. "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." (They have been played on true radio stations, not simply internet stations, although they were independents.) 3. "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." (The Protomen have written all of their own works.) 4. "Has been the subject of a biography published as a book, or has several articles by at least 2 different authors in the peer reviewed publications." (They have been reviewed in published newspapers; even if said newspapers were independent, they were printed papers nonetheless, which were distributed to potentially hundreds of people.) 5. "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." (As mentioned in my previous post, they include: Nintendo Power magazine, GameSpot.com, NuklearPower.com, and several unmentioned independent sites.) There are five reasons alone, but the Protomen could roughly qualify under some of the others, if one were to be loose with the rules. This would not be a bad thing to do, as: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." And that is per the Wikipedia article on deletion itself. Therefore, I reiterate that their page does not deserve to be deleted. --RazMasters 10:04AM, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've struck out your Keep above as that could be construed as trying to render 2 opinions, which is not allowed. Assuming Good faith that it was just an oversight on your part. You would also help your case if you could provide evidence to back up your claims... for instance, some sort of proof that they have "...been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." Personally, I think your strongest argument is #2 if it can be verified... or #4 (cites for #1 appear to be trivial & #3 is self-referential for a band) --Isotope23 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for striking out the Keep, as I did indeed not know that it could be counted as a second vote. As for #1, I do not understand how one could view a publication such as Nintendo Power as being trivial when few magazines published in the United States have as large of a reader base. It's in the millions, and the magazine has been in publication for nearly ten years now. People of all ages and from all over the world read it. They were not just mentioned in passing, either; the Protomen had an entire article dedicated to them in issue #201. As for the radio station information, I will get that and post it by the end of today if possible. The same goes for the reviews. RazMasters 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wasn't refering to the magazine as trivial, I was referring to the article... Though a full article would not be "trivial" if it were at least a couple of pages and not just a blurb. I will look into it. Also, were there several full page articles about them in NP or other magazines? The criteria is "multiple non-trivial..." I'm willing to look at any evidence you can provide that proves they meet WP:MUSIC and I will change my opinion if verifiable evidence establishing them as meeting WP:MUSIC is provided.--Isotope23 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band has been featured in magazines, and will be featured in more. If you want something to be written better, to your liking, deleting it won't help. Edit, help the cause. The Protomen are notable, though new and have been linked off of websites that have their own Wiki here, like 8-bit Theatre. Quick googling doesn't prove much. They deserve more of a chance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.64.230 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This band will be much mroe well known with the release of their second album. And they are already making huge waves in internet communities. The fact that they have been linked by sites like 8 Bit Theater (which is huge) bespeaks their reach. --Lazarus Plus 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC) User's 14th edit in 7 months[reply]
  • Keep Being from Newfoundland, Canada, and knowing of The Protomen, I assure you is a notable band. Many of my friends and co-workers enjoy The Protoman. Keep them on here. Dwyn 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)User's first edits.[reply]
  • Delete The proliferation of band pages for bands of zero importance must be cut into with an axe. If some decent evidence of importance can be found from anything other than their own propoganda, reconsider. I have the good sense not to make a page for my own terrible band - an stellar example for others.WilyD 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Evidence has already been provided and all of it can be easily verified. RazMasters 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Considering that the assertion above is false, please rest assured that I continue to be of the opinion that the correct action is to delete the vaniety band page. There's zero evidence of encyclopaedic worthiness, and this discussion is making me feel like I'm in the state of Denmark WilyD 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The information I have provided is not false. It is all authentic. The websites can be visited for verification, and Nintendo Power is indeed a very real magazine. Additional information will be provided in the near future (ideally, by the end of the day), as well. RazMasters 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Try reading what I wrote. The statement Evidence has already been provided and all of it can be easily verified. was false, and I thus identified it as such. WilyD 03:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I must apologize, as I did not know that opening a widely published magazine (available everywhere from supermarkets to specialty stores) to turn to page 91, or visiting websites and conducting a search, were extremely difficult things. May I rephrase, then, and say that the evidence has already been provided, but simply must be checked, and is unfortunately extremely difficult to get due to its accessible nature? RazMasters 04:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I think you'll find that assumptions about the physical availability of a magazine are going to be fraught with difficulty - not everyone lives in your hamlet. Additionally It's on the interweb, somewhere isn't something most people will spend their day tracking down, some of us have jobs. WilyD 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I learned of Protomen through no direct advertisement or promotion of the band itself. They were featured in issue #201 of Nintendo Power. I am located in Florida, have never met nor spoken to directly anyone affiliated with this band yet their influence has reached me this far. This article should remain.Draxis 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - The Protomen were also featured in the April 2006 issue of Mix, a magazine in publish since at least 1999. If you Google "Protomen" you will find about 13,800 returns almost all of which upon random inspections appear to be in direct relation to this band. Google of the bands technical name, "The Protomen", still returns 10,900 unique webpages. Draxis 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. "The Protomen" gives 12,200 total pages, but only 264 are unique. I don't know if anything (aside from a word like "sex" or "cheese" or "Smith") would get 10,900 unique hits. -- Kicking222 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you! I've been a Wiki reader for a while but my feelings on this topic have somewhat inspired me to begin edited and posting my thoughts and make an effort to learn all the code. Thank you for the welcome.Draxis 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Disagree, and have provided an argument as to why. I have yet to see a sufficient counter-argument; most are choosing to simply quote a link without explaining themselves. RazMasters 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps The Protomen were non-notable six months ago, and perhaps even three months ago. However, after three unique waves (that I have been aware of) of rising popularity since last October, The Protomen are no longer non-notable. As mentioned, popular sites such as nuklearpowered/8_Bit_Theatre have linked to the band, and mention has also appeared on other notable sites, including the Machinae_supremacy boards, at the bottom of a Gamespot article, and on the now-defunct cult boards at Penny_Arcade. In late October/early November, a number of popular videogame blogs, including Kotaku, picked up an article written for the Radio Free Internet blog about The Protomen (article available here: http://radiofreeinternet.imjasonh.com/index.php/archives/2005/11/08/89/ ). In addition, dozens of independent blogs across the country have made posts proclaiming the strength of the message that The Protomen present through their music. Some fans were so-compelled to see the band live this past April that they traveled more than five hundred miles to Nashville for their first live show post-Internet-celebrity. I am one such person, having driven just over one thousand miles round-trip from Chicago. Of course, such factors are personal; apparently, via the wiki music guidelines, even the strongest up-and-coming bands are doomed for deletion until some arbitrary numeric popularity is achieved (via some common form media representation, regardless of community support). At the very least, as a Chicago native, I wonder how Chicago-local band Russian Circles, acknowledging they play excellent music, can obtain secure wiki status where The Protomen must fight (indeed, in accord with the quick-sniping tone of most delete votes) even though, as I have personally seen, The Protomen have a wider worldwide following (though more scattered), and a more important message--though, again, personal feelings seem to sway little here. As far as traditional evidence: I have sent a scan of the Nintendo Power article to RazMasters (who mentioned intention of acquiring the article to subsequently post) as proof of this article's existence. I also submit a link to a recording of the local-channel broadcast that was previously mentioned, which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4B8te4gu4Q which is still a recording of a local program, but I have trouble seeing how the continuous viral-media-style spread of The Protomen's popularity, at this point, fails to constitute notability. The Protomen have defined a new genre, achieved a following that has been producing a wide variety of fan-art since January, and have sold out of copies of their album at least twice since October. In the sad event this community does, in fact, decide The Protomen have yet to achieve their popularity at this point, all who are posting for deletion should be aware that they will attain notability eventually--and probably sooner than later, with a wave of shows being planned for this coming October.Rohsiph 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
  • Keep As quoted from WP:MUSIC which everyone says they do not meet: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." and as has been previously stated several times, they were featured in both Nintendo Power, and Mix Magazine. Minirogue 00:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Number of Protomen fans on last.fm: 550. Number of fans for AIDS Wolf, another band up for deletion: 1175. ~ trialsanderrors 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As even the highest ranking bands on the last.fm charts have had 200,000 downloads or less, I would not consider last.fm a worthwhile source to reference (whether for positive or negative reasons). Also, judging by their Wikipedia article, AIDS Wolf fails to meet many of the criteria which the Protomen have met or surpassed. RazMasters 08:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not seen any more postings here to indicate additional opinions swaying in one direction or the other; therefore, I'm going to assume (for now) that the article will not be deleted. In the very near future, I will add more information to the Protomen article itself, including those bits I've linked to elsewhere in this discussion. RazMasters 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't really meet WP:MUSIC, and the proffered evidence is mighty weak. The MIX article, for example, seems mostly about the department of Middle Tennessee State University that the group springs from. And playing for a 100-watt student station? Could anyone outside the dorms pick up the signal? --Calton | Talk 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the full page article in Nintendo Power was enough alone to justify notability. Everyone needs to realize that those of us whom know of this band live in separate states and even countries because of the media and press this band has received recently. You can shoot down two of our sources if you'd like, but theres still all the other sources that are featured right here in Wikipedia and we only need one of them to prove notability. I also have to disagree with you on the Mix Magazine article, there was quite a bit of information available about The Protomen, enough to get another bunch of fans anyway. Draxis 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you've simply stated that the article seems to be entirely about the university, does that mean you haven't read it in its entirety? The article opens (as many do) by leading the reader to their destination, which is a meeting with the Protomen. Also, you've cited the Mix Magazine as an example, but have neglected to mention the worldwide press that it proffers; additionally, by not commenting on the Nintendo Power article, you seem to be ignoring that as well. As aforementioned, Nintendo Power has millions of readers all over the world. Mix Magazine is published in dozens of countries. How much "stronger" must their evidence be? It does meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC, and we have explained why. Outside of people voicing their personal opinion, I have seen no one manage to effectively counter what's been said in the Protomen's favor. (And as for the radio station mentioned, it is also broadcast live over the internet, meaning that its potential listener base is limited only by what their servers can allow.) RazMasters 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, WP:MUSIC requires multiple sources, so you need more than one to prove they meet the WP:MUSIC criteria on that particular point.--Isotope23 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please keep in mind the last five paragraphs on Mix Magazine are in direct reference of The Protomen and it's band members. There is even a picture of their frontman, Panther, featured in the article. Ironically, it even calls The Protomen a "notable band" in the article itself. Keep in mind all the information about McDonald is in fact about The Protomen, as he is a member. This and Nintendo Power is two non-minor articles that were physically published and distributed in multiple countries. I do not believe you can dismiss the five paragraph read on the band as being trivial, given it is giving the band high praise and includes a picture as well as a fairly lengthy read in and of itself. Combined that with very large and notable online sources (including, but not limited to gamespot, penny-arcade, and others) spreading the word of the band and what you have is alot of publicity that the band itself did not attempt to generate. It is through these sources that almost all of us have found The Protomen (from all around the world) and many more will no doubt continue to do so. I could see how all this could be dismissed if it were mere advertisements created by the band itself, but that is most certainly not the case. I believe this bands popularlity and non-self generated coverage is being sorely underestimated. Draxis 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment As Draxis has stated, more than one source has been cited. RazMasters 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having been watching this discussion for some time, i decided to look over the WP:Music criteria and I feel that they have met the following: Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media ((as was verified by the Nintendo Power and Mix Mag articles)), Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. ((While im not sure if this can be verified, they have become quite reputable for their style in the articles that mention them, so i apologize if this does not fit for them)) Scathien

