Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25 June 27 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone With The Blastwave

[edit]

It's hard to imagine, I know, but Wikipedia is home to more non notable Webcomics than then entire internet combined. This one can be seen here, already up to its 17th strip! Their forums have less than 150 users and the domain its hosted on has an Alexa rank of 450,000. A prod tag was removed because the comic managed to achieve a rank of 9 on the buzzcomics topsite. This is pretty meaningless, as even tripe like InSONICnia manages to get into their top 25 and with only 130 Google hits, no decent sources, this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 23:59, 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 Speedy delete per below.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil's Return (manga)

[edit]

Copyvio - straight lift from website. BlueValour 00:10, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OneCone

[edit]

Non-notable group/forum that makes unknown films. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:42, 19 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! 00:32, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice commerce

[edit]

Seems like ordinary dictionary definitions of "voice" and "commerce", not helped by reference to website of "Voice Commerce Group" in the first line NawlinWiki 21:11, 19 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! 00:52, 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 all redirected to Daily Kos and protected. There is a significant majority here who support deletion, redirection and/or merging, and as there is already content on Armando in Daily Kos I see that as sufficient consensus for the redirect. This article is so light on content of interest to those outside the blogosphere, with the only claims to outside recognition being a few radio appearances, that I see neither convincing reasons nor overwhelming majority opinion to keep this article against its subject's wishes.

The subject's objection to this article does not influence my decision - but I do suspect that, given the extreme lack of substance to this article, the generation of so much hot air (or impassioned discussion, if you prefer) towards getting this article kept on its own partly arises from a backlash against his agitation.

The continued existence of Armando Lloréns-Sar as a redirect may be a privacy issue, however this AfD has not sufficiently addressed that issue to support a deletion of that redirect, so if deletion of that redirect is desired it should be taken to redirects for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armando (Blogger), Armando Lloréns-Sar, Armando (blogger)

[edit]

OK, this is as a follow-up to the 1st nomination (edited to include last unblanked version) which was brought up for review. The review was unanimous in favor of overturning/relisting, as far as I can tell, but was not properly closed but removed as moribund (review here). ~ trialsanderrors 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: [Full professional name] is the blogger Armando on Daily Kos and as such was deemed notable by most editors. The issue revolved around privacy because WP seemingly was used to spread private information on Armando. After new evidence on public appearances was posted this became moot, and can be traced now from various 1 1/2 news articles. So the question that remains for the community to find consensus on is:

  1. Is Armando as a blogger notable?
  2. Would it be better to merge or redirect to Daily Kos and add the news story there?
  3. Should this be deleted outright?

I'm recusing myself from the debate, but mention that "[FULL NAME] and variants don't pass my T&E:510 test. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two links from the 1st nomination for reference: Begin quote

Reference to Armando Llorens as guest blogger on Daily Kos at the Stanford Law School's "The Bay Area Law School Technology Conference" speakers page.
Reference to "Mr. ARMANDO LLORENS (Daily Kos)" at NPR Transcripts search page. Transcript available for purchase.
--Guest458 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End quote ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Stanford is the secondary source, since they clearly did not make up the bio stub. The primary source is Armando himself. ~ trialsanderrors 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the basic fact that the article is an attack article that was used to threaten the livelihood of the subject. It doesn't change the fact that it's disgraceful that Wikipedia should be used in such a way. It doesn't change that fact that using Wikipedia in such a way hurts the project because it earns us additional ill-will and fodder for our critics. Just because we can have an article on a subject doesn't mean that we should have that article. It isn't acceptable to use Wikipedia as a tool for harrassment and threats. Guettarda 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, a similar issue happened last year in the Tron naming controversy, where an article was kept by the Wikimedia foundation even though it contained personal information on the subject (such as the hacker's real name). I believe that Wikipedia's response to that situation should be applied to this situation. However, if this article is to be deleted, in my opinion it should be because of the WP:BIO guideline, not WP:RPA --TBCTaLk?!? 05:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC Tron was a. underage and b. did not personally reveal his full name? ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tron was underaged and his full name was revealed in a Wikipedia article, against the wishes of his parents and the ruling of a Berlin court (until the ruling was later overturned).--TBCTaLk?!? 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tron is also not a living person (he died in 1998) so WP:BLP doesn't apply to him. Phr (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it fails WP:BIO per arguments above. Keep read some more about it, appears to be notable. Whether or not the article was used to "out" someone in the past is irrelevant to the present incarnation of the article; whether it was right or wrong, it's in the past, and deleting the article isn't going to change it. Excluding information for this reason will, moreover, impose unnecessary limits on Wikipedia. If properly sourced, I see no reason for excluding such information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a moral statement. ikh (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) *Merge (aka, retain as redirect to Daily Kos). Fails WP:BIO except in conjunction with Daily Kos. WP:RPA clearly does not apply. (At this point, those who read the first AfD and still believe that Wikipedia is the source of the "outing" do not deserve WP:AGF. I'm not naming names, but it was clearly revealed that he was outed before the date of the article (if everything was undeleted).) WP:BLP suggests we need to watch the article carefully for relevance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:BIO. Highly notable blogger providing it is verifiable which it seems to be. I have no problems with Wikipedia providing publicly available information on significant bloggers providing it meets our verifiability standards which it seems to do. Capitalistroadster 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. This meets verifiability standards, period. WP is not censored, etc, and having his name out there certainly doesn't violate any laws. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Passes WP:BIO, not legally defamatory. Tevildo 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. While I personally don't think bloggers are notable at all unless they are published in real media, there is certainly nothing in this article that can't go into Daily Kos. What is said there about "Armando" is all that needs to be said. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Arthur Rubin, Aguerriero. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without any Merge of any data. The info on Armando on the Daily KOS article is sufficient. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect Boldly done already. People who disagree are directed to WP:BLP, which they will follow, or be blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of BLP does this comply with? I see nothing to suggest in the guideline that this change makes sense, nor do I see anything that would allow anyone to be "blocked" due to a disagreement regarding your interpretation of a guideline, not a policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP reads, in part "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above)." WP:BLP has wide consensus. If you fail to follow it, you will almost certainly be blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is fine, and your change eliminates plenty that is relevant to his nobility. As noted elsewhere, the blocking policy concerning this type of threat, which is the part you should focus on, states that "[e]ditors who repeatedly insert critical material into the biography of a living person (or its talk page), or into a section about a living person in another article (or its talk page), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy if, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the material is unsourced, or incorrectly sourced, and may constitute defamation." Mentioning who Armando is in the title and sourcing the information about National Review, a major publication, outing him violates nothing, and I believe your threats are entirely without merit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1. Neither the print nor online versions of National Review has used his name - only their low-readership media blog.
            • Which is an extension of the magazine. Regardless, his full name is still in the WP entry, and has been used in association with the blog in numerous other places besides that, such as NPR. It's certainly not a secret, nor does it fall under any sort of "defamation." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 2. I refer specifically to information designed to harm the individuals career - his employer, for instance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Irrelevant to this discussion. A Wikipedia entry that mentions a sourced situation which has been out in the open for weeks now has absolutely no danger in harming his career. Armando's use of his name in attachment to his appearances on the radio, for instance, did not supposedly harm his career. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is not established that he used his full name on the radio on purpose, or gave it to the radio show in confidence and they released it without checking with him first. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 3. Further, it would be disruption to consistantly violate the other sections of WP:BLP - specifically, the part about "primary sources" and that you can't use them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • We're not using any primary sources, either, so this point is moot. A primary source would be, as an example, the link to Armando's law firm that has his name, picture, and contact information without attribution to the fact that he's been outed. A secontdary source would be NRO mentioning which law firm he works at. The third party information is the NRO information, the NPR link, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ziggurat. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, was there some sort of controversy surrounding the redirect that stood for about 8 days without reversion? I think going back to the Redirect to Daily Kos is the best idea.--Isotope23 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he's notable enough. Thumbelina 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on comment by Capitalistroadster, this person is notable. Yamaguchi先生 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge anything useful. This person appears well-known for association with Daily Kos, but any post-Kos notability seems unverifiable, and WP is not a crystal ball. --DaveG12345 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But someone is missing: Armando. A favorite blogger and foreign policy wonk, Armando earned the privilege of posting on the front page of Daily Kos. But, before the festivities began in Las Vegas, National Review Online revealed this hero of the liberal blogosphere to be Armando Lloréns-Sar, a corporate lawyer in Puerto Rico who has represented Wal-Mart and Clorox. Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website, his unmasking sent shockwaves through the Daily Kos community and led Lloréns-Sar to quit the site--and, according to bloggers here, cancel his appearance at the convention, lest his pastime create a conflict for his employers. ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to highlight a section, as this is from a third party source for those confused: "Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website..." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is incidentally the same as on his TPMCafe profile. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I don't think Armando's affiliation with Daily Kos was listed on his law firm's web site, just like your affiliation with Wikipedia is probably not listed on your firm's web site. If someone managed to connect your Wikipedia handle back to your real-world name and workpace, I don't think you'd want it posted here, if that helps you understand this situation a little better. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per badlydrawnjeff. The claim that this article somehow violates WP:BLP is completely without merit, Lloréns-Sar has repeatedly gone on record as the same Armando who posted on Daily Kos. Silensor 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is even one example known where he (Armando himself) went on record as the same Armando who posted on Daily Kos? The sources cited so far seem to be from third parties who had access to the info and revealed it, possibly without realizing that it was supposed to be private. I.e. suppose I interview you on TV as "Silensor" and you give me your real name privately before the taping starts, but then somehow your real name shows up on the TV station's web site--have you gone on the record as being the same Silensor who edits Wikipedia? I'd say you haven't. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Stanford link I included above [5] appears to satisfy this. Conference speakers virtually always supply their own biography, and if he didn't want it used I think he would have said something to them in the last 14 months. The alternative is that Stanford was able to do their own research and come up with that bio back in April 2005, which I think is less likely. Dori 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to be notable enough. bbx 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attack page. — Dunc|☺ 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Armando is a notable blogger with a high profile by virtue of his Daily Kos posts and his full name was publicly known on NPR and other major media, in some cases by his own volition. Calling it an attack page is a misrepresentation. Rcade
  • Delete. Non-notable outside the context of Daily Kos. I would say merge but there doesn't look like anything here to merge except a single mention in the Daily Kos article that he is one of their contributors. KleenupKrew 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the various arguments of badlydrawnjeff. ScottW 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this person is important and meets bio requirements too Yuckfoo 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was not really a notable blogger on Daily Kos eventhough Daily Kos is a notable blog. He is not neccesarily notable because he used to blog there. Not all former writers for the New York Times or Washington Post are considered notable. Beyond the Daily Kos service he fails to meet the standards listed in WP:BIO. --Strothra 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, barely ekes out notability by association to Daily Kos. Any other notability in media stems from that, not vice versa. KWH 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Delete. Per comments section, it seems like this article was originally created as part of the attempt to "out" this person, and the subsequent events since outing do not confer notability. Also a bit shameful on Wikipedia, I believe, we ought to have learned how to manage these things in a bit more sensitive manner by now. KWH 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, really should speedy, the article barely asserts notability. It says the subject is best known for frequent posting to Daily Kos. Wikipedia is much more popular than Daily Kos, and yet frequently editing Wikipedia doesn't create notability. The article also deliberately includes personal info (the subject's full name), which he does not use in his Daily Kos posts and tried to keep private. It should certainly be omitted from the article on the same grounds under which we omit home addresses and phone numbers and sometimes birthdates even though that info could be found by similar stalking efforts. The situation with Tron is not comparable since Tron is unfortunately no longer a living person, and also because Tron's real name was widely reported in the international press after his grisly and mysterious death. That's much different than someone trying to stay private but having someone slip up on a few obscure occasions. I basically see this article as an attack piece whose main purpose is to out an anonymous blogger who is generally non-notable but who is disliked by a certain crowd that opposes his point of view. So it's a misuse of Wikipedia. Phr (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Posting his personal phone number or other private information would clearly be a breach of WP:BLP. His full name and professional information, now that it has been second-sourced, not so. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as notable blogger. Also a comment: as long as his real name is verifiable (which appears to be the case here), it should be mentioned. What's outed cannot be outed. –Dicty (T/C) 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Changing my vote to delete and salt the earth in its wake. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia. If I wanted blogdom wankery, I'd go read a blog. –Dicty (T/C) 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the logical connection between Armando's real name being verifiable and it belonging in the article. Can you explain further? If we can somehow find out and verify his mothers' maiden name and his social security number, should we include those too? Any notability that he has as a blogger is under his blogging name, which is simply Armando. Phr (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. His mother's maiden name and SS # aren't necessary or relevant for a typical biography. A person's real name and occupation are, as WP:BLP clearly states, as long as it's well-sourced by third party sources and doesn't create any issues, which this obviously does not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can say that it "obviously" does not create any issues. The person in question certainly thinks it does as do some other editors here. I personally don't think it does, but WP:BLP states that "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" Maximusveritas 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's obvious either. But WP:BLP also says If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Clearly this sequence of events had a major impact on A's notability. As some people claimed, prior to his outing A didn't even appear in the Daily Kos article. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can reasonably disagree on that, but it's mostly because I don't think this is a borderline case. If we didn't have the TNR and NPR and NRO evidence, I wouldn't be arguing about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Verifiability is not a reason for including, merely a criterion. Independently of verifiability, the real name of a notable person is interesting and encyclopedic information, in the sense that the average person looking up Armando in an encyclopedia might expect to find it and might even be interested in this info. His social security number isn't similarly encyclopedic. With regard to keeping names secret, a recent similar case is with the real names of the bandmembers of Lordi. –Dicty (T/C) 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as a notable blogger, the name was "outed" half a year ago. This controversy is manufactured in the worst possible way. RFerreira 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all per badlydrawnjeff. BaseballBaby 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please locate a secondary source that documents his employer name. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please try to take a more WP:CIVIL tone with those you are in disagreement with. Edit summaries like this are inappropriate and uncalled for. Silensor 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Since it is clear that those who wish to do me harm are numerous at Wikipedia, I withdraw my request for deletion and ask for the following - IF I am so notable a blogger to merit such attention, then where is the discussion of my actual posts? I think the article should discuss what I consider my two most notable blogging issues - opposition to the Bush Administration's torture regime and to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, and my posts on the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Indeed, as the folks who hate me so have duly noted, my appearances on the radio were wholly related to these two areas of discussion. Since the evidence of my notoriety that supposedly merit this article, relate to my posts on those subjects, then in all fairness they should be part of the article.