  • (To the tune of Hot Pockets jingle) Watcha gonna pick? Sockpuppet! Users first edit. Anyways, according to official Wikipedia policy regarding the subject at hand, "Neither a sock puppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is considered a member of the Wikipedia...". Just letting you guys know whats up. Wickethewok 12:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I'm still a "sock puppet" too, eh? Me and this guy should start a club. If you're going to accuse someone of being a puppet, mayhaps you could at least spare us your jokes. -Timzor 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could really care less if someone accuses me of sockpuppetry, ive already read the whole deal about it and why my comments and/or votes may be ignored *shrugs* its just a part of the game i suppose, even if my arguements are supposedly useable, its up to the moderator to decide if what i have to say is valid anyway, not some guy who gets his kicks out of pointing out that someone has their hand up a sock's backside Scathien
  • Comment He's pretty much just repeated what the rest of us have been saying. I still strongly feel both of those criteria have been met. While you can argue the later, I don't believe it can be argued at this point that they have been featured in multiple non-trivial publications. This next statement is not directed at Wicke, it's in general: I have seen no valid argument beyond linking to WP:Music or claims of sockpuppetry. This is not a vote, anyone whom is a sockpuppet is irrelevant. Our defense supported by facts has been presented. I have not seen a single person provide any compelling argument as to why these two criteria (among other things that would prove notability) are not legitimate and honestly I don't think that's going to happen given the strength of the "multiple non-trivial publications" argument. People can continue to point fingers at sockpuppets, they can continue to link to the WP:Music but the fact remains we have provided factual resources and proof; these are the things that must be defeated, not each individual user in this debate. Just a reminder. :) Draxis 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements, and it bothers me how thin and almost deceptive RazMaster's evidence is. The Mix Magazine article isn't even about The Protomen; they're just mentioned in passing. Sorry, RazMasters, I understand that you're a fan and you're trying to slip this one by in any way you possibly can, but I've looked at the evidence and this is not notable. TomTheHand 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The entire last five paragraphs are about The Protomen. Panther & McDonald are members of the band. Please review the article and reconsider your statement. There is also a full page spread article above on the band from Nintendo Power and links to other notable internet-based media and press sites. Draxis 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reviewed, reconsidered, and still saying delete. TomTheHand 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please review my above comments. You have still given NO indication of either why the Mix Magazine article is trivial in your opinion (given five paragraphs about the band, they seem pretty featured in an article to me) nor any inclusion of the other sources we have confirmed and presented here in this debate. Draxis 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have to defend myself to you. I feel that a five-paragraph blurb is trivial, and non-trivial coverage would consist of two or three pages. WP:MUSIC does not say "Has had more than 250 words written about it in reliable and reputable media," so I have the right to my own interpretation of non-trivial coverage. Similarly, the Nintendo Power coverage seems bordering on trivial, as well as bordering on non-reliable/reputable media. It's not a reputable music publication, it's the mouthpiece of a video game company giving one-page coverage to a band that writes songs about one of their games. Don't get me started on how you guys feel being played on a 100 watt college radio station is an assertion of notability. TomTheHand 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Though I can respect your arguments on the physical articles to an extent (noting I wonder how any highly meaningful and unique, yet unpopular example of anything could every meet the guidelines based on what I understand of your interpretations, which I state because of what I understand as the purpose of Wikipedia as collecting meaningful information in a free, easy-to-access source), you are still ignoring a plethora of evidence for notability from Internet sources, both notable (to the point of having pages on Wikipedia), and trivial. If it really is part of the WP:MUSIC guidelines to ignore all such articles, which there is a clearly-stated exlusion for the trivial examples but none (that I see) for the notable sites, I have to ponder the irony of Wikipedia itself as a database proliferated via the Internet. Rohsiph 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Wars

[edit]

non-notable fan-created game spin-off (of Advance Wars). Hasn't yet been released, and no major pre-release coverage [19]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a soapbox for launching your video game project. It goes the other way around, my friend: you have to be well-known to have a page here. You can't make the article and hope that the article will bring you enough links to make your project well-known. That just doesn't make sense. And this wiki has nothing to do with prediction. That's quite correct, and means that we can't predict anything about this video game. If you are a developer and are putting information about your work, this is original research and needs to be verified for inclusion anyway. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why this is up for deletion. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Therefore, it should contain articles on everything. Custom Wars is something. So it deserves an article. A lot of time and energy went into creating it and it deserves some recognition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidhowland14 (talk • contribs) .

The Wikipedia subtitle is "The Free Encyclopedia". One, it doesn't cost money, and two...it's supposed to be free, meaning that as long as an article is not illegal, flaming, or incorrect, it deserves a place on wikipedia. This article is not an advertisment, we are a legitimate movement, and alot of work has been done on Custom Wars. As I said above, it deserves some recognition, not just people deleting it because "it doesn't have signifigant press coverage" This is supposed to be a free (meaing freedom) encyclopedia. Therefore, things that don't have much press coverage should be able to get in. Deleting something because it isn't well known is against the spirit, in my opinion, of wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidhowland14 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

awwww shux Bwithh 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I can't agree more with VGN...Wikipedia is supposed to be community built. Custom Wars is a large effort 180+ members, over 20,000 posts...why doesn't it deserve recognition? If someone can give me a reason other than "blargh, wikipedia isn't an ad site, stop putting your stupid little java game here", then this might make sense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidhowland14 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

sooooooo.... the verifiability link up there isn't a reason other than that, then? And if there are other sites with games that are non-notable, unverifiable, etc., feel free to point'em out, 'cause there are editors who will AfD them too. Tony Fox (speak) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per redundant arguments. VGN, stop hounding people who voted delete. It doesn't help you get points and you've already admitted to advertisement, which completely fails WP:VANITY. You're not going to win. Hilarious that you actually came up with a Japanese name, though. Kusutamu Wōzu~! ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You are responding to every person who has voted for deletion, that being everyone but you. If that's not hounding, then I'm not an asshole. Calling us "wikidiots" essentially shoots your argument down; Wikipedians don't take well to breaches of WP:CIVIL. I don't particularly desire to be part of your "circle", so I'm not sure why you believe me to care about comments about me not being accepted into your group, whatever it is. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to WP:CIVIL, VGN you should read over the policies of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Calling people "elitists", "elitist jackasses" and "wikidiots" goes directly against them both. Articles for deletion should not be taken personally in a negative manner. Rather, it is an attempt to look in a neutral and unbiased fashion at whether the subject in question has encylopedic merit to warrant inclusion or not. --Auger Martel 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appologise. I do admit that I was fuming yesterday, and now I feel like a complete idiot. In order to prevent futher self embarassment, I will delete my previous comments. I was just overly annoyed by your reasons for deletion. I stepped over the line. You set me straight. Thanks. I guess I should RTFA's (Read the Freaking Articles) before I make another mistake that'll cost me my place in this... erm... community. VGN 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the CW community, I was opposed to making this article. I recommend we keep it for now, but if it does not have a significant impact it should be deleted, as in accordance to Wikipedia's policies. GSR 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vapor So Far = Not Yet Article. Welcome back when there's a "people actually play this" kind of release out. I'd be more willing to vote keep on games that are "near beta" and are either commercially developed or open source; commercial games have $om€ £€v€rag€ that $hou£d h€£p, and OSS games can at least be forked by people who care in case original devs quit... but regrettably, closed-group fan projects have an annoying tendency to go forward at snail's pace and rarely actually materialise. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I'm fox. I'm in charge of CW, and I'd like to explain something to you who vote for delete. Advance Wars, the game that this is based off of, is a popular game. It has a fairly large community of websites and forums, most of which contain thousands of members. This, Custom Wars, is going to be the biggest thing in the AW community that has ever happened. It will be mentioned everywhere, and I see no reason why you shouldn't consider that noteworthy. If we fail to gain the attention I expect, I will personally delete or have deleted, the article. However, if you wish to delete it before then, then being the next couple of days, I would think of it as prejudice against a whole gaming community.

FreeLance FoX 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS: VGN, Dave, thanks for the support.[reply]

  • Delete. FreeLance Fox has said the magic words: "This, Custom Wars, is going to be the biggest thing in the AW community that has ever happened. It will be mentioned everywhere..." I admire your confidence, and I encourage you to work towards that vision. But notability is evaluated as of now. This is why encyclopedias are virtually always about what "is" and what "was", not what "will be". Kickaha Ota 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Christianity

[edit]

NPOV, original research, and has anyone even heard of this term before? I've had a neutrality dispute up for a week and nothing's happened at all, except that the page's creator deleted my explanation on the talk page (this is still his only article). I didn't nominate off the bat on the off-chance that this is a legitimate user, making a legitimate article, and I still hope it is. But that's not what it looks like. ~Marblespire 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Bill Hybels and Risk Warren use the term it might be worth keeping, but they need to be cited in the article rather than simply mentioned in the AfD. (No Vote on the off chance that actual sources emerge) Eluchil404 00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Chodski

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as an nn-group, but it clearly asserts notability with the television appearance. See the comment on the talk page also. -Splashtalk 23:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only possible indication of notability was this mention on a BBC Devon local page [21]. It appears to be a report on a Devon mountainbiking competition in 2004 where this team won third place. That doesn't seem notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles the Cy-Fox

[edit]

Article was originally proded, tag was removed by anon. Appears to be non-notable fan-fiction[22], violation of WP:NOT, promotion. Delete Yanksox (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fanfic/personal character. All 18 unique ghits are from forums and fanfiction sites. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of Motion

[edit]

Self released album from unsigned band. Delete as non notable per WP:MUSIC. Rockpocket 17:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - i appreciate that, however most if not all of these have been signed to a major label in the past, almost all will have charted nationally (in some cases internationally), toured nationally (in some cases internationally) and have had significant press coverage outside their local region. I don't believe this is the case here. Rockpocket 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my point was more that there's a difference between being unsigned and being on your own label - this group's albums appear to be properly manufactured and distributed rather than home-burned vanity releases. 20,000 sales is not to be sniffed at. And I would love to see Jandek on a major!Ac@osr 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an nn album by an nn band, although I do enjoy how the band titled the album. -- Kicking222 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is notable because the band has established notability per the entry in WP:BAND "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." The album is available nationally on sites like allmusic.com and amazon, and was professionally produced. Aguerriero (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the item, my apologies. Aguerriero (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explorers (La Salle)

[edit]

Not yet enough info to justify giving the athletics their own article. The institution's page itself is currently a stub, and any info that can go here should probably go there instead. Maybe down the line, but not yet. fuzzy510 06:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn To Revolving Doors

[edit]

Self released album from unsigned band. Delete as non notable, per WP:MUSIC. Rockpocket 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to discussion about the other album, Direction of Motion.


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN band, nn (self-published) album. -- Kicking222 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is notable because the band has established notability per the entry in WP:BAND "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." The album is available nationally on sites like allmusic.com and amazon, and was professionally produced. Aguerriero (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the item, my apologies. Aguerriero (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Collins (retired military officer)

[edit]

Speedy delete was contested Davodd 07:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry, I didn't realize this was being vetted at AfD. Collinjo had blanked the page, and removed the reference to it at John Collins, so I interpreted that as a request for deletion per CSD G7, and tagged it for speedy. I'm sure this wasn't just a mistake on Collinjo's part, as he blanked it again after it was reverted by a bot. Dancter 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely. Had I known then, I would never have tagged it. It's back now, so let this be my vote to delete. While the subject is an accomplished individual, as far as I can tell, the only actual notability asserted is for the Hall of Fame of the US Army OCS. That doesn't automatically warrant an article for any of 2,400 people. Dancter 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Controversy Needed

Appears this article is not strong enough; I have deleted it (again). {{Collinjo|Collinjo}}

I guess that makes it a speedy now. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD A1. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 07:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office Hours

[edit]

Fails to meet minimum standards of an article Valwen 07:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Event Management in Pakistan

[edit]

Not encyclopedic details about current tricks in an unimportant business in a country with comparatively weak service sector (reworded here because the original formulation caused misunderstanding, sorry --Ioannes Pragensis 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)). Until we lack articles like "Event Management in Germany" and "Janitory services in the USA", we should IMHO not have articles like this. Non notable, hard to verify. Ioannes Pragensis 08:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What on earth makes Pakistan a not-so-much-important country? Compared to where? Please explain why an article on 'janitory services in the USA' would be deemed more useful/notable? If Event management is an 'unimportant business', please enlighten us as to what is an important business? Finally, do *you* know anything about 'Event Management in Pakistan'? Markb 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to explain: What on earth makes Pakistan a not-so-much-important country? Pakistan is an important country in some aspects; but in the event mgmt, leading countries are somewhere else. The turnover of the business in Pakistan is AFAIK comparably small and its world influence is negligible.
Please explain why an article on 'janitory services in the USA' would be deemed more useful/notable? You do not understand me well. I think that that article would be not encyclopedic as well. It is not reasonable to have here articles about all businesses in all regions, I think. We must select the important ones, in order to ensure enough knowledgeable editors to maintain the articles.
If Event management is an 'unimportant business', please enlighten us as to what is an important business? The rule about important businesses can be derived from WP:CORP. If there is at least one company important enough to fulfill WP:CORP, then the business can be regarded as important. Or at least if all companies in the business, taken together, are important enough to fall under WP:CORP, then we can discuss about it. But I fear that all companies in this business in Pakistan, taken together, are not important enough to match this - at least the article does not indicate it.
Finally, do *you* know anything about 'Event Management in Pakistan'? Please, be not personal. The question of my knowledge is irrelevant here. We should discuss what to do with the article, not try to examine other users. Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was not based on racism (I am far from being a racist) but on the comparison of economical strength of the services sectors in different countries. If you would like it, I would surely agree that my own small country is even less important than Pakistan :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you own a country - cool! Which one? Markb 17:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Proto. Wickethewok 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is an ad, with subsequent POV problems. Tychocat 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this appears to be an unnecessary fork in a way. What makes Event Management in Pakistan conceptually different than Event Management in any other country? If this article somehow laid out a strong case that Event Managment in Pakistan comprised a set of unique cirmcumstances that did not apply to Event Management anywhere else in the world I might be persuaded to opine Keep, but that does not appear to be the case. The only difference is that the examples are localized (names of companies, costs of certain services, etc.)... taking those out, this could refer to Event Management anywhere, thus this article is too narrowly focused. Also, content in several places seems to violate WP:NOT a how-to guide.--Isotope23 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (but moved to Event management in Pakistan). Why wouldn't we keep Event management in the United States or anywhere else? I don't think WP:CORP is the standard for judging an industry -- it's not the individual businesses that are important, but how things are done. Is there really nothing important to say about how event management procedures are handled differently in different countries, and how it came to be that way? There could be interesting details about national culture or history revealed by such an article. Because of that, it's irrelevant how well-known the country is for event management. (In fact, event management in the least-developed country might be the most interesting article.) That said, this article does a poor job of it, and I don't know how easily it can be made into something much better. Step one would be get rid of all the redundancy with event management in general; unfortunately, that's most of the article. If it's an ad, who is it for? Pegasus? Rigadoun 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Isotope23, also i feel sum parts of article can be used at Event mangement not a complete merge.. --Sartaj beary 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Party (Australia)

[edit]

non notable political organization (less than 500 members, no noteworthy actions) Fram 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No media mentions, no showing at elections and the link leads to the Australian electoral commissions section on how to register a political party. Reads as WP:NFT - Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite currently being small, I have heard of this group and they are growing in popularity especially amongst the younger, intellectual, generation of Australians. They seem quite determined to participate in the next Federal election, I suggest waiting a month or two to see how things pan out, whether or not they grow as they expect or collapse, and adjust the article accordingly. 125.209.169.171 11:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I live in Australia, I've never heard of it - Parthi 11:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, also wikipedia is not for promotion WP:NOT.--blue520 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. If they actually do contest the next Federal election, the article can be re-created at that time, but until then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Metropolitan90 14:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with Parthi, I reside in Australia and have never even heard of it. That said, a quick google and alexa search confirms that this party is not particuarly notable enough to warrant an article.--Auger Martel 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A small unregistered political party with no members of parliament belonging to it and no verifiable record of electoral or other political activity. When they start nominating candidates for parliament. It will be a different story. Capitalistroadster 23:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have heard of this party, its ideology and its attempt to make its mark on the Australian political scene. Currently its membership consists of its founders and other young adults with a vision of the type of "Australia" they wish to live in.I believe that we should be fostering the ideals of our young who will be our leaders of tomorrow. The article is to be commended and "The Party" though in it's infancy encouraged. I dont profess to know all the poloicies and protocols of Wikapedia though I have always thought it was to make available information to others and sharing accurate information about the everchanging political scene is sharing information. Others mention that this party is not yet registered though author of the article clearly sets out it's intention to do so. Do we restrict articles just to estabished identities so to speak whilst minimising the ability of others to conceptualise? Therefore the article is to be left and NOT deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.124.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unregistered political party, no public profile, no activity, no press coverage - no notability. Jammo (SM247) 20:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it becomes registered and runs candidates, then I look forward to seeing an article on it. Also, my vague recollections of electoral regulations pertaining to party registration may not allow a party simple called "The Party" to be registered. --Roisterer 08:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is not yet registered.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn unregistered party. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Johntex\talk 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) ===Dee Roy=== Non-notable character that appears in a few manga chapters (will probably be less than one anime episode) and gets killed. Does not have any important personality traits and is an overall non-notable character. Ynhockey (Talk) 08:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have not finished the article, which is why it does not have information. I agree that he this character plays a minor role but there are several characters in the bleach section who play even less of a role (for instance the 1st squads lieutenant). I believe wiki should have info on as many characters as possible which is why I added this character and I will continue to add new characters such as Rupee, Kuukaku, etc. -Thundercock

  • Keep. Give Dee Roy a chance. David L Rattigan 10:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A character that has appeared in 21 issues of a Manga comic. Should be a small paragraph in the article for the comic not an article on it's own. Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable; mention him in Bleach (manga) or the subset for these characters, Hollow (Bleach). If someone's feeling up to it, there's probably a heck of a mass-nomination for deletion that should be done, on all the nn characters on Template:Bleach characters. Sorry, Thundercock. Proto||type 13:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. when i made grimmjow, shawlong, edorad and ill forte i left out d roy and nakiem for a reason...we saw little to nothing from them. no released states, none of their VERY SHORT fights were interesting, and they lack charisma. they had all of ten seconds of time, i can stretch il forte into an article but i don't think d-roy has anything worth its own article. even if i tried to stretch it i'd get a good paragraph at most, its not that wiki shouldn't have as many anime character articles as possible, it's just that d roy doesn't have enough to make an article. grimjaw 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that I have finished the article, it doesn't look half bad. -Thunder
  • Keep. In my opinion, that was no need to make this article, but if it is already done, why not? At least we know more about him than we know about Sasakibe Chojiro (I'm not suggesting the deletion of Sasakibe's article, once we can still discover more about him... as much as Dee Roy). - Access Timeco 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would also nominate the Sasakibe article if there was no potential for expansion. However, who knows, he may play an important part in the story in the future. Dee Roy, on the other hand, is dead for good (in fact, completely disintegrated) so the little information that exists is all we will ever have. The current state of the article is also poor, considering it can be summarized in a couple sentences. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I added something there now, maybe it's worth. But, I said in the very article, what was added is not 100% official. Well, about not having more informations about him, I wouldn't be sure. We still have Grimmjow's flashbacks and, who knows, the present! Remember that Hollows don't die (again) after being destroyed by a zanpakuto, they're puriffied and sent to Soul Society. So I think there is still a little chance we know more about Dee Roy. - Access Timeco 16:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We most likely have all the information that we are ever going to have concering this character. That information is not sufficient for an article.--Rokuwa 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Complete description of a (very) minor character. - CNichols 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like an nn minor char to me. --WinHunter (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Softgroups

[edit]

Advertising for non-notable service. Haakon 09:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aham , yes I am ... you may remove this article! However i don't want to hear about wikipedia in all my life!

Nobody asked you to come here.
  • Delete Reads more like advertising copy than anything else. Some of the comments in this discussion, including the original nomination, still appear to be compromised due to unauthorized edits. MDonfield 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Global Exploiter

[edit]

Delete. The article seems to be just a definition. It is too short and no one has tried to expand it or merge it with another article. BGFMSM 04:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been re-listed to generate a better consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deme (software)

[edit]

There is no evidence of meeting any of the proposed criteria from WP:SOFTWARE. Though the word "deme" has a gracious plenty google hits, they are mostly unrelated. Googling for "Deme" with "online deliberation" [26] finds mostly self-gen hits and hits related to the conference mentioned in the article. There has been no news on the official website [27] since February they are currently on version 0.5, which implies that they are still in the beta stage and are not yet up to a ready for prime time release. WP is not a crystal ball. BigDT 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Wizdom.in

[edit]

Disputed prod, website that has a very low ranking on Alexa, looks very much like spamvertising. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted - CSD A8. Proto||type 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1-Monde.com

[edit]

Appears to be an advert in French. Can this sort of thing be speedied? ais523 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrations

[edit]

Delete Non-notable neologism with no sources to provide verifiability. Prod was removed without comment. Gwernol 10:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Nuttah68 10:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stranded (single)

[edit]

"unnofficial single", elements of crystall ball. Lyrics added, this doesn't help the article. Punkmorten 10:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith_(band)

[edit]

Non-notable Mcarlin 10:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scribe

[edit]

Delete non-notable high school newspaper. Prod was removed without comment Gwernol 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete - not verifiable. Johntex\talk 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir gary chan

[edit]

Probable hoax. No Google hits for "Sir Gary Chan" or "Gary Chan" kentucky. - Tangotango 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - vanity. Johntex\talk 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byteusa

[edit]

Contested prod, business belongs to the creator, no notability is demonstated, vanity? Delete--Peta 11:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary R. Gerson

[edit]

Reads like an ad and the subject doesn't seem notable RedRollerskate 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"University of Florida recently recognized Gary R. Gerson, by naming its business school’s new accounting hall in his honor. The firm described Gerson Hall as a three-story, 36,000-square-food structure—the largest freestanding accounting school in the country. It opened in Spring 2004."