In addition, the evidence of my notoriety includes the name Armando Llorens, NOT Armando Llorens-Sar, thus any references to my name should be to my "notable name" - not to my non-notable professional name. Further, my law firm was not mentioned in my "notable appearances and is clearly not of interest to any but those with harmful intnetions. It should be excluded. Similarly, the client list of my firm also was not mentioned in any "notable" appearances and thus that too should be excluded from the article.

Thus, the description of my non-notable personal life should be to my name - as stated in my notable appearances "Armando Llorens" and my private professional life should be described as "an attorney in large corporate law firm." It seems to me that those who perceive these facts as "notable" should have little to complain about with such descriptions. Those with axes to grind of course will object to excluding the names of my children and where they go to school. I hope Wikipedia has the good sense to not let it be the vehicle for vicious person who have harm and hate as their agendas.--Armandoatdailykos 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I must ask one further question. I just checked and saw that Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia. It boggles the mind to believe that I am more notable than Duncan Black. I must again wonder how Duncan Black, once porrayed as a character on the West Wing, is not sufficently notable for his own bio, but somehow I am. I also review the standard for notability and inclusion as a bio at Wikipedia and no one can seriously argue that I qualify. I must insist that the clear inappropriateness of having a separate bio for me is conclusive proof that those who are insisting that it exist are motivated by hatred and the thirst for revenge. I do not believe any honest person can believe that there should be a separate biography for me at all.

I am now more convinced than ever that to include a biography of me in Wikipedia would be a sheer act of malice, a violation of Wikipedia policy and strong evidence that Wikipedia itself jhas flown off the rails. I must imagine that others have been subject to these vicious uses of Wikipedia to cause harm. Frankly, any sincere believer in this project will have a hard time explaining how this can be justified. I urge those of you who believe in Wikipedia to consider the damage you do to the credibility of this project. I can say that in all sincerity it is my view that the sooner Wikipedia collapses from its complete lack of control, the better. This is simply disgraceful.--Armandoatdailykos 09:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Atrios (created April 2004). Dr. Duncan B. Black and Duncan B. Black (redirect created Sept. 30, 2005), and Duncan Black which has a disambiguation link to Atrios. –Dicty (T/C) 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that there is a separate biography of Duncan Black? It seems to me that it means that there is a link to an article about Atrios. My point was that the link to Duncan Black did not stand alone. Obviously, I am less notable than Duncan Black. The minimum would require that a redirect would be the most I would face. Moreover, Duncan Black is a fulltime blogger who now blogs for a living. So, not only is Duncan Black much more notable than me, he is a fulltime blogger who no longer is anonymous. I am a non-paid occasional blogger, unknown to most of the world, who does not even come close to meeting the notability requirements established by Wikipedia, who no longer posts on the front page of daily kos, who was the victim of a concerted vendetta that used as its primary weapon Wikipedia and its extremely lax controls.

I am not sure what your view is on these issues as you expressed none but I think that your information misses my point.--Armandoatdailykos 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article Atrios is a biographical sketch of Duncan B. Black (a redirect to the main article). Your initial claim "Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia" is incorrect. Your point in the comment directly above is unclear to me. The pattern in Atrios' biography article is exactly parallel to that of Armando (blogger) (main article) and Armando Lloréns-Sar (a redirect to it). I certainly agree with you that Dr. Black appears to be more well known than you—to illustrate, I was aware of him independently of his Wikipedia biography, whereas I have come to know of you through reading this deletion discussion—but I think the Armando (blogger) article makes a sufficient case for your notability. As to whether your name should be rendered as "Armando Lloréns-Sar" or "Armando Llorens", the issue seems completely pointless to me; and since you're here, I would much rather just ask you what your name is. You say it is the latter– good enough for me! One final thing: I would request you not to impute ulterior motives to any wikipedia editors here (assume good faith, etc.). Politically, I probably agree with you to a great degree (I have not yet found anything to disagree with in your columns on Daily Kos), and I have no reason to wish you any harm. I just don't see why stating your name, especially when it is well sourced, confirmed by you yourself, and especially when your livelihood does not depend on your anonymity, can constitute harm. If there are elements in Armando (blogger) article that are directly harming you or your livelihood, please point them out and I will remove them from the article, or an administrator will remove them by hiding a portion of the article's history such that it is no long publicly accessible. I will now make the changes regarding your name and place of employment that you requested above. (these changes have already been made by others.) –Dicty (T/C) 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such changes are under heavy dispute at the moment. None of the information he claims is anything that's only available here, and our policies are clear in such regard - "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If we let the subjects decide what's worthy of inclusion, we may as well not do any biographies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, the onus is on the person wishing to include information about Armando's place of employment or the name he uses professionally to show why this information is notable. WP is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Dicty (T/C) 17:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the discussion on the talk page of the article, we've beaten the horse to a bloody, zombified pulp at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion page once before, and have now refreshed my memory of it. I still do not see a proper argument for why Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients is notable information. What I see instead is repeated hamfisted use of WP:BLP to quash dissent and no small amount of bad faith accusations flung to and fro. You will do me a favour if you summarise the arguments for the notability of Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients in a separate section here or on Talk:Armando (blogger), without reference to any earlier argument. –Dicty (T/C) 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armando's "professional name" has been used by Armando in his appearances associated with Daily Kos at NPR, among others. His law firm helps fill out a full biography of him, which is also cited in a variety of different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. The type of clients he has served helps fill out a full biography of him, also cited in different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. They're notable to be published all over the place, much of it is notable enough to be put out there by other third party places associated with Armando. I'm completely puzzled as to why this is an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: first, there seems to be a mistake of fact in your comment. The cited NPR interview[6] used the name "Armando Llorens", not "Armando Lloréns-Sar". The sole citation for the latter form of his name is the NRO blog posting (which was cited by Slate). In his comment above, Armando asked that the former be used in the article, and it's a reasonable request as the latter name is not as verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Second, that some fact is notable in other media does not make it ipso facto notable for WP. What is notable in a gossip rag (to furnish an example) is not necessarily notable in an encyclopedia. Armando is a notable blogger, not a notable lawyer. Information about his blogging activities are directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be included in his WP biography. The name of his law firm, the list of clients of said law firm, the brand of suit he prefers wearing while at work, the make and size of his shoes, and the length of his stride are examples of facts that are not directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be left out. By the way, this discussion is off topic in an AfD nomination and should be moved to a relevant talk page. –Dicty (T/C) 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with going w/"Llorens" officially, that's not a problem, although I disagree that we HAVE to. And we also disagree on what "makes him notable." Armando has gained additional prominence due to his "outing," all of which is encompassed in what we know about him. Certainly, no one's arguing shoe size or how many grey hairs anyone's given him recently, simply what's known, verifiable, and adds to the entry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Now am I to believe that this person is not acting in bad faith. Only if I agree to assume the role of an idiot. Of what significance can it be to this person that my entry use "Armando Llorens" not "Armando Llorens-Sar"? Why the same reason I prefer "Armando Llorens" (the only named used, against my wishes and permission,even in the evidence presented for my supposed acquiescence to my "outing") because I want to distance the entry from my law firm and professional life. Why? Because it is more likely to do me harm if the "Llorens-Sar" is used. And that is exactly why this person wishes to use "Llorens-Sar."

Thus this user is wrong when he says NPR used "Llorens-Sar." This user is wrong when says "his law firm helps fill out a full biography of him." Not one of you would claim that my law firm is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Why pretend this editor is acting in good faith?

This user is wrong when he say that different mediums mentioned my law firm PRIOR to the vindictive efforts to out me, commenced and forwarded right here at Wikipedia. This person is wrong when he says the names of my clients are relevant. He claims to be completely puzzled why there is objection to it. And I am asked to assume the good faith of the editors here? Ridiculous. Please do not insult my intelligence.

Does he want to describe the "type of clients" I represent? How about this descritpion? "Fortune 500 companies." Will that satisfy him? Of course it will not.

My position is clear. The integrity of Wikipedia is clearly going to be reflected by what is done here.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that this discussion is dominated by persons of bad faith. I expect the worst.--Armandoatdailykos 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I claimed or intended to claim that NPR used "Llorens-Sar." If you inferred that, fine, but that's hardly the issue at this point. You accuse people of claiming different mediums presented this information prior to "the vindictive efforts to out" you, although I see no evidence of that. If "Fortune 500" clients is accurate, great, if we can grab a third party source on that (since we have editors who will object to using you as a primary source) we'll be glad to use it. I'm sorry you feel that "this editor" is not acting in good faith - on the contrary, I've largely put my reputation here on the line in defense of the straightforward policies we have here regarding biographies of living people, which I suggest you take a look over sometime. The integrity of Wikipedia is going to be reflected poorly if we bow to the demands of anyone who is upset by a neutral, well-sourced biography of themselves here, and I'm sorry you can't grasp that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion as a biography, at least as I understnad it the following:

"Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes biographies of important historical figures and people involved in current events. Even though wiki is not paper, there are some criteria which may be considered for inclusion.

See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion. As well read the rules for biographies of living persons.

Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups).