I think that says it all. If the claims made in the article can be verified, then he's notable enough for me. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at some articles, it appears that it is named after him, however, I'm getting a vibe from the articles that it was named after him because he donated a lot of money. I can't find verifiable evidence that it was named after him for his achievements or that it was for his donations. Metros232 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I still don't think that makes him necessarily notable. If we add an article for anyone who has a univerisity hall named after them, the Wikipedia will become huge. Not notable person. SmartGuy 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He seems to have been notable in the University of Florida for setting up support programs for sportsmen see [33]. I don't know whether this makes him notable enough or not. I note that the other people who were admitted were notable but I don't know whether Gerson was. He certainly shouldn't be speedied. For Mark Gallagher's reference, an article in Accounting Today from 2004 verifies the information in the article.Capitalistroadster 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lloyd

[edit]

Non notable person Fram 12:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please delete if you feel this is the right course of action, I hope not be barred?

I didn't mean for this to sound like Vanity on behalf of the person at all.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex555 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Non-notable. Deli nk 12:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet the criteria at WP:BIO and kudos to Fram for taking the time to contact the originator and explain the process to them. If only everyone would do this and make a good effort to not unintentionally WP:BITE...--Isotope23 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry. There's nothing esspecially notably about them. I mean, youngest memeber of a local rotary club is nothing really. There's not much else to say. It was a reasonable attempt at neutrally summing up Simon Lloyd, if its true, but its not material for wikipedia. Reference to WP:NOT and WP:BIO for proper policies and guidelines on why I've said this for the article creator to read. Kevin_b_er 02:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trixie teen

[edit]

Apparently nn-porn actress. Per google, only two websites link to trixieteen.com [34], and only 102 hits for website name [35] (miniscule for a porn site). Appears to fails Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors). Although the real name of the actress is not listed, imdb search was not fruitful. Have not been able to substantiate whether she has apeared in 100 or more movies. Be careful when visiting the link in the article; website does not like to be closed. Prod removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as explained on the other discuss page... there are very few direct links to domain as linking is done through another domain for tracking purposes.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22trixie+teen%22&btnG=Search returns 357,000 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22trixie+teen%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t400&x=wrt returns 261,000

as well '13382' is the overture score for the term 'trixie teen'

so that makes well over half of a million returns by my math.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianwww (talk • contribs)

Search results are inherently unreliable for pornographic topics; large counts may not be used as a measure of popularity, as they often reflect a user's skill in black-hat SEO and linkspamming more than they reflect actual notability. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I would add that your google search returning 357,000 actual returns 527 unique hits [36].--Fuhghettaboutit 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all. Johntex\talk 02:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General's Challenge (C&CG)

[edit]

This and the following pages comprise a guide on how to play Command and Conquer. A number of these pages have already been deleted, or are about to be (see here, here, here, and here). So this is a mass-nomination of the few that remain. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the Chinese, this should be deleted forthwith. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow someone to have images on their GameFAQs guide. Closing admin, please also note the vast array of dubious 'fair use' screenshots that are attached to these pages. Proto||type 12:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is all.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Strata

[edit]

Delete new art collective from the Bay Area that hasn't yet achieved notability. Please see discussion on the article's talk page where there are hints that notability may be provided later. If sources can be found to show notability, I'll recommend this is kept. Gwernol 12:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. No offense to anyone, but I don't see where this article asserts notability. ? PJM 12:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The authors of the article seem to think they can come up with evidence of notability. If so, good luck to them — we don't delete articles on technicalities, merely for the sheer thrill of deleting them. Please remember the purpose of A7 and the other CSD, rather than just the wording. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can see verifiable evidence that these guys are important as the comments on the talkpage hint, then the article will be worth keeping. Otherwise, no. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem notable to me. Seems more of a vanity page than anything else. Also, the authors providing notability themselves would most likely fall under original research.--Auger Martel 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment its more that if the authors can point to independent press articles about their group then they have shown notability. As long as the articles aren't written by them, they can provide the reference to the articles and its not vanity or OR. Gwernol 16:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Point taken in regards to the independent press articles. I would be more than welcome to examine the evidence of notability they present and make a decision from there. At this point though, since nothing has been presented, I'm still standing by delete.--Auger Martel 17:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have looked through the links which they have provided on their talk page and I am still not convinced. The scope of the references just doesn't seem wide enough to warrant the article and it is still not notable enough as a while for me to change to a keep vote. So still delete for me. The references themselves should really be implemented in the article somehow, rather than the talk page.--Auger Martel 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author of the article has added some notability links to the article's talk page. I am personally not convinced the group is yet notable based on this evidence so won't be changing my recommendation. However as the author points out the group does appear to be close to notability and I would urge other editors here to examine the evidence and make up their own minds. Thanks, Gwernol 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete as copyvio. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NQcontent Enterprise

[edit]

Adcruft about a non-notable product RedRollerskate 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells of copyvio. - Kookykman|(t)e

Comment It is a copyvio, see http://www.nqcontent.com/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=346 Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a copyvio, how do we get it speedied? RedRollerskate 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a copyright permission on the talk page. Fan1967 21:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! RedRollerskate 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisting this so it can get more votes. RedRollerskate 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Johntex\talk 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Patrick

[edit]

With all due respect, Brad does wonderful work for Wikipedia - however, I don't think he is notable enough in a typical encyclopedic sense to warrant an article. At minimum, I think merging the content to another page about Wikipedia would be a good compromise, but at the moment, my inclination is to delete. It is analogous to a bibliography of a respected citizen associated with a respectable corporation, but nonetheless, this particular case inclines on the side of being not notable. I would like to encourage some thoughtfulness in this AfD - granted, if the page ends up being deleted, it does not mean that it cannot be recreated later - it simply means that the current form of the article is suggesting that, say, for example, there isn't quite enough public, easily accessible material to write about the subject. HappyCamper 13:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Just to clarify, since Prodego left it out, I contested deleting it without discussion; I have no issue with it being deleted, but I think it deserves to be discussed, as the articles on Jimbo, Angela, and several other Foundation officials were proposed for deletion and kept. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully Delete pending more verifiable, public information and attention. Redirect a good idea per Paolo. GChriss 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if not outright delete. I had no idea someone would put a page up at this point, and I agree completely I am not notable right now. I started a FAQ to let folks get to know me a little better, and the encyclopedia would probably be better served by letting this go completely. If someone comes looking for me in the mainspace, I think pointing them back to the WMF site is more graceful (thank you for the suggestion, Paolo). I should have something up there soon as part of the bigger attempt at making sense of the Foundation site.--BradPatrick 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brad's user page per, um, Brad. :) --M@rēino 18:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Samier

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, can't find anything relevant on the subject[37][38]. Appears to be complete nonsense about a non-notable individual. Delete Yanksox (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nn group (see WP:CSD). Proto///type 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pragg AllStars

[edit]

Non-notable football club, playing only 5-a-side matches.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diamonds FC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tepid Crankshaft FC. — sjorford++ 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nn group (see WP:CSD). Proto///type 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Diamonds FC

[edit]

Non-notable football club, playing only 5-a-side matches. I don't entirely believe the claim about the 1000-seater "Hippo Arena", and a "two-digit pound sponsorship deal" doesn't quite pass the notability threshold, methinks.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pragg AllStars and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tepid Crankshaft FC. — sjorford++ 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Invention

[edit]

Non-notable band; articles lists 2 EPs but no record labels or other claim to notability under WP:MUSIC. --Cedderstk 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kornica

[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 merge this information into other articles. Petros471 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Promotional Releases

[edit]

Promo CDs not notable, and cannot be verified to be complete. Most music publications have promo versons distributed beforehand, Muse's are nothing special. BigBlueFish 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • I tend to disagree. I realise that they all can't be completely verified, but they do add to the article on Muse and make it more complete. To not add anything about them, in my opinion, would be wrong.
    I didn't add the page because Muse are special and deserve to have it. I merely added it for completeness and as a seperate page so that it would not get in the way of the main article. Also, it's the only band where I can contribute information about the promotional stock. I would encourage information on other bands' promos to also be started.
    If lots of people disagree, then fair enough delete it. If not, then it should be kept and added to.
    Xtrememachineuk 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This one could be argued either way, but at least in my opinion, promotional releases should not be included here as they are not really part of an artist's discography per se. The exception to this in my mind would be if a group released a promo that contained songs or versions of songs that were not available commercially, so the only release of said song was on the promo. I don't know if this has ever happened, but in that case I think the promo would obviously be sought after by collectors/fans of that band. To be fair, I am not overly familiar with Muse and a cursory check didn't seem to indicate the latter situation existed on any of these promo releases, but if it does, I would suggest the album in question get it's own article linked back to the main Muse article. The rest of the selections (particularly those that are not verifiable should be deleted along with this page.--Isotope23 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, fair enough, I'll agree then. Some of the promos/EP's have different versions of the songs, but I guess they can be mentioned in passing somewhere else. It's a shame, but I understand why people wish it to be deleted. Thanks for the feedback everyone. Xtrememachineuk 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my opinion is but one view of it, so I wouldn't start digging a grave for this article just yet... but my personal opinion is that you could definitely justify an individual article for any promo EP with song versions not avaible on their commercial releases (like I said, I don't know enough about Muse to know which promo's would have these) and then link these articles back to the Muse (band) article. Another thought... you could just boldly merge this whole section into Muse (band)#Discography in a separate section after studio albums.--Isotope23 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Čardak

[edit]
Good point! I've done that now. Dlyons493 Talk 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETED by W.marsh. TigerShark 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livia Choice

[edit]

Non-notable bondage model ... article shows no hope for expansion. Cyde↔Weys 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Althea Leasure (model)

[edit]

Non-notable model. Little hope for expansion. Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Luster Soldier

[edit]

Delete and protect. NN cruft. Three prior deletions, but none that would permit CSD G4, because consensus never reached. Let's reach it once and for all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad McClellan

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of non-notable biographies. This individual fails every component of WP:BIO. He generates almost no Google hits, no news hits, has not contributed in a lasting way to his field and the article will never be more than a stub. Working as a political consultant and having notable family members does not make one notable. Kershner 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Glanfield

[edit]

Notability...reads like a vanity page...no sources KsprayDad 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=tim+glanfield&meta= there do seem to be quite a lot of varied entries for this author, especially in USA. Perhaps someone should add some links. (Unsigned comment by IP 87.74.71.64 -- this is also the IP which edits Tim Glanfield page)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 14:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Co-Operative

[edit]

NN company, fails WP:CORP Dismas|(talk) 02:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A local pizza joint in town has a 100 year reputation with the city, but its not encyclopedic, nor does it neccessarily meet WP:CORP Sorry if you happen to be serviced by a utility co-op, those last awhile and estabish themselves in areas throughout north america. Kevin_b_er 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, and create disambiguation page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakwood Cemetery

[edit]

NN cemetary, no notability stated or implied. Dismas|(talk) 02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on notability. People are literally dying to get in there... -- GWO
  • Comment, <insert drum fill here> GWO will be here at the Wikipedia Comedy Club all week ladies and gentlemen.. with a 14:22 and 22:30 show! Be sure and tip your waitress! Kidding aside, if newkai wants to disambiuate this, I'd have no objections.--Isotope23 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lusophobia

[edit]

This article seems poorly cited, has a strong POV and was given as an example in the recent India Basher AfD discussion. I added a plea for references some time ago, which went unanswered, and searched for a place to suggest it be merged. But I think it is worth discussing whether this artice is perhaps unsalvagable and should be deleted. I personally abstain. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Proto///type 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the creator of the article and asked him to reference it. Afonso Silva 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a reference to the use of the term in a Brazilian context [43] - perhaps it might be more appropriate for an article to be put on the Portuguese language Wikipedia. I thought that the link to the Geoffrey Hull article covered its use in the context of East Timor and Australia would have sufficed (although virtually nobody in Australia apart from him would know what the term means). However, I admit that the term in this context is more tendentious, which is why I've removed the sentences about language, and Paul Keating did use those words about Portugal. Nevertheless, the term and the concept Lusophobia certainly did exist in 19th century Brazil. By the way, Lar, they're called citations, not cites! Quiensabe 11:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PageUp and the fact that the article now reads okay and is referenced. Janet13 05:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirected by IanManka per this AfD, but not closed. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2525

[edit]

This page was recently up for deletion with a group of years and the result was to keep. However I feel, that as it was in a group, the actual votes for deletion were confused with the other nominated years, so I'm putting it up for deletion on its own. This page should be deleted as all of the information on this page is repeated in greater detail on 26th century. Philip Stevens 14:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Canada: A

[edit]

This article is unnecessary. We have Category:Schools in Canada. This article was nominated a week ago with its (at the time) parent article, List of schools in Canada. Due to no consensus, this article was kept, even though many who voted to keep the parent voted to delete this article. Usgnus 14:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Joker, Bibliography of the Penguin, Bibliography of Two-Face, Bibliography of Catwoman

[edit]

I honestly don't feel either way. I would like to see what Wikipedians think about articles such as those. One can argue that Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, and that this is complete listcruft. Otherwise, one can argue that this is simply a very, very long list of references and sources. I want to see some consensus and arguments before deciding myself. Abstain for now. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm a huge fan of comic books, but I don't see the relevance of having a list for every appearance of every notable villain for a particular super-hero. I'm interested to see the arguments for/against this though.--Isotope23 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. --- GWO
  • Delete Delete per GWO.--Auger Martel 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete, the publisher can record and present this type of bibliography on its site if they so choose. While this seems comprehensive, it is highly unlikely it would ever be kept up for years to come (beyond points already made).Markeer 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hummm... Well, I started this thing for three reasons: 1) I wanted to contribute in some way, 2) I am often annoyed that I cant find a good bibliography of a particular villian so that I can pick and choose what comics I want to get, and 3) It seemed like a good, informative idea at the time. I suppose this page could be (in a way) considered a reference page for all of the information in the main article. But, if it's just useless, well, then there's no use in it staying. =) --Kelly Chartier 01:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree that the information within these articles is indiscriminate. None of the examples listed are pertinent and I don't think that these bibliographies violate the spirit of the policy. Morever, as stated in Wiki is not paper, there is no reason why there shouldn't be an article for every Simpsons character and a table listing every episode. As such, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a complete bibliography for these prominent members of Batman's rogues gallery. As for the argument that upkeep would be a problem, I don't agree. With the exception of Catwoman, none of these characters is featured in a monthly series. While I would agree that trying to maintain a catalog of every appearance by Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man is a fool's errand, those are special cases (and if some fool volunteers, I won't stop him). However, on average, I don't anticipate that there will be more than one or two new issues to add to these lists each month. This is easily managable. Also, as far as whether the publisher chooses to create a similar bibliography, I don't think that's relevant. Either this information does belong on Wikipedia or it doesn't. This is my vote to say that it does. GentlemanGhost 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Delete I'm pro merging them into pages, but ... it's a list and I'm not sure it serves good purpose. An argument could be made that 'Villain Appearances' might be encyclopedic, but I'm leaning to no. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice -Please add AfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board and check the notice board for the same.--Chris Griswold 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Condense and merge.--Chris Griswold 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just thought I'd put my two cents in about merging: I don't think it should be done for continuous characters. For smaller characters, merging the bibliography with the article will be fine, but for a bigger character the bibliography will be too big and the article will look like crap. I made this mistake and people hated it. --Kelly Chartier 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the kind of thing I'd happily put an external link to, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia in this form. It's too much like a primary source. Mangojuicetalk 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think that these should be merged into their respective main articles. DiegoTehMexican 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia's Comics Project still has a lot of blanks and stubs. Other websites can handle in-depth chronologies such as this. I agree with above, seems too much like a primary source for Wikipedia. Cybertooth85 01:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These bibliographies were apparently split from their source articles due to length. As these bibliographies help to establish verifiability of the source articles and provide useful references for research, I highly recommend they be kept. Actually, if possible, I'd recommend similar bibliographies for other characters from comic books and other fictional sources for the purposes of verifiability and research use. - CNichols 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no harm in keeping them up. They're handy referances and I have fun contributing to them. I'd also like to work on other characters. --GORE-ILLA 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of these characters are major popular-culture icons with considerable mainstream recognition beyond comics fandom, and all have had their own books seperate from the main Batman/Detective Comics series. I wouldn't like to see this same level of detail for just any random character, but for the likes of Joker, Penguin, Two-Face, and Catwoman it seems reasonable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, my response is a given, but I thought I should put in an argument: personally, I would love to simply have a link to a website that has a bibliography that is complete. But there is no such thing. And, if there were, it would rely on the webmaster to update the bibliography. Since everyone can contribute to these bibliographies, chances are that the bibliographies would be the most complete. Which is very nice for collectors or researchers. --Kelly Chartier 05:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted as a repost of previously deleted material. Nom, please note that this stuff doesn't need to go to AfD: you can just tag directly with {{db-repost}}. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid III

[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted material - prior AfD discussion here. Only justification given is a screenshot from an as-yet unreleased DVD. Delete TheRealFennShysa 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a repost of article in the same form.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tomczyk

[edit]

This was nominated for deletion once, got deleted, and then somebody recreated it. I request that we delete and then Salt. RedRollerskate 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, recreated material (and may be speediable under G4) & doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO criteria. Claims towards WP:BIO are not verifiably sourced and (though this is not a deletable offense) it is yet another "resume bio" that needs a complete bottom to top rewrite if it survives this AfD.--Isotope23 15:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The format of the article strongly suggests it may be a copyright violation of Who's Who in Polish America. Even if it is not a technical violation, this appears non-notable. Ted 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'NOT delete!!!!' I am the author of the article, and I strongly nominate a page for undeletion. June 18, 2006. Victoria Madison
    Comment I know it's a bummer to have your hard work deleted, but I just don't see why this guy belongs in Wikipedia. Not everybody needs their own article. I think my best friend is great, but that doesn't mean she belongs on Wikipedia. However, this AfD still has three more days to get votes before the admins decide whether or not to delete it. In order to get more votes, I'll re-list it. RedRollerskate 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. This is a résumé, just like the last one. Note that there's a link to Polish Wikipedia, but his article has been deleted there, too. Fan1967 01:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT - specifically, I would suggest self-promotion. Jammo (SM247) 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. A name like this is not a useful redirect and the only other "vote" is a weak keep. Also, the article apparently duplicates Dai Hin Min. -- Kjkolb 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Fugo/ Dai Hin Min (President)

[edit]

A card game from a comic? Is this really notable? Quite apart from Wikipedia not being a 'how to' guide. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vol. 2 of the US release of the manga? A DVD insert on the vol. 2 US DVD? Either way that's problematic.. I discovered that it was copied from that website inthat I added to the external links, that's why I sourced it. I'm not sure exactly what the rules are here, should we just cite the US distributor and give them credit, or does the article need paraphrasing? - Wickning1 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear little pony

[edit]

blatant spam, have had edit battle with creator, no assertion of importance Ben Tibbetts 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinbad's Unbelievable Revolution

[edit]

Unknown band, the article is an obvious pisstake. AtomHeartMother 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clarke

[edit]

Delete A University lecturer who fails the professor test. No assertion of notability. vanity page. Prod was removed without comment. Gwernol 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"University Teaching Fellow" usually means that the academic has been given an award/title/position as an exceptional teacher of students/or as a lecturer. Its used in the US too, and in fact may be an import into the UK. It's a minor award/title compared to awards/titles/professorships etc. which have to do with research Bwithh 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and has been deleted once before already (on Jun 16) Nuttah68 07:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given Bwithh's comment, and some searching on the university website, it looks like the award is a "fellowship" given to support research into teaching. A worthy fellowship, but it doesn't reach notability (WP:PROF) (#7, ...notable award or honor....).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TigerShark 22:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landlords-insurance.com

[edit]

Delete no assertion of notability. Appears to fail WP:CORP. No sources so unverifiable. Prod was removed without comment Gwernol 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Henin-Hardenne's 27-match winning streak on clay between 2005 and 2006

[edit]

Listing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass. Big Smooth 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Nadal's winning streak on clay

[edit]

Listing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass Big Smooth 16:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Evert's 125-match winning streak on clay between 1973 and 1979

[edit]

Listing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass Big Smooth 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer's 35-match winning streak in 2005

[edit]

Listing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass Big Smooth 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of parks and gardens in Paris

[edit]

List - non-encyclopaedic - I have added the photographs to the main Paris article. BlueValour 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or add every park to the Paris article. Since that would make the Paris article too long, simply keep. Lists are a valuable way to organize information separate from the main article but easily accessible. They are different from categories in the flexibility they offer for organization and annotation, and the ability to contain things that aren't articles yet. Fg2 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it's true that an encyclopedia is not just a list of information, lists have their place even in a well-organized encyclopedia. Fg2 makes a brief, but powerful defense of lists, provided that they give flexibility, organization and accessibility. I'd also say that their utlity extends beyond articles that aren't yet written to include the connections they make among those that have been written. We don't want -cruft, but neither do we want to automatically delete any list and list-like article. Does this page show that it is more than just a collection of information? Yes. It has organization in it and thought behind it. Interlingua talk 02:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to weaken our coverage of one of the world's most important cities. Furthermore, Paris is famous for its parks. --JJay 00:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Disagree, it's very encyclopedic -- Samir धर्म 05:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fire stations in Hong Kong

[edit]

List - non-encyclopaedic - I have added the statistic at the head of the list to the main Hong Kong article. BlueValour 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't see how this is encyclopedic. I should hope all of those places have fire stations! Recury 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremly unencylopedic and would be absurd if done for every possible area, also severe lack of notability. Yanksox (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After defending the list of parks in Paris (above), I find that I can't defend this list. The page on Paris did more than simply list parks or group them geographically. It organized them thematically in four groups: woodlands, parks, gardens squares. This article doesn't do that. The only organization it has is geographic and, while that's obvious an obvious way to group fie stations, it also means there isn't sufficient thought behind it for an encyclopdia article. Interlingua talk 02:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete such list is not useful and rather UE. --WinHunter (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donna & Tom