The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

  • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
  • Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongiong discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)
  • Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage
  • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)
  • Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.
  • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
    • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
    • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    • An independent biography
    • Name recognition
    • Commercial endorsements
  • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
  • Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field
  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"

I simply do not qualify in any sense. I do not k now how anyone, acting in good faith can think I do. You claim to be upholding the ethics of Wikipedia by violating them. It is an absurdity. Indeed, this whole exercise is an absurdity. Any honest person must acknowledge that that the only reason a biography was written about me was because I debunked a Jason Leopold/Wayne Madsen acolyte who, in an act of malicious vindictiveness, wrote a biography about me which has been the subject of this ridiculous charade.

Well, the rest of you can pretend that this is a reasonable discussion in good faith. But let's be clear about this. You are fooling no one. You are bringing disrepute onto Wikipedia.--Armandoatdailykos 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, you should clearly understand that you meet the second to last one, and many would consider you to qualify under the final one, too. Considering that you meet the second to last, that's when you need to check up on WP:BLP, which is the guideline concerning biographies of living persons. Besides, what you've quoted above "is not intended to be an exclusionary list."
Perhaps someone originally created an article on you because of vindictiveness. I was personally surprised you DIDN'T have an article prior to your supposed "outing." Regardless of what the original intent was, the fact remains that the article now, except for the whitewashing, is a neutral, factual piece, and continues to be with the currently deleted information. It meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about good faith. Jeez. There's 1,225,146 other articles on Wikipedia. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry this exchange upsets you so much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now argued that I qualify as notable under these two rubriks:

  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

What noteworthy event would that be? Why my outing by a malicious member of WIKIPEDIA and the revert war that ensued!! This is ridiculous. Thus, in order to make something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia one need only write a malicious article about them, start a manufactured scandal and THEN make such person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

That is your entire argument. That, you say, is the Wikipedia ethic. If it is, it is an indictment of Wikipedia.

You say you are putting your reputation on the line in this dispute. I would say you have damaged your reputation here in this matter. And unless you are a simpleton, I can not believe you believe this article merits such attention and such damage for your reputation. You clearly have other motives. Others can play the fool for you. I will not. It is not credible.

You also say I am notable under this standard:

  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"

I have not been the subject of ANY non-trivial works. None. You argue that the National Review hit piece on me is not non-trivial? An article, by the way, about how I was fighting my outing in a WIKIPEDIA article! You argue that the TNR article about the reaction to my OUTING caused by a WIKIPEDIA article is non-trivial!

And you say you are upholding the Wikipedia ethic. For the sake of Wikipedia, I certainly hope not. Because it is about the most unethical course of action I can imagine. Malicious use of Wikipedia to make someone notable as the basis for a wikpedia article. Your ethics boggle the mind.--Armandoatdailykos 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTE, even if such articles were not non-trivial, the involve only one event, my outing at Wikipedia. So even if you, um, "ethic" is the Wikipedia ethic, I still do not meet the notable standard.

Now, what will your next straw man be?--Armandoatdailykos 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you fail to understand how we do things here is no reason to get snippy. Yes, National Review and The New Republic are non-trivial, it may be time to accept that. Furthermore, I've said my piece and you're being unnecessarily nasty, so I'm done spelling it out for you further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I will get snippy when you and others like you continue to campaign to do me harm. As for how you do things here, I did not know you were appointed King of Wikipedia. Rather presumptuous of you don't you think? A number of people are saying that what you suggest is NOT how things are done here.

Finally, the non-trivial requirement is for the story themselves, not for the publication. Moreover, it is my view the the National Review website is very trivial in the main and that TNR is often trivial. Moreover, I doubt very much that either publication would consider the stories written about me or that mention me (the TNR article was NOT about me) as serious.

So, Mr. Objective, what is your NEXT red herring?--Armandoatdailykos 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have no answer for the one event not being sufficient for notability rule. I take it you concede that I am not covered there. so you are left with the argument that I am a"[p]erson achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - the newsworthy event being my malicious outing by a Wikipedia article. That is the ethic you are left to defend.

Well done.--Armandoatdailykos 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for rational end to the fighting

[edit]

Armando, do you disagree with the article as it currently stands? If so, please indicate which parts you disagree with. (I am not promising to edit the article according to your tastes, but merely would like a clear enumeration of the currently controversial parts.) If not, there is no further need to continue fighting or accusing "WIKIPEDIA" of trying to harm you.

If you want to discuss the content of the article further, please do it in Talk:Armando (blogger). If you want to continue fighting with User:Badlydrawnjeff, please do it in a different venue (eg. User talk:Badlydrawnjeff).

This page has a single purpose — to decide whether an article on you should be included in WP or not. Your argument that you are not notable has been recorded and will be considered in the final evaluation. –Dicty (T/C) 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect Dicty, I am not through presenting my argument, but this will be my final points. The guidelines for biographies of livin g persons states, in pertinent part:

"editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons with these key areas in mind: 

   * The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies,
  • Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

I think the INCLUSION of a separate biography about me violates each of these guidelines. We must always start from the most significant fact - the original article about was undisputedly maicious, written by the banned dkosser and Leopold/Madsen acolyte jiggy flunknut. This is so because it was a verbatim copy of his diary at daily kos which led to his banning. He posted that diary because I debunked his article based on some delusional reporting by Madsen and Leopold. It was without question a malicious use of Wikipedia. This abuse of Wikipedia to harm me led to the NRO article, which led to my alleged notability. When considering whether this article should be deleted, the misuse of Wikipedia as the genesis of my alleged notability should be central to your decision. To allow this article is to invite similar malicious use of Wikipedia to do harm. In my opinion, absent strong reasons, there should be a strong presumption to delete.

The guideline further state:

"Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy."

This article is in clear contradiction to this policy.

. . . Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

I repeat "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to b e the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating clams about people's lives." This is EXACTLY what Wikipedia has been in this situation. To further harm me by including this article is to make a mockery of that stated policy.

The guidelines further state:

"Malicious editing

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

That is exactly what happened here. This article rewards that behavior.

You have read my further arguments made previously.

I object to all articles about me that relate to my personal and professional life and include my real name.

I especially object to the inclusion of the name of my law firm, the name I use professionally, and the names of my clients.

I especially object to the article entry Armando Llorens-Sar.

As I am sure my objections will not be agreed to, I will formally withdraw my objection to the article titled Armando (Blogger) as it is written today. Any changes will of course be objected to by me.

I ask that all references to Armando Llorens-Sar be removed from Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my views of this matter.

I now retire from the field.--Armandoatdailykos 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to reintrude but I must object to this requrst for comment posted by Jeff:

"* Armando (blogger) - is using the name of an "outed" blogger a violation of WP:BLP? As the blogger is aprogressive one at a leading site, and has had relevant information published clearly in multiple areas that fulfill the various requirements of WP:BLP's standards, specifically "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it," even if some editors believe that including it - regardless of that prior quote - "does harm." The more input, the better, this is a policy issue, not a political one. --14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)"

This request for comment is violative of the requirement that they be presented neutrally. I request it be retracted or deleted.--Armandoatdailykos 05:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Only articles need be presented neutrally. Discussions need not be. (I actually think that a redirect to Daily Kos is appropriate, provided a reasonable amount of information is included there. You, though, are out of line.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me Mr. Rubin, but the guidleines for Request for Comments clearly state that request for comments must be presented neutrally. I thought you were an old Wikipedia hand.--Armandoatdailykos 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Mr. Rubin, your comment that I am out of line is, well, out of line. Particularly since you are clearly in error here and all said was that Jeff violated the express Wikipedia guideline, which he did. In shirt Mr. Rubin, your slip is showing. Now, you can safely say I was out og line.--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's should be presented neutrally. It compromises the comments if the arguments of one side are presented in the RFC and the arguments of the other are expressed only on the talk page by giving undue weight to the arguments of the side that filed the RFC. As such, I have edited the request, but note that the three users who commented on the AFD post the RFC, one an administrator, all voted delete or merge. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think there were any neutrality issues with the RFC, but if you're going to change them, don't eliminate major parts of the conflict. The RFC, for the record, ahs to do with the ARTICLE, not the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the RfC. It's not mentioned on the article talk page, as it should be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned, but not pointed to (that points to the main RfC page, rather than /Politics), as of a few minutes ago, anyway. It's still irrelevant to the AfD. (Looking back over Armando's rant, it does refer to the RfC. My apologies for not seeing it, but it was badly written. If his blog writings are as bad as this, I think I'd go back to delete.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur:

They are much much worse. I think you should be counted as voting to delete the article. Thank you.--Armandoatdailykos 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Titoxd(?!?) 04:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Make It Bloom! Manly Usopp's Eight-Shaku Ball

[edit]

Also nominating:

Legend Of The Rainbow Mist! Old Man Henzo of Ruluka Island
Where The Island's Treasure Lies! Zenny Pirates Full Charge!
How's That for Profit? Money Lender Zenny's Ambition!
Infamous Pirate Hunter! The Wandering Swordsman,Zoro
The Navigator's Mutiny! For A Unwavering Dream!
The First Patient! Anecdote Of The Rumble Ball
Inherited Recipe! Sanji, The Curry Expert
Zenny Lives On Goat Island And There's A Pirate Ship On His Mountain!

These articles were nominated two months ago (previous AFD). The result was no consensus. Everyone who suggested Keep said strong cleanup is needed. Other than adding/removing tags, only one of the articles has been touched. (I am NOT nominating that one here - that article has been cleaned up as to be borderline usable ... not spectacular, but usable.)

The opinions in the original AFD were 3 keeps, 3 merges, and 4 deletes, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. BigDT 01:47, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bettws RFC, Newport

[edit]

came to light working on dead-end articles - self-promotional article;limited/no appreciable value Cain Mosni 01:51, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebong Hemppants

[edit]

Parody of SpongeBob SquarePants of unknown provenance and little notability. —tregoweth (talk) 01:52, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds free

[edit]

Insufficient useage to justify an article or establish notability. BlueValour 02:03, 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 Speedy Delete by DaGizza. Yanksox (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bexhill high school

[edit]

encountered whilst working on dead-end articles; a patent schoolkid prank Cain Mosni 02:17, 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 Speedy redirect'Blnguyen' | rant-line 03:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Hilton II

[edit]

Top marks for conciseness and accuracy but I can't establish any notability of this guy in his own right. BlueValour 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability, and being a relative of a notable person doesn't make someone notable. Only 26 unique Google hits. The article has almost no context or content. --Coredesat 02:39, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Preference Items

[edit]

Out of context. Someones unfinished project. Can't find proper merge. Brad101 02:28, 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 Redirect Computerjoe's talk 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Rock

[edit]

This is the place where The Lion King movies and books take place. I don't see why the the world needs its own article outside of the main pages The Lion King, The Lion King II: Simba's Pride and The Lion King 1½ . Also, this article might fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Starionwolf 02:30, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlueC

[edit]

Non notable website, Alexa in the 3 millions. Crystallina 02:42, 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 Speedy Delete, nn group with no assertion of notability Deizio talk 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trio-Sanity

[edit]

Fails WP:NN. Only 3 relevant google hits, one of wich is his deviantART page, and the other two are in German. The section on Unreleased Titles, along with google results lead me to believe this is not real, and only exists in the author's mind --BennyD 02:42, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Ontology

[edit]

Delete. It reads like an advertisement. There are no non-primary or otherwise credible sources cited. The Google, it turns up a lot of sites associated to the author of the idea, or that otherwise seek to make money off it. There's only 521 results anyways, which is peanuts. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded this previously, but it was recreated after the prod. The recreation counts as contesting the prod. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:48, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and patriotism

[edit]

Looks like a diatribe to me. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, cites no sources, I say delete GabrielF 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two POV's don't make an NPOV. Wikipedia is not a debate club. Fan1967 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't try to misunderstand comments. Two well-worded, dignified and objective POV's do make an NPOV. It is necessary to present different sides of an argument in order to establish nuetrality. I do not in any way support this article, but I also do not in any way support ignoring societal consensus. AdamBiswanger1 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that this is not an encyclopedic article, it is merely a person's opinion, an essay. Balancing it with an opposing essay would still not constitute an NPOV article, it would merely create a debate. There is a potential for an article on this issue, but it would have to be encyclopedic, i.e. here are the arguments of this school of thought, or this sect, or this notable philospoher or theologian. Fan1967 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed. Wikipedia is not your normal physical encyclopedia, with limits on the number of possible articles. This article just takes so little space on the server. We should try to expand Wikipedia to include all school of thoughts, even wild ideas. If you disagree with the article, you can always write to explain why is it unacceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.127.126 (talk • contribs)
  • That's not an article; that's an essay. Everyone just posting their personal opinions is a forum or a blog, not an encyclopedia. You might want to read What Wikipedia is not. Fan1967 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly Wikipedia is not a conventional hard-copy encyclopaedia. It is, nevertheless an encyclopaedia. It is for articles on factual knowledge. It is not a medium for debate or social discourse. The correct way forward, if this were the policy of a notable group would be to document the group and its policies, not to expound the argument itself. As it stands it is, as has been noted more than once already, simply a political essay. Whether one wishes to read it, or perhaps even agrees with it is of no relevance. Cain Mosni 19:36, 30 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 wasSpeedy delete a7 group (gang)/a3 not much context.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Sanity Began

[edit]

Fails WP:NFT, WP:NN. I wasn't sure if this should be a speedy delete or a regular AfD --BennyD 02:56, 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 Speedy delete: A7: Myspace band by Geogre (who forgot to close the AfD - Viridae 07:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Horrifics

[edit]

Website advert BlueValour 02:57, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britxbox

[edit]

encountered whilst working on dead-end articles; very pretty, nicely laid out, but no interlinks with the rest of WP and looks (from history) like shameless self-promotion. Cain Mosni 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an ad. If you read the history, and compare it with the content, it looks suspciously like the main contributor is the guy engaged to perform PR duties... Cain Mosni 14:46, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca Hotel

[edit]

I'm trying to go through hotel pages to remove spam and un-notable entries. This luxury hotel in New York is relatively new and has no apparent history. The article was created by an anonymous user who has a total of 3 edits, all pimping HKHotels, which I am also nominating. The Library Hotel (page started by the same user) at least has a bit of interest, the two I'm nominating are essentially spam and have not been edited since their creation apart from cosmetic edits. Pascal.Tesson 02:59, 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 Speedy Delete. Gwernol 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey 3: The Search for Trey 2

[edit]

Prank page DarkAudit 03:06, 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 Keep: Redirect to Dungeon Siege. —Centrx→talk • 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mageworld

[edit]

This is a fanmade modification and addition to the computer game Dungeon Siege I already merged the text from Mageworld to Dungeon_Siege#Mageworld. I'm not sure whether to create a redirect page, to merge the text from Dungeon_Siege#Mageworld back to Mageworld or to delete Mageworld. Starionwolf 03:13, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony De Ieso

[edit]

Sounds very much like a hoax. DarkAudit 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:35, 28 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 A7 by Fang Aili. --Coredesat talk 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole (band)

[edit]

Joke article, pure fiction and nonsense

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklyn Gottbetter

[edit]

Long list of film credits, but all minor - best ones are producer of one unknown film, first assistant director (once), and editor of the 1992 Oscars. Not notable in my opinion.NawlinWiki 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE, wow, it is obvious that none of you have worked on a movie or tv set. first assistant director is a HUGE and POWERFUL position. It is not something to be laughed at. And doesnt having a page on IMDB warrant a page on wikipedia? do a google search, he will show up. Olayak
    • Note The above comment is by the creator of the article in question. And a first asst. director may well be powerful on a movie set, but it doesn't mean that person is notable to the general public. NawlinWiki 20:24, 29 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consilient

[edit]

Corporate self-promotion (see creator's username) NawlinWiki 03:49, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Cricket Club

[edit]

Not-notable (zero Google hits); do not play in a national league. BlueValour 03:19, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 11:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Hoban High School

[edit]

Failed Speedy delete. (This is not an 'All schools are notable versus school cruft' debate!) The problem that this 'article' produces is a common one. Obviously written by a student, it is barely literate. Now it could be kept on the basis that it might be cleaned up and expanded (though it is improbable that it will); OTOH do we want this sort of low grade stuff hanging around in a serious encyclopaedia? There are loads of these being produced so I think we need a proper discussion as to what to do. BlueValour 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, without prejudice, unless it is properly rewritten by the time this AfD nomination closes. Agree with nom, the subject is possibly encyclopedic, but the contents is definitely not; since there are likely nearly no real editors with knowledge of this school, there is no point in having this sort of stuff here. ikh (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been cleaned up; appears to be notable. ikh (talk) 18:15, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grecian Sands Hotel

[edit]

Random hotel in Cyprus[13]. Article has not had a single edit since its creation (except two categorisations). Utter non-notability. Pascal.Tesson 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note however that 19000 google hits for a commercial hotel listed on hotel-booking sites is not that much.Pascal.Tesson 14:12, 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 Delete, author request Mak (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Chadwick

[edit]

This page is about a film which is due to be released in 2009, only on the internet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only source is a youtube video link, which is broken, and Urban dictionary, which is not an acceptable source, so it is Unverified. It is also most likely a hoax. Delete. Mak (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the YouTube link By the way this is one of the only unfinished films with ANY external links Keep in mind theres no offecial page because it's an UNFINISHED film

Its an UNFINISHED film. Go to the unfinished films category and take a loop at the films there. It's no more strange than any other films in this category. Its also a childrens movie so don't expect it to be completly serious. I would like the EXACT reason why this article is for deleation so I can edit it so it will agree with the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheehanmds (talk • contribs)

The exact policies which it fails are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mak (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I added the link for the Vision Films offecial website, the independent film company creating the film AND a fan-made website which by the way shows 700 hits. Now would a fake film really have 700 fans?

dont you have anything better to do than crush peoples dreams of creating a film to make kids happy?

ahh fine u guys i'll delete it if its that big of a deal//

But don't worry as soon as we finish the film and get it out there this page is goin back up//

And u guys better go see LC once its out

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Lissa Explains it All as the end article survived AfD this year - Peripitus (Talk) 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEIA

[edit]

Non-notable. (Note; listing on behalf of User:129.44.99.248 who gave his/her reason here but did not list AfD properly.) -Big Smooth 05:12, 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 Redirect to The Libertines - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dufour

[edit]

Non-notable musician. He did play drums for a notable band, The Libertines, before they became successful, but I think that information is adequately covered in the band article and a separate one is not justified here. ("Paul Dufour" drummer) gets 65 Google hits. PROD tag was removed by original author. -Big Smooth 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that White did actually play on a record (according to his article), though. I'm sure you have other examples you could cite, and I know that as you say you're not fond on using a "like" argument, but there is a difference, since Dufour never actually played on a Libs record, leaving before they were signed to Rough Trade. I can't see that an article of this length on him is in any way worthwhile, since he hasn't contributed to a notable recording - but I can see that people might possibly search for him, so I think he's worth a mention in the main Libs article and a redirect from his name. Seb Patrick 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that reasoning. Redirect per Seb. GassyGuy 13:16, 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 Merge to AMC Gremlin, AMC AMX, AMC Hornet, AMC Javelin, AMC Matador, and AMC Ambassador and delete. Source article is actually List of 1971 American Motors automobiles after the move. I provided a text of the article history in the talk page of each article, so that should satisfy the GFDL attribution requirements. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1971 American Motors Specifications

[edit]

This is just a list that can be incorporated into other articles, I see no reason why this should be an article of its own. --ApolloBoy 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AMC article is much too long to put this in, nor duplicated after every car. This is a resource that adds to the content of the WP, I cannot believe how much stuff you folks are willing to delete becaues it does not fit somebody's idea of an article, can you quote chapter and verse that tables such as the Periodic Table have no place in the WP. I believe the guideline is that if there is useful information, and it can be edited to be correct that you should edit or change, rather than delete it. Otherwise it will have to be placed outside the WP on a private web page, which can disappear. What you advocate is NOT deletion, but putting somewhere else. You are free to do that, what you suggest is against the spirit of WP.--Wiarthurhu 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the following any unduplicated/useful info:
AMC Gremlin
AMC AMX
AMC Hornet
AMC Javelin
AMC Matador
AMC Ambassador
then Delete. Otherwise an arbitrary list of virtually zero use. --DaveG12345 19:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, don't you think a table like this is useful? what a about a table comparing different fighter planes? That would be good too. Sheeeesh. Just more people having a blast knocking down other people's sandcastles. impossible that this is of zero use, or the original popular mechanics article would not have included this same information. A listing of cars without specs is also of use. --Wiarthurhu 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of specs belongs in an article, not as an article. --ApolloBoy 01:30, 27 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. Jaranda wat's sup 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books for copy editors

[edit]

Can't possibly be NPOV. --zenohockey 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A simple bibliography, not worth the electrons to hold. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NPOV. Possibly fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 09:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think this was meant to be "recommended reading" or such - I think it was just meant to be a compilation of works that copyeditors typically have on their desk. I could do the same thing for my field, technical writing. Anyone who is in the field knows that there are certain books you HAVE to have on your desk. That being said, the article needs to be sourced and have some prose written to go with it. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These tools don't seem to be any different than any other professional writer's. Maybe merge/redirect to a list of English resources or something? Wickethewok 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The list of reference books is different among disciplines. For example, most of those books are hopelessly out of scope for someone in my field - I have the Chicago Manual but most of my other references are specialized for technical writers. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This bibliography may be useful in terms of copy editing (which links to it), but I'm not sure it passes Wikipedia:List#Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria. It has no stated rationale for inclusion - for example, criteria on the notability of the books to be included, as determined by some reliable third party source. "Have to have them on your desk" is fine - as long as someone reliable has said that, and determined what those books are. Also, as it stands, the list lacks the ISBN and author information that might make it actually useful. But its arbitrary nature is the main problem IMO. --DaveG12345 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure if precedent supports that. There was a list of movies Roger Ebert deemed the worst ever that was deleted as (if I recall correctly) copyvio—even though there was evidence that he actually helped edit the article. Moral: If the list is written by someone whose opinions are objectively important (in this case, say, the editor of the AP stylebook), it should go in "External links." Otherwise, remove it. --zenohockey 20:31, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apjax

[edit]

'Apjax' doesn't seem to exist as a programming language or technique. There are 41 results from a Google search; most of them are references to fluid mechanics or the Dutch language -- nothing about AJAX and PHP, as is claimed by the article. Seems to have been made up. Certainly not notable. -- ArglebargleIV 04:58, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediajolt

[edit]

Delete advert for a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Prod notice was removed without comment Gwernol 05:11, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Non-Stop Teenage Wrestling

[edit]

This page is non-notable as it is a backyard promotion. Normy132 05:10, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOPGUN Navy Strike Fighter Tactics - game

[edit]

Hmm let's see, little content; advert. I find all the good ones :) Brad101 05:27, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roma and Sinti

[edit]

This one's a bit of an odd one - both Roma and Sinti have their own articles, and there's nothing here which couldn't be in those articles. But lots of things link to this page. Merge would be the best option, but which to? And is it worth keeping this as a redirect afterwards since it's just as easy for the other articles to have "[[Roma]] and [[Sinti]]" as "[[Roma and Sinti]]"? Grutness...wha? 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the issue is that "Gypsy" may be referring to either one. In the past, the article was a disambiguation, which I thought was strange, because the two were not ambiguous. I say, delete this, point any "Gypsy" references to Roma and include a note at the top, "Gypsy redirects here, for Sinti, see Sinti. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crzrussian's suggestion. --TBCTaLk?!? 05:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark. The given recommendations will not work as such. First, for "[[Roma]]" above read "[[Roma people]]"; the page Roma is a disambiguation page. There is an article Gypsy which does not redirect to Roma people, so the proposed top note would not work. It would have made sense if Gypsy was a redirect page to Roma and Sinti, but it is not. A meaningful top note is "Roma and Sinti redirects here", but then this page should become a redirect page, and not be deleted. Many articles already have two links "[[Roma people|Roma]] and [[Sinti]]". If I understand the situation, the PC "Roma and Sinti" instead of just "Roma" is used because some Sinti groups object to being classified as Roma, not because they aren't Roma people by any objective criterion. If "Roma and Sinti" is not more than PC speak for Roma people, then it should either be linked as [[Roma people|Roma and Sinti]], whereupon this page can be deleted, or be made into a redirect page to Roma people. It is not a service to the reader if it is replaced by a pair of links. --LambiamTalk 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is, most of the links are like these: [[Roma and Sinti|Roma]], [[Roma and Sinti|Gypsy]]. When Gypsy or Roma is said in an article, the convention seems to have developed to link to Roma and Sinti because either or both may be meant. Let the disclaimer at the top of Roma people say something like "This is the main article about people commonly known as "Gypsies", there's also Sinti." Or something like it. I dunno... - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CrzRussian. --Coredesat 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roma people and add to top of latter "See also: Sinti". --DaveG12345 20:41, 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 delete. A redirect wouldn't be amiss either. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems like an abridged, redundant version of List of Presidents of the United States. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIFIC

[edit]

Hypothetical contraceptive name. Little is notable. Brad101 05:57, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avianca codeshare destinations

[edit]

A list of destinations for a major airline may be enough, but I dont know about codeshare destinations, considering they don't fly there themselves and the general consensus in the related wikiprojects is to not list codeshares. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:57, 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 delete. Sango123 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornocracy (term)

[edit]
See also Pornocracy (AfD discussion).