[edit]

If this two are genuine hosts, they don't appear on Google searches - they're not notable enough. As for the album - it doesn't seem genuine. This page doesn't add to Wikipedia - it demeans it. Dmn € Դմն 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Donna & Tom are NOT Avago presenters, they are merely linked to it.
2. The album demos can be heard via myspace - it is of parodies, and covers. Perfectly viable.
3. Dmn (aka Madison) has a personal vendetta against me as a user - so I think that he should be disabled for marking my pages for deletion.
4. Also - whoever said neither of us are 18 yet, rubbish. Are you bad at Maths? Donna is 18, and 19 in November, and Tom is 18 in July. HelterSkelter88 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete HelterSkelter, I have absolutely no opinion of you whatsoever (I'm sure you're a fine person), and I certainly don't have a vendetta against you. With that said, this article is vanity. These people (you and your friend) are completely non-notable. Having an album on MySpace couldn't possibly mean less- I could very easily record some crap, put it on MySpace, and then write a WP article on myself claiming notability because I'm on MySpace. Because the article is vanity, it's also POV. But above all else, this will be deleted simply because the subject is, in Wikipedia terms, highly insignificant. -- Kicking222 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contains elements which are used to promote the article in a vain manner. In addition, lacks any sufficient notability or references.--Auger Martel 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a vanity piece --Charlesknight 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Loc

[edit]

I don't know what to make of this, and it's been sitting on CSD for some time. It's been deleted and recreated several times. Spider Loc also has a page on de and fr. He may be notable; I don't know. No vote. --Fang Aili talk 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry Today

[edit]

this is nothing but a vanity page, and is really much closer to a dicdef than an encyclopedia entry. MSJapan 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trestle board

[edit]

This article should be deleted because this is a dicdef, and not a very good one. MSJapan 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 03:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mijam

[edit]

Is this really notable or real - sorry if it is! Benjaminstewart05 18:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Flower

[edit]

Is this real or notable? Benjaminstewart05 18:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (G4). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless forums

[edit]

speedy got removed, forum with 399 registered members deeming it not notable, vanity/spam/advertising etc. It's the users ONLY edits and one upload of their forum logo. Seems they only registered to advertise their site. Andeh 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Principles of Politics

[edit]

The book is insufficiently important to warrant a wikipedia page; Google Scholar only shows it being cited once, and the actual wikipedia page provides no reason to keep it. - Frekja 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete and Redirect to Azumanga Daioh minor characters. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamamaya

[edit]

This character is already listed under Azumanga Daioh minor characters, which probably has a better written description to begin with. Short summary: Its a dupe, and unnecessary. Dark Shikari 18:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 19:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep vastly improved version, woohoo! Eluchil404 00:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Pulla Reddy

[edit]

It's advertising. Frekja 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Google gets about 75000 hits for "G. Pulla Reddy", which seem to be related to this company. The article definitely needs work, but it seems to be a genuine company of sufficient size to warrent note. WilyD 21:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the first page only 3 of those hits were relevant. ---J.S (t|c) 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not true - Hits 1,2,3,6,7,10+Wiki+Wikiclone in the top ten,11,12,14,16,17,18 ... and so forth all seem to be for this sweets company. There definitely are a lot of google hits for it - as I keep scrolling down randomly through google, I'm finding more hits - seems to be a nontrivial Indian company - I may be being too light on them for fear of furthering the anglocentric bias of Wikipedia - smack me if I amWilyD 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article to be a bio. Please check and reconsider the above votes. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eutony

[edit]

A healing technique created in the 1980's. Not notable, about 800 Google hits. [44] JoaoRicardotalk 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Though not very popular in the United States, Eutony has been spreading in other countries since 1940, not the 80's. Searches on diverse terms in Google give more hits:
eutony 800 hits, eutonie 110000, eutonia 92000, "Gerda Alexander" 23.700
Perhaps it would be useful to translate the articles in other languages. Grebello 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Grebello[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riley G. Matthews, Jr.

[edit]

Seems to be a vanity entry to me. If not, it's copy-vio from [47]. Delete as non-notable. Essexmutant 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, and redirect to WrestleCrap. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gooker Award

[edit]

Article is about "award" given by a minor website. There is a relevant section for this award on the main Wrestlecrap page. This article is full of original, non-NPOV research and the info about the "winners" can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Burgwerworldz 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wickethewok, for what it's worth, WrestleCrap.com was determined to be notable. SubSeven 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Only one keep by an established user. Article is clearly original research and is unreferenced. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia transplant

[edit]

Entirely original research without citations; borderline attack page with little to no context. - jredmond 19:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: AfD tag was removed from the article for a couple hours- voting time should be extended a little- even tho it's not looking good for "keepers". CrackityKzz 02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note to those concerned this article is all attack, no fact: I have done some clean-up on this article. perhaps you all can see that it is saveable, tho the author did a lot of notice-removing. 68.84.208.199 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC) oops. CrackityKzz 19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum Mod

[edit]

Article about a Halo mod. The article itself notes that the mod isn't finished and the text reads like advertising. Personally, I fail to see how a mod for a video game belongs in an encyclopedia. IrishGuy talk 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, but urge AndrePachter to take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before voting in future AfDs for articles in which he is personally involved. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China confidential

[edit]

Non-notable blog. Also appears to be a vanity page. Alabamaboy 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) *Delete. per above.--Alabamaboy 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not true! The article cites important references to show that the blog is more than a vanity blog or diary and in fact a respected source of news and analysis about China's rise--arguably, the most important news story of our time. China Confidential is a sign of the growing influence and reach of blogs that help to shape opinion and influence mainstream media coverage. Aside from possible racism--discrimination against Chinese--there is no apparent reason for delting this entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 20:30 (UTRC), 16 June 2006.