This article is unencyclopedic in several ways - most prominently, it is rife with POV terms. No sources are cited. It seems to only be a subjective analysis of the main Pornocracy article detailing a period in the history of the papacy. I propose deletion given that any actual information contained here is covered in the main article. According to the disambiguation page, a book with this title is being released this year - if it deals with this subject, perhaps this article can be remade then. For now, it's best we put this one to rest. I'm surprised it's lasted this long and wasn't speedied. --BDD 06:22, 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 delete. Sango123 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plum (color)

[edit]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles, Bisque (color) (AfD discussion), Cadet blue (AfD discussion), Caribbean green (AfD discussion), Carrot (color) (AfD discussion), Cheddar (color) (AfD discussion), Blue-gray (AfD discussion), Adobe (color) (AfD discussion), Alice-Blue (color) (AfD discussion), Pale raw umber (AfD discussion), Bright green (AfD discussion), and Pang (color) (AfD discussion).

Dictdef, and one that is already at Wiktionary wiktionary:Plum with essentially all the information here, the only original information on this article are a few infoboxes. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:29, 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 speedy deleted by Xoloz. Coredesat talk 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Roman-Cruz

[edit]

No clear information given about notability; seems to fail WP:BIO. Crystallina 06:40, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney bus route 380

[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 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 delete. Sango123 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney bus route 400

[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney bus route 410

[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for articles on bus routes that aren't particularly notable or famous. There's also a risk that the information on such a page could change fairly quickly without contributors noticing. My main disagreement is that the Wikipedia page is really only rehashing the content of the Sydney transport information website. -- Netsnipe 07:02, 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: We aren't yet at the point where headmasters automatically get articles as schools do, and with that out of the way, this man has never been committed of the crimes of which he is accused, so we have zero notable deeds by this man, and no claim by the keep side that he has ever done any. That makes this page little more than an attack - until a couple of days after creation the article contained the heading "Criminal History" where no such history exists. The use of possible sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry by the article's creator in this discussion gives even more cause for concern for the article's future if it was kept. The majority for deletion is present but not overwhelming, however if I was to close this as 'no consensus' it would be an abdication of responsibility. Per WP:BLP, the level of care we must exercise with articles on living people leads me to close this as delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph O. White

[edit]

New Jersey high-school principal, accused of a crime and arrested only yesterday. Gets 8 Google News hits, all local. Otherwise completely non-notable. The photo used also seems to be improperly tagged. Was speedied and Prod'ed, but recreated and tags removed without comment. Calton | Talk 07:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, after reading the article I'm not convinced. The article states "That case, as well as similar ones..." which denotes his first acquital was not the primary reason for the change in law, it was just one factor. That doesn't make a strong case towards WP:BIO in my opinion and makes statements that this person was directly responsible for changes to New Jersey appear to be hyperbole.--Isotope23 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur that there is possible sockpuppetry going on over here. Yanksox (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Move to have unfounded accusation dismissed. While NYC2TLV did aid me as a like minded new contributor, I speak for myself and I think if you examine my (admittedly limited) contributions more closely, you will see the contrasts in our respective writing styles. --Stentorian 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've requested a checkuser to verify the users I've listed above and if it is indeed done, we will then know if sockpuppetry is being utilized here. Like I said above, the edits here are highly unusual. If I'm wrong, I will apologize.--Isotope23 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very first edit you "two" make as registered Wikipedia editors is to come vote here. It also seems strange, "Maccaphile", that you can't remember to log in, but know enough to manually paste in a your sig, complete with date. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the purposes of AFD, it doesn't matter whether they're from the same IP, or even the same human being: new users' comments aren't given much weight, especially if all they do is repeat each other. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-28 22:31Z
  • StrongSpeedy delete. Wikipedia is not: a newspaper, a registry of accused sex offenders, a gossip sheet, a directory of high school principals, or a place for defamation. He is completely non-notable outside his own high school. KleenupKrew 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not yet notable. (Watch for socks, please.) -AED 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge to Teaneck High School, where the controversy is relevant. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-28 22:23Z
  • Comment I think though that this event is actually making some waves on a bigger scale then local Teaneck/Bergen County politics, time will tell. I can also assure you that I am no puppet and am voicing my opinion solely because I believe that it is noteworthy and useful. I fully agree that nobody should be inviting people on solely for the purpose of keeping stupid threads. --SpeechFreedom 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KleenupKrew and AED (amongst others). Inner Earth 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Teaneck High School, where this would actually be relevant. RFerreira 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Strongest and Immediate Speedy Delete as (1) egregious violation of WP:BLP, (2) violation of WP:NOT EVIL, (3) blatant attack page, (4) utterly non-notable person (does this pass the ten-year test?). Should be deleted at once as harmful to Wikipedia in many ways. Wikipedia must not and cannot be allowed to be a forum to spread nasty info, even if true, about one's enemies. Wikipedia has much more visibility than most any other web site, and a Wikipedia article is forever, or at least for a long time. Despicable. Obvious and transparent use of sock/meat puppets doesn't helpHerostratus 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't you over-reacting just a wee, little bit. Considering this article concerns a public figure and is based on multiple references from the NY Times and other top-flight news sources, I don't see any violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the second page you referred to, WP:Not Evil, is an essay and thus has no bearing on the discussion. Wikipedia may be forever, but so are national newspapers - I hardly see that as a valid argument for deletion (and this is not a speedy delete). --JJay 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice to see you make good use of the argumentative technique of selective interpretation. (Spot the fact I listed a number of offences not of global note, coupled with the use of the word "every"?) Some instances may merit mention in a global encyclopaedia, for reasons of notability. Most are of note to no-one but the immediate community affected. This case for instance. If it ever becomes important beyond its currently limited catchment, then there may be an argument for constucting an article in the context of the case. Currently it's just an attack on the individual based on regurgitating in a global medium what appears to be being published on a small local front. Currently I wouldn't say it compares well in stature against - say - Homer, Yuri Gagarin, or quantum mechanics. Don't let that stop you whipping up the fervour though. There's nothing like a good lynching. Cain Mosni 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't insult the New York Times [20]. It has been a "global" medium, both in print and pixel forms, since before wikipedia was a gleam in Mr. Wales's eye. --JJay 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Given the sterling work done to the article, at first glance a fresh AfD would result in a keep consensus, but I'm concerned by the fact that no articles link to this one, and no articles in Wikipedia currently mention Cedric Gore (so no potential for it). That's very strange for someone who's supposedly notable. Nonetheless, I'm not going to second-guess the discussion here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Gore

[edit]

After an initial db-bio notice, this article still suspiciously sounds like a promotional press release promoting Cedric Gore's company "Java Kitty" rather than an encyclopedia entry. -- Netsnipe 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, as Wikipedia advert articles go, this one ain't even subtle. --Dweller 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) opinion revised... see below[reply]

  • Hold, Please advise on how "general" it needs to be to remain informative? Should his company names be removed from the entry? There aren't too many African American technologists to report on so I am trying to do my best to submit thoughtful information on the few I know of.--Francespeabody 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You would need to demonstrate some notability as reported by verifiable reliable sources. Good luck, because I turned up zip. An example (just to illustrate) on being "general" - Bandlink (like several other DRM systems) seems somewhat unpopular with music fans, as there seem to be people who bought CDs with Bandlink who cannot play them in their machines, and others claim it is in effect spyware (this was the only kind of non-press-release stuff I could find on the technology). If this was to be a balanced article, it might mention the record company stuff and how great Bandlink is (which it does now), and then mention the technical problems and its critical reception. Then it might seem balanced. If the article only mentions the upside with happy quotes, as if the product's a roaring success, then it might look like a puff-piece. --DaveG12345 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable - 50 Ghits for the person, 50 Ghits for the product Bandlink, of which some were irrelevant, and most others were dissing the product. --DaveG12345 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Neutral - see comment below. --DaveG12345 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - revised per new version, see below. --DaveG12345 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as above. Nonsuch 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am a student at Morehouse University and saw the guy speak here some time ago. The article is about "The Guy" and what he has done. You guys are talking about a few negative user comments for one of his products though citing nothing specific. Shoddy Google searching if you ask me. Why not do some research before throwing up Delete flags. You don't have to like what the guy does but he has done significant things.
  • Strong Keep. Article has been substantially amended. No longer looks like unsubtle advert. Does demonstrate substantial notability for a fantastic invention. --Dweller 09:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Shawn Fanning" is listed in Wiki' too and though he has many hackers like yourselves on his jock, he was hated by the record labels.

"Cedric Gore" has done work that has been embraced and widely used by the labels and according to his speech, his work appears on something like over 20 million CDs. So 50 negative comments out of 20MM CDs is freaking amazing. That ratio makes Microsoft products look like Satan's work.

No one here says anything substantively negative about the guy, but if you have something, why not add it as you see fit instead of just "deleting". After all, is that not the point of Wikipedia? I did in fact link to the "Slash Dot" article, which is where I am sure most of the negative issues you list come from anyway.

Further, I have looked at other Wiki articles to gain examples of "good content" and see nothing that much different from what I contributed. Speaking of Shawn Fanning, no negative press is listed in his bio. What about Lars Ulrich's diatribe, and oh, I don't know, the entire music industry contempt for him and his work, yet nada is up there and you guys taint saying anything now. Yet, you want me to post just negative stuff about this guy to show the world just how bad black folks are. Why is that, hmmm?

Why just rush to delete stuff you don't know. I did not know about 99% of the stuff here until I saw it here, but when I try to include something about the black community you all just start slamming it.

DaveG12345, what exactly is the "Ghit" quota for approval?

I guess this is your collective way of "White Washing" the site. If an African American contributes to technology that the music industry embraces, his offering is meaningless because you can find a few fans who miscategorize just "one" of his products. That is just your arbitrary standard. How many musicians lost money, work, and music from Shawn's contributions and slammed him for what he was doing?

Oh... no Ghits to corroborate that? I see, if you got blonde hair and blue eyes but get shut down, you get a free ride on the site and a movie role.