http://www.topix.net/world/north-korea?full=70f87e8238 NEARLY 700 ARTICLES OBVIOUSLY PRODUCED BY A TEAM OF JOURNALISTS ON A DAILY BASIS SINCE APRIL 10, 2005 ... THIS, IN ALABAMABOY'S RACIST MIND IS A VANITY BLOG. SIMPLY INCREDIBLE ... AND STUPID. Try this link out for size: http://www.afriquecentrale.info/fr/news/news.asp?rubID=1&srubID=6&themeID=1&newsID=4378 AfriqueCentrale is a leading---maybe the leading--news portal/news site for Central Africa. This link is one of 2 articles referenced and linked to by the editors. Another AC link to CC: http://www.afriquecentrale.info/fr/news/news.asp?rubID=1&srubID=5&themeID=1&newsID=3888 And here is a reference and link from MwindaPress, another Africa new site: http://www.mwinda.org/article/chinoiseries.html Not notable? Give me a break! Maybe Alabamaboy and his buddies missied this: http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/05/china_determined_to_take_back_taiwan_confidential_repor_1.php Or this: http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/05/china_completes_construction_of_maos_yangtze_river_drea.php How about this? http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2006/06/05/china-questions-for-hu/ Or this link: http://asiabizlaw.blogspot.com/2006/04/china-confidential-turns-1.html And the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/05/11/china-poised-to-crackdown-on-foreign-law-firms/ Check this university reference--scroll down to #29.http://sun.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/igcs/igpol.htm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep. Astonishingly, this article didn't have a link to its own blog (which I have now added)! However, having googled there does seem to be quite widespread reporting of it. My view is that it should be kept for now and reviewed in about 12 months to see if its profile continues to develop. BlueValour 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Urge to keep. The absence of a link is the opposite of an advertisement; and the article puts the blog in the context of a global publishing phenomenon. The Google ranking is actually astonishing. Same for Yahoo and MSN.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 20:57 (UTC), 16 June 2006.
  • Vanity page? Non-notable blog? There are nearly 700 articles in the archives. Take time to search via the internal search engine, using key words such as Taiwan; military buildup; rural unrest; human rights; Nigeria; Congo; Peru; oil; diplomacy; urban underclass, etc. Another example of why the non-notable criticism is deeply offensive and plain wrong: China Confidential recently broke a story about a crackdown on foreign law firms operating in China. Within a few hours, The Wall Street Journal Law blog referenced, quoted and linked to the article, copying the China Confidential headline almost word for word. Four days later, the Associated Press and Interfax picked up the story.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 21:13 (UTC), 16 June 2006.
  • Delete. Unfortunately this blogspot.com thing fails all Wikipedia notability criteria. --Ezeu 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fewer than 400 google hits minus the blog's own pages and a couple of namesakes. A "China Confidential" search run gets a mixed morass of hits from being a relatively common phrase. Running a search That is not "astonishing". I did a Factiva international newspaper, newswire and magazine database search, and there were zero relevant hits for "chinaconfidential", "china confidential" and "chinaconfidential.blogspot.com". The article claims the blog has been referenced in the Wall St. Journal, AP, and interfax. There is no evidence from Factiva of this. I could not find the claimed reference by the BBC on the BBC website either. Bwithh 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC World Service program "Have Your Say," http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/ does not keep a permalink to guest website or blogs, unlike all the other links shown here.
      Update: I found a WSJ reference... however, its only in one of their ownblogs. Bwithh 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/05/11/china-poised-to-crackdown-on-foreign-law-firms/[reply]
      Try this link, dummy: http://www.opendemocracy.net/openblogs/blog/od/2005/04/12/mt_135.textile
      OK. For some reason alabamaracistboy who hates chinese has targeted this news site, which has published as a daily blog since April 2005. If any of you idiots had bothered to search properly you would go to technorati and find over 200 links to China Confidential articles. You would also note that the Wall Street Journal blog is akin to a newspaper column--or is that not notable enough for a Wikipedian? You would also read carefully and find that AP and Interfax ran the law firm crackdown story four days after China Confidential broke it, but failed to credit China Confidential by name, which is typical for wire services. The point is, China Confidential is an internationally respected source of news and analysis and indicative of the blogging phenomenon. Or is the wiki phenom all that counts in your insular, sick world? Go to China Digital Times and search China Confidential. Go to Global Voices Online and search China Confidential. Go to China Law Blog and search China Confidential. Go to Technorati--specifically, to the US-China Relations tag--and you will find that China Confidential has dominated the discussion with up-to-the-minute news and analysis.
      Why have you targeted this article for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Racism is a serious accusation, Andre. Please explain yourself. (by the way, not all Alabamans are white stereotypes... and not everyone in this discussion is from a non-Chinese background...) Bwithh 02:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Racism is unfortunately as American as apple pie--and tragically international. Though our site is assisted and accessed by people who every day struggle against China's authoritarian system, we are painfully aware of the double standard that seems to exist for Chinese companies, websites, individuals who dare to assert themselves. Are we hypersensitive? You bet. Perhaps your Wikipedia has an article about discrimination against Chinese immigrants in US history. What are we to think when we are targeted in this manner? China Confidential is legitimate, nonprofit, non-vanity daily blog offering up-to-the-minute news and analysis regarding China's rise--perhaps the most important story of our time. The entry that alabamaboy is apparently determined to delete is non-promotional. We did not even link to the blog because we were afraid it was too aggressive (for Chinese who don't know their place). The article is factual. And it places the blog in the context of a global phenomenon that is transforming the Internet--again--as well as journalism and politics. The very fact that China Confidential--which is published, edited and written under pen names to protect certain sources and preserve freedom of travel--can achieve the audience and recognition it has speaks volumes about the credibility and appeal of its content. The editor was in fact interviewed on the BBC, which linked to China Confidential, on the day of the White House summit. And China Confidential's "bloggertorial" about the diplomatic disaster was referenced, reprinted, hyperlinked around the world. But ... we are just a Chinese vanity operation in your view.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .
One might also say that racial homogeneity and its cultural ramifications are as Chinese as tea, but that would also have nothing to do with the discussion here. Andre, the main concerns about this article are the verifiable notability of the subject and the hyperbolic, inflated style in which it is written. Bwithh 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So instead of deleting it--like Stalinist censors--why not suggest changes? We do not want to promote or advertise, only to have our news and analysis site included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) .
    • Incivility will not help the article but get you blocked. --Ezeu 10:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WE APOLOGIZE FOR BEING OVERLY SENSITIVE. BUT WE ARE WORKING UNDER EXTREMELY DIFFICULT CONDITIONS AND SIMPLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME NEUTRAL ARTICLE ABOUT OUR BLOG IN THE CONTEXT (A) OF CHINA-FOCUSED BLOGS AND (B) THE GLOBAL BLOGGING PHENOMENON THAT IS TRANSFORMING THE INTERNET AND THE NEWS BUSINESS. THE ARBITRARY, CAVALIER DELETION AND BRANDING THE BLOG AS NON-NOTABLE OR VANITY, WHICH IS WHAT ALABAMABOY DID WRITE, CONTRARY TO HIS EFFORTS TO OBFUSCATE, IS WHAT UPSET US. HAVING SAID THAT, WE DO APOLOGIZE AND KINDLY REQUEST INCLUSION. NEW LINK: http://www.topix.net/world/north-korea?full=70f87e8238 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 17 June 2006.
  • Delete While there are a limited number of valid references behind the subject, it doesn't have enough notability to justify its own article. The manner in which it has written is also strongly inclined to that of a vanity page.--Auger Martel 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the blog appears to meet the notability criteria we would normally use to assess blogs. The article does need a serious cleanup, to be sure, and the behavior of whoever is here advocating it is nothing short of abusive, of course. Still, being annoying in defense of your blog is not a reason we should use to delete the page. :) I post this opinion as an ordinary editor, this is not a decree or anything. I strongly recommend that the China Confidential defender adopt a more co-operative and kind tone. --80.128.38.104 08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep--The subject of the article seems to meet the notability requirements. The article itself is very unencyclopedic and needs serious wikifying. Those are the sort of problems that could easily be addressed by a cooperative effort, but the extremely aggressive style taken in this discussion makes me wonder whether that will happen. It's a shame that there's no mechanism for articles like this to be placed on some sort of suspended sentence, where they'll be deleted on a certain date unless certain steps are taken to bring them up to snuff. Kickaha Ota 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It seems notable and important. Also given the limitations the Chinese government places on "politically sensitive" information, I'm even more inclined to vote for keep. However, the comments of this site's principal supporter almost made me vote for delete. NOTE: if your way of arguing in support of your site involves so much insulting, anger, name-calling and incivility that it turns off even potential supporters, you need to change your tactics. Interlingua talk 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree and again apologize to all concerned. Please understand: sometimes, when one is involved in a struggle--and it is a struggle to maintain our unpaid network and adhere to our commitment to daily reporting and analysis--there is an unfortunate tendency to treat even legitimate criticism as condemnation. The content of our blog, however, does not reflect our response to perceived insults here (the business about vanity and non-notable blog). Though published under pen names, the content, while deliberately opinionated and at times somewhat sensationalist, is compelling and credible. We have build an audience on this basis alone. Naturally, we like to think this reflects positively on our work. But it also highlights the power of the Internet and the ways in which two converging technologies--blogging and broadband--are truly transforming the medium and the news and information businesses. Perhaps this is why the powers-that-be in China--who have blocked our blog--along with countless others--so fear the phenomenon. So ... thank you for your patience. Please try to include an entry about China Confidential. We are small but still significant--and frankly notable. All we care about is accuracy and fairness.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrePachter (talk • contribs) 17 June 2006.
Note from Alabamaboy: I'm not going to respond to the comments about me being racist and such (which, to anyone who knows me, would be laughable). What the article's editors should know is that I originally speedy deleted this article as nonnotable and a possible vanity article because of the zero backward links to the site using the Google search tool. When the article was recreated, I brought it to the larger deletion forum so people could comment on the proposed deletion and see if the consensus agreed to delete the article. I should still note that it is against Wikipedia policy to have the creators of a site create an article about their site on Wikipedia (that is the nature of a vanity article here). Wikipedia does not exist to promote anything, no matter if the item being promoted is a blog which (as in this case) appears to be doing very good work.--Alabamaboy 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the note. We sincerely apologize to you. We made no effort to hide the fact that we ourselves contributed the article and did not know this was frowned upon. But ... we could easily have contributed the piece under a different name. Instead, we made no effort to hide our involvement because we saw nothing wrong with it. Nor do we have any attachment to what we wrote. We frankly find it difficult to write in the encyclopedia style--it's not our thing. We simply want to be included, feel that China Confidential is important enough to rate mention. Rather than reach out now to a friend to rewrite the piece, which we could easily do, we preferred to leave it for consideration and editing by others. However, we are open to suggestions and advice.-Andre Pachter[reply]

Nuff said? Are you serious? Huffington Post started as a blog, now aggregates blogs--and has 1-2 million readers.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLR%2CGGLR%3A2006-19%2CGGLR%3Aen&q=china+pollution+problem+june+2006 More than 5,400,000 search results for china+pollution+problem+june+2006 ... and the China Confidential article is #2 right below the NYTimes. There are many more examples. With over 700 articles covering a broad range of specific topics, China Confidential articles and essays increasingly show up high in Google rankings. This is no ordinary blog, with all due respect. Frankly, the intensity of the reactions of some--their apparent determination to delete even a modified, edited, Wikified--whatever--piece on China Confidential is downright puzzling. We have already apologized for our emotional response, and hope we can be included.... Andre Pachter PS Please have a look at this one: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=china&btnG=Search+Blogs and this: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=china+confidential&btnG=Search+Blogs http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&domains=bearshare.com&client=pub-3233632352412683&channel=8362897247&safe=&cof=GALT%3A008000%3BDIV%3Af4f4f4%3BVLC%3A551A8B%3BALC%3AFF0000%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A7777CC%3BGIMP%3AA90A08%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbearshare.com%3BFORID%3A10%3B&searchtype=Query&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=taepondong+-2c+missle&ad=w9&num=10 This one, 9 or 10 out of nearly 17 million, 2 below a Wikipedia article, as of this moment: http://www.google.com/search?hs=wsi&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=historical+link+between+China+and+India&btnG=Search Not to belabor the point, but as of this moment #6 out of 27 million: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=china%27s+threat+to+environment&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=the+coming+collapse+of+china+2006&btnG=Search This article was widely referenced. -AP FYI: http://www.rfa.org/english/features/blogs/blogwatch/

  • Comment. Is anyone else really worried about what direction this page could EVER go? Andre seems very defensive, to the point of calling people racist. I worry about how encyclopedic and fair the WP article on China Confidential will be. And I'd like to see citations on all the statistics and claims made in the article. Is there someway we would put this AfD on hold for a month and see whether the rhetoric can be toned down? Janet13 05:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations

[edit]

List - unencyclopaedic - not even complete; seems only Paris has a station in France! Even if complete no place for it here. BlueValour 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously delete. There is a thing on wikipedia called categories for this kind of thing. --Ezeu 21:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lists are a valuable way to organize information separate from the main article but easily accessible. They are different from categories in the flexibility they offer for organization and annotation, and the ability to contain things that aren't articles yet. Fg2 11:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It might be useful for the red-links, but a single article to list every rail-station on the planet? Seems massively unmanageable to me. ---J.S (t|c) 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as of unmanageable length. BillC 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reorganize. For countries that have their own lists, the only entry in this article should be a link to the list (e.g. India). For countries that do not have their own lists, people can add stations to this article, and when there are enough, or someone's interested, they can move the content to a list for the country. Fg2 11:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that it is incomplete is helpful as it shows mainly important stations whereas the categories are full of tiny stations. Chicheley 15:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are so many railway stations in the world, listing them all is not an appropriate aim for Wikipedia. Cedars 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The problem with this list is that it is so incomplete as to be useless. Nothing for Africa, Middle East or South America. Some countries have a link to a national list whereas others have a small number of their major stations listed. I understand the argument that perhaps this list could be fixed. Realistically, however, it never will be and probably cannot. There are a couple of other considerations. Firstly would anyone ever use it? I doubt it - they are far more likley to go to the national article. Secondly such an incomplete list like this will adversely affect the reputation of WP. TerriersFan 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reorganise. I am all for railway station lists e.g. my work on List of South East Queensland railway stations. However, a world-wide one (I would even say a national one too, unless it is a smaller country) is just plain silly. There are far too many. Further, does this include passenger rail, metros, monorails, light rail, freight, underground postal railways, &c &c? The proper format for this page is found at the bottom, where it gives internal links to the lists for each Australian jurisdiction. This would be a good page to find the right jurisdictions and then find the railway station, not just a global search. Jammo (SM247) 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize. I've never seen this as a recommendation (in my 2 weeks on AfD discussions), so let me explain. Often I think the purpose behind these lists would be better served with the creation of a Wiki category. Two common criticisms of such lists are contradictory: 1) They don't include everything, so therefore they're incomplete and arbitrary OR 2) They include everythere, so therefore they'e indiscriminate collections. The addition of Wiki categoris might solve this problem: they make it possible to link articles without setting up a separate article-as-list. I'd suggest a uniform style: "Railroads in X." It would then be possible to have a supra-category "Railroads By Geographic Area" and include on that page the many separate "Railroads in X" categories. Go here for instructions on how to make a category. Is this an acceptable Wiki solution? Interlingua talk 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good list, helps in navigation. --JJay 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reason for list of this kind, rather unencyclopedic. Though categories would not be subsitution since it cannot list railway stations by country. --WinHunter (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep since it is has been made into a perfectly valid disambiguation page. If the nominator or someone else disagrees, take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion where the nomination to delete should have been made in the first place. --Ezeu 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga (disambiguation)

[edit]

Redirects to another disambiguation page CPAScott 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AA Gifts

[edit]

This is obvious advertising. Frekja 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sausage party

[edit]

Basicaly an Urban Dictionary entry that found its way onto Wikipedia. It strikes me as unverifiable and unexpandable. Delete unless someone can come up with a reliable source for this term. GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles television stations

[edit]

I originally prodded this back in May, but it got removed with the reason "carries info. not available in category". In addition to being redundent with Template:LA TV and Category:Television stations in Los Angeles, it may also be classified as listcruft, as no other television market has their own article with a list of stations in that respective market. —Whomp [T] [C] 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, abstain for now. —Whomp [T] [C] 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Contents is WP:V, NPOV and notable. List is useful for those who are interesting in learning more about the subject. Having similar lists for other top-40 markets would be a good idea actually. The list does have more information then the category has, and it is OK that the info is partly redundant to the template. However... All those logos pose a problem with Fair-Use guidelines. I'm not sure if they qualify for fair use. ---J.S (t|c) 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sickening as it is, this list does not violate any Wikipedia standards or policies. It is neither better nor worse than lists usually are. But please loose the logos. --Ezeu 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have removed the logos as a violation of fair use policy. —Whomp [T] [C] 13:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment/inquiry. Lots of lists get nominated for deletion. Today, on the discussion about railway lists I suggested the use of categories rather than lists. However, I notice that this list seems to get a less hostile reception than others (raiways, cemeteries, Disney characters' names in other languages, Harry Potter characters' names in other languages). Could someone explain to an AfD-newbie (me) why this is? I am a list-maker and list-user and generally have an approach to lists that is more inclusionist, "Wikipedia is not paper" than that of many other Wiki-editors. But what can editors do to make lists that are less likely to be deleted? Interlingua talk 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The material is also included in {{LA TV}}. If kept, then replace the content with the template. Why maintain two copies of the same material? Vegaswikian 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aldridge

[edit]

Claim to fame is 40 years in the Salvation Army -- is that enough? NawlinWiki 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Alley

[edit]

This is just advertising; the service isn't notable enough to merit a wikipedia entry. Frekja 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old sebilis

[edit]

Level in one computer game, EverQuest. There are well over 100 of these in the game, and it's even a particularly notable one anymore. Zones of EverQuest exists for this purpose. Nightwatch／respond 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.Y.O. Streetcred

[edit]

4 Google hits. This is vanity. Frekja 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Zanimum, see [48] - BigDT 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Vallejo

[edit]

No relevant results on Google, but the article claims he's notable. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'"AFJ-USA" "ed vallejo"' gets zero Google hits. "AFJ-USA" itself only gets a handful. Speedy delete, despite the editor's rants. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Cunningham

[edit]

non-notable, despite claims. The website has no alexa ranking, the link to imdb is as executive producer of a film which is "filming". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. His IMDB listing is as a "producer" for The 1 Second Film. It's a charity fundraiser where everyone who kicks in a buck gets a producer credit, and thus an IMDB page. Fan1967 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I would argue that there is no claim of notability in the article. For the record, I'm also an associate producer on The 1 Second Film, thanks to my $2.22 donation, and I think everyone should be a part of it. You can support an interesting art movement, and the money goes to a great cause (the Global Fund for Women). -- Kicking222 23:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-deletion After seeing this guy's upcoming spoof documentary of Manchester I would argue that this article should stay because I can guarantee if it's deleted the same people who said it should be removed will be welcoming it back when this guy becomes a household name.--Anxious14 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, above person whose first edit is to this AfD, is called Crystal ballism. Wikipedia standards state that, in short, speculation does not an article make. And for the record, if this person is ever notable, then I certainly will welcome an article on him; until then, he is highly unworthy of an article on WP. -- Kicking222 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only created an account to stress my point. I've seen this guy doing stand-up in Manchester alongside Steve Coogan (who stated quite clearly that at the age of 19 he is already a major comedy talent). I can see your Crystal ball argument but the fact remains that Tobias Cunningham is already notable in the respect that I've just mentioned.--Anxious14 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong Delete and Comment It's not an argument. It's a statement. And already notable in the respect that you just mentioned? You didn't assert any notability at all, just the same "You'll be sorry if you get rid of this" I've heard a thousand times. Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough, but all you AfD <personal attack removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 02:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)> are doing is removing an article which is valid. Maybe what I'm saying is only a statement but what about what you are saying? Is that not a statement by you saying that you don't know who this guy is? I think so. And so this article will now be removed simply because of your immediate assumption that Tobias Cunningham isn't notable. I tried Tobias...--Anxious14 01:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "up and coming" and "budding" say it all: crystal ball. None of use wish the comedian anything but the best, it's just that right now, he lacks sufficient notability even for an encyclopedia of 1,000,000+ articles. Interlingua talk 21:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Barely over a speedy. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete + Redir. Tawker 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS90

[edit]

This article is a duplication of Immunocal under a different brand name. It is increasingly apparent that both articles were placed on WP primarily as advertisements. (My PROD of Immunocal was removed and I went along with it. Thus I have taken this article to AfD.Outriggr 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pennsylvania accent

[edit]

The article violates WP:OR. It has no basis outside of the opinions that the person who wrote the article, and the contributers have. The one website used as a reference has little or no information that is actually used in the article itself. MBob 23:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcote School

[edit]

The page is one of 2 new pages created by a new editor (the other was a two sentence biographical entry about a non-notable individual, which was speedily deleted). The page started out as an unverified stub article about a school, but now includes several lines of nonsense and what is probably an attack on one of the pupils. If someone is willing to identify sources, support the article's notability, and edit it to a point where it can be salvaged, then it might be worth keeping. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Road Wizard 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to back up the statement about "Samuel Bardsley" you have left in the article? That was the one I was thinking was perhaps an attack on a current pupil, as I can't verify anyone notable of that name linked to the school. I will remove the statement as a temporary measure. Road Wizard 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis_William_Cashmore

[edit]

Person seems to be entirely fictional (hoax). I can find no reference to either the father or the son playing for watford FC - very strange indeed. Seems to be connected in some way to the Ian Cashmore article - unsure of reason Charlesknight 00:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I had thought I had found some partial verification here but it appears to have been written by the same author as our article. I will see what else I can find. Road Wizard 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes same author - Ian Cashmore seems to be real, his father seems to be real - his grandfather and greatgrandfather's career for Watford FC? Seems to be fictional. --Charlesknight 00:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The info sounds entirely plausible but given the near non-notability of the person, the author really has to give some citations or verification. Without that, it's impossible to judge the veracity. Interlingua talk 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trefor Jones' The Watford Football Club Illustrated Who's Who is probably as accurate as a stat book can be. The book references Football Association records, club records, various libraries and record offices, the details of various other club statisticians. No Cashmore is listed, thus we can say with 99.9% certainty that no such player played for Watford. So, with the various details of Dennis' life all non-notable, the only possible reason for a keep is the claim that he helped design Watford's Family Enclosure. I checked Oliver Phillips' official history, and the chapter on 1982-87 contains a single mention of a "new family enclosure in 1982." Still, whether Dennis designed it or not, that's not really a justification for keeping the article.HornetMike 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks for your messages.

I can assure you that "this person" is certainly not a hoax, and I am just glad that his family have not seen this.

I am not sure why Denis is not listed in the current Who's Who, as he has been in previous editions. In fact Trefor Jones is actually related to Denis (his nephew), as his mother was Denis's sister. You can verify this be contacting Trefor Jones direct, or via the archives at either the Watford Museum or Watford Football Club.

Would it help if I can get a copy of a Watford football programme showing Denis? I understand why you have to be vigilant on which articles you include, but I can assure you that the information is 100% accurate. Moreover, would it be useful to get Trefor to write a corroborating letter, or have some input?

I actually represent Denis's grandson Ian Cashmore (Trefor would be his great uncle) for his tv and radio work, and he has asked me to deal with this for him, which is why I have made these posts on his behalf, but I have no problem asking him for Trefor's details, and for a copy of a programme if this is any use?

Please let me know what you need from me to resolve this.

PeterCarrig


  • Comment A letter from Trefor would be classed as original research I'm afraid - are there previous copies of the who's who floating about somewhere? What we need is something like that from either Watford Football club or another media source that identifies him as a player.

--Charlesknight 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Thanks for getting back to me so quickly Charlesknight!

I am sure there are previous editions around. I am going to ask Ian to get onto Trefor (who will no doubt have copies of them all!!! And I will also ask him to get hold of a Watford programme if possible.

Thinking about it, I might the club a call and see if they have something on file there.

Thanks for your advice, and I'll get back to you when I have more!

PS. By the way, I think HornetMike has misread the article, as it was not Denis who designed the Family Enclosure, it was his son Raymond (Ian's dad) who did this. It was part of a competition in the early 80's which Ray won.

PeterCarrig

  • Keep I have now received a copy of a Watford football programme from Ian dated 30 November 1929 which shows D.Cashmore in the players lineup. I have posted a copy of the cover of this programme together with the players diagram and an enlargement of such.

I have been advised that Ian has spoken with his Dad who says he has many of Denis's Watford medals if you would like them to be posted here. Obviously that will take a while for him to do, but in the meantime hopefully the proof the attached programme provides will be of interest to you. Ian's dad is also going to contact Trefor, but since any evidence he can provide seems to "not be admissbale(!)" I am not sure what he will be able to offer.

Ian has pledged to check his grandfather's listing on here soon (as his schedule allows), and provide any additional dates / names etc which might be required. I have also just added more exact dates to the main listing.

Thanks for your help, and I hope that this will resolve the validity of the listing.

PeterCarrig 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the image sizes to prevent page clutter. Full sized versions can be seen by clicking on each one. Road Wizard 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my previous claims of "fictional person" - --Charlesknight 19:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hi guys, thanks for all your help. I spoke yesterday evening with Ian who was going to try to call Trefor to see if he could provide any more info. He is also getting hold of some accompaning pictures to go on Denis's page.

Now that the article has been verified, when will it cease to be "awaiting possible deletion"?

Thanks again PeterCarrig 09:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playwright Steve Newman

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of non-notable biographies. This individual fails the tests at WP:BIO. He generates no usable Google hits (Steve Newman is also a musician and a common name), no news hits, has not contributed in a lasting way to his field and the article will never be more than a stub. Additionally, the article was created by and has only one editor whose username matches the subject and whose account has only edited this page. Thus this also satisfies the criteria of being a vanity page. Kershner 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it is admittedly a self-created vanity page, but a google check for '"Steve Newman" playwright turns up 11,000 hits (see: [49], [50], [51]). I think he's notable enough. It's a close call. Deleuze 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VANITY -- Where is Where? 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He seems to have been a playwright but not had a significant impact. I haven't been able to trace reviews of his works by reliable third-party sources. The sources cited by user Deleuze don't meet our verifiability guidelines and I have been unable o find better ones. I would vote to keep if reasonable sources could be found. If the article is kept, it should be renamed to Steve Newman or Steve Newman (playwright) if there are other Steve Newmans with articles. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP, among other things. If kept, rename per Capitalistroadster. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnentafel of Prince Wolfgang of Hesse

[edit]

list of ancestors of reasonably non-notable prince; Wikipedia is not for genealogical entries

Excuse me? I moved it in accordance of naming conventions. There is no such person as Prince Wolfgang of Finland. You can gladly copy the article to Finnish Wikipedia if you want. Charles


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tawker 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Georgiev

[edit]

this has been here for 6 months and this looks fake to me so marked as hoax Yuckfoo 01:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastions

[edit]

Appears to be vanity. BRIAN0918 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16&oldid=1081096156"