I will withdraw the submission and look for a more fair opportunity elsewhere! --Francespeabody 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits is shorthand for "Google hits". When I nominated this article for deletion, I had no racial bias whatsoever or any agenda against Cedric Gore or his company. It was simply my belief that since this article isn't a biography of a noted person, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You have to understand that a lot of people try to take advantage of Wikipedia's ranking on search engines to promote themselves and their own companies/products. At the end of the day this article isn't a biography. If it read like one, then I wouldn't have any objections. Sure not every article out there lives up to that standard, but I only have the time to call them as I see them go past me in the recent edits queue. -- Netsnipe 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey, hey, calm down Frances, I have clearly upset you big-time, and believe me, that wasn't the intention. I certainly hope you won't be going anywhere just yet. I gave my comments above in good faith, as I'm sure everyone on here does. I tried to determine the "notability" of the subject of the article, and I couldn't.
Just to start off with, let me say that nothing that gets written on these Articles-for-Deletion pages is aimed at the people writing the article OR the actual people that the article is about. When we say "delete, not notable", we are not saying "that person is nobody" or "the writer of this article is nobody" - we are saying that, as a Wikipedia article, there is not enough evidence out there to convince us, personally, that this person is "notable" enough to have a WP article. We don't just have a random guess. Honestly we don't. Well - I certainly don't. We are not just looking at the person, for example, and saying "no, they don't belong" without thinking any more about it. Seriously, you must believe me on that. We spend as much time as is reasonable assessing these things before we make a comment.
OK.
The main criteria used for deleting an article about a person is - as you see above - called WP:BIO. If you follow that link it gives guidelines for the type of people that are "notable" enough to have Wikipedia (WP) articles. But there are other guidelines too, and at the end of the day, it is tricky, because we do have to weigh up lots of factors. What many of us do here as part of this process is a WP:GOOG test when we come across a new person article, to see how many Google hits we get (Ghits) for that person. If they don't get very many Ghits, we tend to suspect the person is not very "notable". But we will do other tests too - for example, I looked up the Bandlink product, and did some other tests too, that I can't exactly remember right now. But I did whatever I could.
OK, that's how I came up with my deletion part above. I could hardly find any Ghits about the person (50 is considered very low), or the product, and (as I said above), some of the comments were not positive.
Just a thing I want to point out before I carry on. The reason we have to do these tests and so on, is usually because the article doesn't already say why the person is notable. It often just says "this guy did x and y". There's often no evidence in the article. If we're not experts on the subject, we often have very little information to go on. That's why we do these Ghit tests and so on.
OK.
I think what has happened with my "Comment" to you above, is I was writing very quickly and shorthandedly, when I probably should have slowed down and thought for a minute, and explained myself better. So, sincere apologies for that.
I think the "only guy throwing up negative comments" about any products round here was me, by the way. I hope you can now appreciate that this wasn't meant to criticise the person researching the article in any way, nor the person this article is about.
I was just trying to say, that it's very common to see articles that describe a person in really positive terms, that make it sound like everything is great. You can always tell they are written by someone very enthusiastic about the subject of the article. Sometimes, it seems to be so great, that people suspect someone from the company, or related to that person, or even the person themselves, wrote the article. Now, let me point out, that wasn't what I thought about this article, but the people above who wrote "advertising" in their comments probably did. Don't take it as a criticism, it is just what people, reading the article for the first time in their lives, thought.
I just wanna say, there's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about the subject of the article. But the problem is, it has to be "toned down" for Wikipedia. It isn't like a forum or blog. And that was what I was trying to point out with my "Comment" above.
So, to illustrate what a "toned-down" article might look like, I gave an example (looking back, probably a bad example!) of the Bandlink DRM technology, and how an "enthusiastic" tone might say "the technology is great", whilst a negative tone would say "the technology is terrible", but the neutral tone (the Wikipedia tone) might say "the technology is very successful, lots of record labels are using it, they are all very happy about it, ALTHOUGH! some users have complained that the technology made their CDs unusable, or whatever".
I hope you see what I was trying to do. It was just meant as an example of "tone" that doesn't look like advertising, because no one would ever put that in their advert, right? That it sometimes didn't work...
And I was writing it quickly, and probably not giving it enough thought. But I wasn't dissing the product or the guy that invented it - I only found out about them both today, so what do I know about them? - I was just saying, it helps to CONVINCE people a lot more that an article isn't an advert, if it says the positive things and the negative things.
Anyway, I hope you see how an article that presents both viewpoints comes across as a bit more "balanced" than the other two options. Obviously, to include any of that in YOUR article, you would need some sources to back it up in the first place, and like I said originally, I could hardly find any information on the internet, so I wished you good luck in searching (the internet is not the only place to get sources, of course, but it's all I have with me right now).
Finally, I am amazed you thought there was any racial motive behind what I wrote, and I hope you don't feel that way any longer. My user page is at the end of this post, and if you wanna talk to me about editing this article to maybe help it survive this AfD process, or about anything else to do with writing this article, just leave a message on my Talk page or the Talk page of the article itself (it is on my Watchlist).
And what I am going to do now, as a mark of good faith to you, for obviously upsetting you, is remove my "vote" from this discussion. --DaveG12345 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look guys, do what you feel you must. I see this tendency time and again in American society. For instance no Black Senator or government official has ever even made his way on to a beloved postal stamp. Unless something of note has a white face or gains the blessings of the White propagation machine, it gets ignored.
What you folks fail to realize is that we are a Minority in this Country so if 100% of us were online and using Google, we would still represent 13% of the total traffic. That suggest that there would always be far less "Hit Based" traffic than any white counterpart. Now consider that by 1998 only 48% of blacks over 18 were online and though we are finally up to 60% that is only 8% of the total number of "Ghits". Do you routinely purchase African American themed publications? I doubt it, which is why the more obscure but noteworthy citizens of African descent, go largely unnoticed by anyone outside of the race. (Unless you can shake your ass, play sports, or sing, you don't stand a chance, but definitely not "thinkers".)
I don't say you are actively using race as a way to disqualify the article, but you are subjecting it to standards like a Google search. That is fine for Historical African American figures and references which have had some time to mature in discussion by African American contributors, but what of contemporary individuals. Guys who are doing things now? Who is the Black "Shawn Fanning"? (No one commented on his inclusion from my previous comment) Prominent Blacks do exist whether you know of them or not and that is my point for including this guy. How else are you going to find out?
Quick Story:
I went to Disney Studios some years ago and shook the hand of the guy who was Lead-artist in drawing "Mickey Mouse" for modern use in film productions. He showed me 80 years of design iterations and what he was working on for modern interpretations, took his time to patiently pull out all manner of his work and design contributions, he was also African American. I had no idea of the guy, what he was doing, the significance of his work or anything. I sure as hell know of John Lasseter, and I feel better for knowing of him, but that guy, who's hand I shook, nobody knows! I have a million folks I would love to inform about him but no outlet. Oh, but wait what about Wikipedia? Well I tried that but if the admins don't know the guy personally forget about it.
I honestly don't personally even know of any African American's who know of what Wikipedia is, let alone having contributed to it. I am sure many of us use it but I don't know of any personally contributing to it. Not when the fight for daily recognition is paramount. I don't think you guys are able to see things from this perspective but, the people of "note" in our community might not ever pop up on the radar in yours. Cedric Gore was featured in Black Enterprise magazine, which is like the "Black Forbes" to us, but I guarantee not one of you ever picked up a Black Enterprise magazine in your life.
I am not suggesting applying different or "Less" of a standard for African American contribution but at least try to investigate beyond traditional media or just "White" publications. I am not at odds with any of you for your opinions, I am asking you to expand your field of research. --Francespeabody 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the above. I've changed my mind and gone for "keep" on this, but Francespeabody you miss the point... when you refer to "this country" I assume you mean USA. This is not an American project. There are many millions of web users outside of your country and hey, guess what? Some of them are black and some of them are white. --Dweller 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have done some research and contributed to this article, and I believe that the subject is suitably notable for WP inclusion. Please check out the article and comment here with any thoughts. I've also responded to the author Francespeabody at their user page re the above comments, and given a few pointers on WP basics. This was a newbie's first article, probably created without much support, and to see it up for deletion I think was upsetting for them, hence some of the previous comments. But I hold nothing against them for that, it's hard work and bewildering starting out on here. I hope they choose to stay. --DaveG12345 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to either Javakitty Media or Bandlink. As it stands, the article is entirely about the software, rather than the person. Notability of Bandlink seems to be well-established by the references in the article, notability of Mr Gore as an individual, no. Tevildo 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Time would be better spent fixing the entry, and less on screaming "racism". --DarkAudit 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, thanks to those of you who have helped with the article and for offering feedback on how to improve the article. I do appreciate your support and hope it is enough to keep this alive. Ultimately, I will have to let the article run its course so it will either be given a chance or not.
In either case, I thought the contribution was being rather impetuously marked for deletion so I responded to the best of my ability. Sorry if it seemed overly defensive but no one seemed to want to do anything beyond Google in terms of research to validate the work but instantly everyone started putting the guy down. I actually believe that the remark of my having "Screamed Racism" implied recently by "darkaudit" is counter-balanced by the general "Soft Bigotry" implicit in his and others attitude to rush to remove a contribution based on the rather limited premise of "if I don't know the guy, he can't be worth knowing". But to not ask the question "why haven't I heard of the guy? and then do something to uncover the answer seems anathema to the spirit of the website."
DarkAudit directed his rather poignant remark toward me, "Time would be better spent fixing the entry, and less on screaming racism". This was a point I thought I exactly made earlier when I said; "No one here says anything substantively negative about the guy, but if you have something, why not add it as you see fit instead of just "deleting". After all, is that not the point of Wikipedia? 08:14, 27 June 2006".
Wow, if my remarks are going to be ignored in this conversation, why should I expect my thoughts from the primary article to inform opinion. Time spent criticizing is definitely speedier than having to "read everything" but hey, I can forgive your transgression if you can forgive my early ineptitude with the "Wiki-System".
I still hope to be given a chance here, as well I hope to contribute future articles which may or may not be deemed relevant to all admins/editors, but as a contributor I should at least be given a chance to defend my position or to minimally, have my remarks "read" by those who would put me on the defense for my contributions in the first place.--Francespeabody 06:03, 29 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. --Coredesat talk 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigq

[edit]

Ad for non-notable software reseller -- Netsnipe 07:49, 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 no consensus to delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium

[edit]

Self-promotion GrAfFiTTalk Contribs 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BoojiBoy 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. Notable, controversial news item. Parsssseltongue 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one article in the local supplement of a newspaper, other mentions being a forum post and a sport website article written by the author himself. Additionnally, the article contains a lenghty "letter" from the author. Wikipedia is not a press release repository.. GrAfFiTTalk Contribs 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Yes, this is self-promotion and the article should be rewritten. Yet the documentary gained some real interest across national boundaries, including in a large country like Egypt. I think therefore that it is notable, but only by points. gidonb 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. The lengthy letter is blatant soapboxing. The film may have some notability, but it is not being expressed appropriately, so I cannot tell. If its only notability is this spat with the papers, which results in this soapboxing while painting the film as if it's the focus of the article, then I think it has to go (WP:NOT A4). --DaveG12345 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (see below) --DaveG12345 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GrAfFiT Resolute 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- GWO
  • Weak Delete really nn movie (I am from Israel). --Haham hanuka 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self promotion of NN amateur video clip. Noon 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For a related nomination, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan the Security Guard gidonb 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some cleanup has taken place, and it's much better without the letter rant, but the vanity remains for me. The reader is told the film is "created by artist and filmmaker Nimrod Kamer", then told "Nimrod Kamer, creator of the video, is an Israeli filmmaker and journalist", and then "creator Nimnrod Kamer" gets a third full citation. Is this article about a notable film, or a vanity piece for the director? An introductory mention is fine, of course, but thereafter it's surely just "Kamer" or "the director", since we already know who he is and what he does, and this article purports to be about the film itself and its controversy? Just a GF observation. --DaveG12345 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep it is a scandal with over 20 mentions in all sorts of blogs such as -
    • A man will die, but not his ideas.

Monday, March 06, 2006. Even the Israeli press got interested. Girls at The Cairo National Stadium on Google Video. Posted by A :: 3:06 AM :: 0 Comments: ... [21]

    • Knows-It-All

Mosque of Ibn Tulun · Girls At The Cairo National Stadium, A video. Further reading. Artemis Cooper, Cairo in the War, 1939-1945, Hamish Hamilton, ... [22]

    • Woman Soccer Videos and Clips

Girls at The Cairo National Stadium \ A video by Nimrod Kamer \ Egypt-Israel2006. Meadowhead Girls Football. ANB Soccer Academy - Coach Bassam. [23]

    • Help.com - categoryegypt

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium. R. RC Egypt. S. Social Fund for Development (Egypt) · Categories: African countries | Middle Eastern countries ... [24] --Marina T. 04:22, 28 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 wasSpeedy Delete - A7 by User:Lectonar - Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy is hot

[edit]

Vanity and no content. Kf4bdy 08:38, 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 delete. Sango123 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmutVibes.com is social networking minus censorship

[edit]

Blatant advertising/self-promotion of non-notable site. -- Matticus78 08:58, 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 delete. Sango123 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam O'Hirsi

[edit]

Tagged as db-repost, but I did not see a deleted version in history, and no link to an AfD. May well be a nn-bio, but that might just be systemic bias. Needs cleanup or deletion, not sure which. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 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 delete. Sango123 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Daily

[edit]

NN online game, text of article states less than 100 members, fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 09:05, 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 delete. Sango123 19:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Craig, That DAMNED Liberal Show

[edit]

Tagged nn-bio, contested. Seems to be "notable" solely as the host of an "Internet radio" show (i.e. webcast) of no provable significance. Rolling in the show, That DAMNED Liberal Show, which makes a single (and unprovable / uncoited) claim to fame. Looks like a case of WP:HOLE to me. Just zis Guy you know? 09:08, 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 Keep per opinions beyond the usual reflexive school inclusionism - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Newman High School (Santa Rosa, California)

[edit]

This school is totally non-notable. Being one of the top 50 (!) Schools in one particular religion in one country is not notability. Stroika 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Schools are not likely to be named after some nonentity. The mere fact that this school is named after Newman does not make it notable. Come on Peripitus, make that a delete, better yet a strong delete.--Stroika 09:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, if you'd ask any student from any one of those schools I cited if their school was more "notable" than Cardinal Newman... 99 times out of 100 I'm sure you'd get a "no" answer. In the grand scheme of things none of these schools are exceptionally "notable". That is my point. Netscott 10:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why are you opposing the deletion? Just because we have other articles about non-notable schools does not mean we should have this article about this non-notable school. --Stroika 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly because all of these schools form a sort of "pod" and this pod is notable. If one of the articles is to exist they all should exist. That's really my primary reason. Netscott 10:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is for completeness. I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to track down how this school is notable outside of being part of the grouping I've mentioned but as part of a set of articles about related schools of equal notability from the same region it absolutely makes sense that it should not be deleted. Netscott 10:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable? Why is there not an article on the "pod" instead of on the schools in the "pod"? To put it another way, could your arguments not be used to defend any article whatsoever from deletion on the grounds of non-notability? Where will it end?--Stroika 10:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyerbole is a figure of speech. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Hyperbole is acceptable in argument (although in this case it isn't hyperbole, it's reductio ad absurdum). You are begging the question and by definiuton a logical fallacy is not acceptable in argument. Again I ask, why is this school notable? Why is this "pod" notable. Does anyone else even use the term "pod" in this connection?--Stroika 10:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love when others argue and rely upon fallacies while being fully aware of such a reliance. The Santa Rosa metropolitan area represents the largest Californian population center north of San Francisco therefore one of the principal reasons the pod (set) is notable is the fact that the combined student populations of the schools in the pod (set) represent the bulk of all high school students for Northern California north of San Francisco. In terms of student population Cardinal Newman High School is likely in the top 5 for all of northern California from Santa Rosa north (and surely in the top 10). Netscott 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Cardinal Newman High School notable? The bulk of the population of Northern California live on a street in Northern California, therefore (by your argument) ought there to be articles on every street in Northern California? If the pod is notable create an article for that. What is under discussion here is whether this article should be deleted. The reason cited to support deletion is that this school is not notable. What do you have to say to that? Mere membership of a supposedly notable group of schools does not make this school notable. (The US is notable, every US citizen is not notable). --Stroika 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that's notable information (perhaps) for the article on Joe Montana. Its not "the likes of Joe Montana" is it?. It is just Joe Montana. Remove Joe Montana and you have no notability for this school. Remove Prince William from Eton and Eton College is still notable. The interest of those news outlets is in Mr Montana, not his children, not in the school. I list some of the schools I think are notable here. Why should one guy's interest mean that this school deserves a full blown article? --Stroika 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? Like I said, take him away and what have you got? Nothing. This information belongs if anywhere in the article for Joe Montana. This school is still not notable in and of itself. Therefore it doesn't deserve an article on wikipedia. Talk about the school please, not one (and it seems only to be one) famous parent.--Stroika 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the respectability of the article is not in question. The notability of the subject is.--Stroika 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd never heard of him at all. Would that have been allowed as an argument? No obviously not and rightly so. Therefore I ask why is the fact that you have heard of him an argument for keeping this article?--Stroika 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is this magical quality that makes all High Schools/Secondary Schools notable? Please I want to see if I can find it elsewhere. Maybe I have it. (sotto voce) Maybe you do.--Stroika 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I do not, and I find Coredesat's and Stroika's arguments convincing. -- Docether 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The students don't appear to be notable, the architecture (ie the building itself) doesn't appear to be notable, the teachers don't appear to be notable and just who (in the grand scale of things) is Joe Montana ??? If he really is so important, why don't we have a page which lists schools he went to, or a page of restaurants he's visited ??? It seems to me that the only argument for a keep is that he is a member of staff. Anyway this if this discussion goes on much longer he will have retired and the problem will resolve itself!! David Humphreys 19:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something doesn't have to be policy in order to be cited. Silensor 20:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the merits of the article itself. I have consistently said that schools are not inherently notable or encyclopedic. As a result, I have consistently said that school articles ought to be judged on their own merits: WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. However, I am also of the opinion that individual schools are capable of being notable and encyclopedic. In this case, there is an assertion of encyclopedic value (as outlined above and within the article itself), so on its own merits I chime in with my "keep". Agent 86 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I personly don't subscribe to the "schools are magic"-sentiment, but this passes my bar of notability, in fact it shines like a diamond in the depths of coal of the schoolcruft we have here at Wikipedia. --Eivindt@c 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is better than the common run of schoolcruft surely that's all the more reason to delete this one and make it that much easier to delete the others when the time comes (which assuredly will)? (*begins to hum Dies Irae*)--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't follow your reasoning, we should delete notable schools so we can delete non-notable school? Say what!? I stand by my comment, it's one of the top 50 catholic schools in the US, and Montana tips it just over the bar. --Eivindt@c 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to forestall more arguments of this type. But why oh why do so many people value this article? (Assuming they do which is not apparent from its edit history). Do they only value it because other people value it? What is so valuable about this article? Why does Cardinal Newman High School deserve an article?--Stroika 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait a minute there's a policy on schools? Well that changes everything. Why didn't I think of looking for it? Let's all go to WP:SCHOOLS right now and see what we find.
"This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump."
Can't see anything about trying to revive discussion on AfD......--Stroika 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentFrom WP:Music "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This is appropriate material for Joe Montana's article. I draw your attention to the discussion between myself and Netscott above. <Re-edited after response below:> I don't blame Yanksox for missing it (and I don't claim it was definitive) but some people round here think that the whole thread should be taken as read. I don't claim it settled anything definitively but to save myself typing there it is. Probing too many arguments seems to provoke disgust among some editors. --Stroika 07:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do read the whole thread when an AfD comes my way, I've been here long enough to know that. I looked over the article and the statements that it made, and I do believe it should be kept (FYI, I do place my opinion for "Delete," on a few schools, check out the DRV on Arborview High School), it does make some claims of notability. Schools are put under a strange scope, and really that is the fact that it can make some sort of claim of being different from similar schools. About the WP:MUSIC comment, this AfD[26] stood up because of that argument. The situation involving schools is getting really ugly, but I admit there is a slight lecinancy in favor of schools, but this article does present certain information that makes in stand out from the rest of it's own class. That is really how people should judge the scope of notability, how does this subject make itself different from other similiar subjects? Yanksox 11:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Copy (1998 film)

[edit]

A google search suggests that this isn't notable. I think it might be a student film (see the Chapman University link). I started to clean this up, before realising there's little point. The JPStalk to me 09:10, 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 Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Wintrich

[edit]

Non notable host of Internet talkshow, total of 4 Google hits Fram 09:18, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PatriotNet

[edit]

NN ISP advertisement, fails WP:WEB. Compare those listed in Category:Online service providers. —Lamentation :( 09:30, 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 Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KickBoxer Snaps Leg

[edit]

Non notable, not encyclopedic: Only Google hit is a redirect from another Wikipedia article (Vicious Leg Break Fram 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete already tried to prod this stub. There isn't even any information on the fight this occured in! ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 10:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, link goes to straight to a video-sales site so it looks like this is an advertisement as well. Tychocat 10:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement. --Coredesat 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, primarily because your logic is flawed: I added the link to the "advertising site" in an attempt to identify the fight. It obviously happened. The question, I would think, would be more about "importance". Please, let us elevate the conversation. You guys frequently put the contributor in the vise between having strictly non-commerical links and documenting assertions. I guess the more fundamental question is: does this article assert any important facts? You could argue that the only assertion is: "You can break your leg really bad if you kickbox and the other guy blocks with his knee". Oh, and the viral video thing. Compared to most articles about music songs and tracks, at least such a fact might possibly be of some use to the child in Africa that Jimbo keeps saying that the encyclopedia is for. -- 64.175.42.87 17:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable and probably nonencyclopedic. If, at some point, there's a List of Popular Viral Videos that doesn't get AfD'ed itself, this can be added there. -- Docether 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Docether. --DaveG12345 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Vicious Leg Break, mentioned by the nom, looks the same kind of inconsequential article, which could just as easily have remained where it was, as a link to the external site from within the Sid Eudy main article describing the incident. --DaveG12345 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the same category as Icy Hot Stuntaz or the Star Wars kid and could have as much context as the former if its left up and someone who knows the story tells it. As for the name there are many versions out there of the same clip, all with different name. Looking at youtube with the words kickboxer breaks you get at least 20 different videoes and searching google with kickboxing leg break gets thousands of hits. If anything it should be moved to a name that gets the most google hits ... if that's a naming convention.--Abaddon 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Kickboxing Leg Break" gives 1,190 Google hits, but only 74 distinct ones. Still not a lot, and not enough to warrant inclusion. "Kickboxer Leg Break" gives 176 hits and 38 distinct ones. When checking the number of hits for a phrase (or any fixed combination of words), be certain to put " " around them. This will always heavily reduce the number of hits. Secondly, try to find if you have actually a large number of distinct Google hits. Often, Google will have many pages from the same source (like a forum or whatever), that will count a many hist but are in fact only one website. Thus, Kickboxing Leg Break gives 152,000 hits, "Kickboxing Leg Break" gives 1270 (this time, the number varies with every serach), and going to page 10 of the results gives me that there are only 74 distinct results. Anyway, enough Google lessons, the result is that it is not notable anyway you name it. Fram 11:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet other internet memes like:
"SNL Digital Shorts" get 500 google hits
"Anabukinchan" get 800 google hits
"Gert Jonnys" get 800 google hits
Although its not on Wikipedia look at the video clip of that guy who's head goes up an elephant's ass. Everyone has seen it but it only gets 400 hits on google Your google hit number theory is flawed, some video clips are so and popular that, like a virus, they change their name and are hard to track down. Google results shouldn't be the be all and end all of whether or not an article stays.--Abaddon 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think that some of them (like Anabukinchan) are different, because they have a background (verifiable), a story beyond "it's funny". Secondly, many memes are discussed for deletion, and some are kept while others (most) are deleted. And if they always change their name and are hard to track down, how will you encyclopedize them? Give them a random name? Create fifty slightly different names and make them all redirects? And then, when people who come looking for it (and thus probably have seen the movie) find it here, all they read is what they knew all along, as their is nothing encyclopedic that can be said (or has been said at least) about this videoclip. Finally, another Google lesson: don't write elephant's-ass and then come here to show that it has only 400 hits. Written in your traditional way, it has 4,260,000 hits, and written in the strict way, it has no hits (none at all). I have no idea under what name that video is known (I don't know it and don't care for it), but obviously not that one. Fram 13:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This meme has no content ... YET. If it's left on here someone will come on who knows the story and fill in the background. That's the point of a stub is it not? Someone will come on wikipedia looking for info on the kickboxing clip and find it either by searching or in the list of Internet memes. Already people have added clues and content i.e. the link in the ring what kind of leg break it was, etc. As for the elephants head I was just following YOUR google search requirements. If I follow your NEW way of searching google then kick boxer breaks leg gets hundreds of thousands of google hits again. While like you said "head into elephant's ass" gets 0 hits. Just becauce YOU don't know about something and don't care for its subject matter isn't grounds for deletion. --Abaddon 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just because something is indexed by Google doesn't mean that it is in any way important or deserving of an article. Try to think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than YouTube. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look again, you weren't following my Google search requitements at all, you didn't put "'s around the search term. As for the rest, we'll let the community decide if it is worthy of inclusion or not... Fram 05:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that we shouldn't use some flawed Google index number that someone thought up off the top of their head. While Wikipedia isn't Youtube it is an encyclopedia. Not an encyclopedia of just stodgy scientific data but also an encyclopedia of Popular culture too. This is were this Internet Meme fits in. It may not appeal to everyone but it's still Wikipedia worthy.
If your jab at the Google index is intended at me, could you then please just explain how it is flawed? Fram 10:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons you've already pointed out. This clip gets more hits than other Wikipedia internet memes like:
"SNL Digital Shorts" get 500 google hits
"Anabukinchan" get 800 google hits
"Gert Jonnys" get 800 google hits
Famous "head into elephant's ass" clip gets 0 hits
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen Gress Corporation

[edit]

Non notable company: only Google hits are to own website. Even "Hansen Gress" gives just 64 Google hits (14 distinct ones). Fram 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has the talk of ECustoms to do with Hansen Gress Corporation? Fram 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, well, it means I've been spending too much time on the wiki and obviously can't read clearly anymore. BigNate37 21:49, 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 speedy deleted per A7. User:Angr 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bleeding Irish

[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:Music: Just one EP released Huon 10:27, 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 Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brydges

[edit]

He won £1,000,000 and that is all, I couldn't find any additional information about him, I guess he hasn't done anything special with this money thus not making him very notable. It's a stub because there's nothing else notable enough to write about. Andeh 10:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Of the other UK winners, the first one and the first man (so, um, second one) to win it also had success in another TV quizzes renowned for being pretty difficult. This winner - Pat Gibson - also won another tough TV quiz, but it seems to read like a puff-piece (the "common consent" section in particular) - prob needs a citations/NPOV tag. --DaveG12345 00:29, 27 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. Kimchi.sg 17:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Paraffinic Hydrocarbon

[edit]

Reads like a copyvio. Nothing links here, and nothing links from here. It is a mess that seems non-recoverable. Bduke 10:52, 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 keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tobinick

[edit]

Fellow who owns a patent for using an expensive drug for back pain. No indication that this warrants WP:BIO. Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF. Tevildo 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A couple of minutes of searching shows multiple non-trivial articles about him ( related to the drug ) numerous papers in what appear to be peer reviewed journals. Holds 17 US patents. Certainly more notable than most professors ( I searched for one I knew and the poor guy is almost anonymous ) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Seems notable enough, per Peripitus. --Coredesat 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Patent holders are a dime-a-dozen. Pubmed shows three hits under Tobinick EL and four hits under Tobinick E. Of these seven, only the 1978 study involved collaboration with truly well-published researchers. The 1987 hit appears to be a review article and the 2004 hit appears to be a letter to the editor... neither are "research". Of the other four referring to etanercept, two were case reports (both n=2), one was a review of 20 charts, and the other was a review of 143 charts... all from his private practice. This is not impressive for someone who has been "actively involved in research and teaching for years" as some of the Google hits state. -AED 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)edited 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searching reveals significant contributions regarding novel methods of use of anti-TNF therapeutics in Neurology, including a recent review article on the cerebrospinal venous system that was selected as a CME article, as well as a new article (accessible on Medscape) on TNF modulation for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease, a recent presentation at the Karolinska Institutet, and he is a selected speaker at the 7th Intl Conference on Alzheimer's Drug Discovery. Pubmed shows seven articles (search Tobinick). tnfinfo 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First of all, there is obviously some dispute as to whether or not his contributions are significant. That is why the AfD exists. In the absence of a substantial body of research, a pilot study posted on webMD's online journal isn't convincing. Secondly, writing a continuing medical education (CME) review, or presenting one in person, is not a significant contribution. Plenty of non-notable people do this. Similarly, answering a "call for papers" to present a short lecture at a conference does not make a person notable. A Google search for "Karolinska Institutet" + "Tobinick" gets five unique hits (all appear to be PR generated from Tobinick's office) and "Alzheimer's Drug Discovery" + "Tobinick" gets none. -AED 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The agenda for the 7th International Conference on Alzheimer's Drug Discovery is online at www.aging-institute.org/i/isoa/c_20061012_agenda.pdf. His cancer work has been cited by researchers from the University of Minnesota (see Wacnik, et. al. PMID 15802198 and Anderson and colleagues from Centocor (two articles on Pubmed, "Therapeutic potential of cytokine and chemokine antagonists in cancer therapy, PMID 16524718, and PMID 15251122. His work on neuropathic pain has been cited in a review by Sommer "Mechanisms of Neuropathic Pain: The Role of Cytokines", Drug Discovery Today, Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2004 pp. 441-448. His recent study on TNF modulation for Alzheimer's was discussed in an editorial written by a Johns Hopkins researcher "Editorial: Cytokine Inhibition for Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease" MedGenMed Neurology & Neurosurgery, vol 8, issue 1, April 26, 2006. See also a search done at www.scirus.com for "Tobinick". A search on Pubmed for "Tobinick" gives 7 hits. -tnfinfo 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:BIO and WP:PROF are pretty clear on the relevant standards. Giving a 20 minute lecture at a conference does not make a person notable or verify notability; I've been to plenty of CME given by lecturers who regularly respond to a "call for papers". Similarly, having a study footnoted in someone else's study (or having it mentioned in an editorial) does not establish notability of the research or the researcher. All it establishes is that the study was at least remotely related to the research of others. -AED 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With regard to WP:PROF, please note criteria 5: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory, or idea". With the revision of the biography, to include additional information, verifiable by search of the U.S. patent office and published articles, the WP:BIO, WP:PROF appear to be met. tnfinfo 08:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:PROF, "important" is the key word: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea." He is not. If he was, then it is likely that some of the other criteria in WP:PROF would be met, too! -AED 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)edited22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is AED arguing that a radically new approach, based on a recombinant DNA therapeutic, for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease is not important? Please note that AED's statement above about the (non)importance of the study ("...having it mentioned in an editorial") may be interpreted to have mischaracterized the editorial - rather than "mentioning it" the editorial [28] appears to have been written solely to discuss this single study [29], most likely because of the importance of the scientific issues which were raised by publication of the study. With regard to originating this treatment method, the U.S. patents awarded (6,015,557; 6,177,077 [30]; and 6,982,089 [31]) verify that the identity of the inventor is known. Therefore this element 5 of WP:PROF is satisfied, and the WP:PROF guideline would appear to be met, because the guideline states "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable". tnfinfo 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First of all, your question contains a false premise: that the approach is important because it is radically new. Tobinick did NOT originate the idea that the suppression of cytokine activity may help Alzheimer's patients! Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that his approach has yet had a significant impact on the area of medicine and research concerned with treating Alzheimer's disease. One editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal does not suffice. Important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. -AED 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's stick to the facts. Dr. Tobinick did invent the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's Disease, and the specific patented method of administration, perispinal injection, that was used in the recently published article which he and his colleagues (two professors of Neurology and a rheumatologist) authored. All of this information is verifiable, since the patents, and the article are all documented above. With respect to AED's comment that "this one has not (generated a lot of buzz)" what does he think the nearly full-page article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 19, 2006 about Dr. Tobinick's new Alzheimer's treatment was [32]? With respect to verifying inventorship, the following is a direct quote from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: "In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”[33].tnfinfo 09:19 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 11:58 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have stuck to the facts. No one is denying that the man holds patents for the use of etanercept to treat Alzheimer's, but the fact is that important concepts generate lots of buzz... and this one has not. The presence of an editorial in a relatively insignificant on-line journal and an article in the Health section of the LATimes.com is not "lots of buzz".
  • Comment: Perhaps you just have not been aware of the facts. Follow-up articles have been published regarding Dr. Tobinick's new discovery for Alzheimer's in newspapers around the country, including Baltimore (Baltimore Sun), Washington state, and Florida, just to mention a few. And this does not even include Dr. Tobinick's other published work, which is being cited by an increasing number of researchers around the world. Just as an example, his original concept of using TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza (see U.S. patent 6,419,934 from September 2000) is now supported by publications from the CDC in 2005 [34] and is cited in a new publication just this week [35]. He has also co-authored a well-received medical textbook [36] and [37] tnfinfo 18:38 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)edited 23:10 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1) "Published" in newspapers is not the same as being published in academic journals. 2) As discussed earlier on this page, he has very little published work. 3) As discussed earlier on this page, having your study appear as a footnote in someone else's study doesn't make you notable. 4) You're manufacturing claims. Tobinick was not the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating viruses, so its disingenuous to imply that others were following his work. I certainly don't see his TNF-inhibition work cited in the CDC publication. In fact, I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza on PubMed or in his patent . 5) Contributing to a textbook doesn't satisfy #4 of WP:PROFTEST. -AED 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)edited 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Meets another criteria for WP:BIO: "Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work", see two reviews cited above [38] and [39] and a third review [40]. Please note that Dr. Tobinick is one of four authors of this textbook, see [41]. On another point, #4, AED is wrong also, Dr. Tobinick's TNF inhibition article on SARS specifically discusses avian influenza; this is verifiable by just reading the article, available at: [42]. Since AED has now given an incorrect opinion on so many points here, there seems little point to correct him further. (He was, however, right about patent 6419434; this was a typo, which should have been -934, and has been corrected). On another note, Dr. Tobinick has individually been awarded 17 U.S. patents (compare all faculty at Caltech combined, who were awarded 139 patents in 2003 [43]. By this criteria alone he meets WP:PROF. tnfinfo 23:30 PDT, 01 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1) So now he's a notable author on the basis of his contributions to a medical textbook on skin surgery?! 2) You claimed that Tobinick was the first to conceptualize the role of inhibiting TNF in treating avian influenza (which is false), so I wrote: "I don't see any published research by him regarding TNF-inhibition for treatment of avian influenza". As I pointed out in my first post here, Tobinick's "article" is a letter to the editor! 3) Yep... CalTech faculty combined for 139 patents in a year and Tobinick has 17 in his life. Probably for good reason, there is no "patent criteria" on WP:PROF, though. -AED 07:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Examination of U.S. patent 6,419,934 [44] (see claim 14: "A method for inhibiting the action of TNF in accordance with claim 1, wherein the step of administering said dosage level is for treating influenza") verifies that Tobinick originated the concept of TNF inhibition for treatment of influenza. AED appears to be violating WP:NPOV by posting verifiably false statements. In addition, the Caltech press release [45] states that "Caltech ranks No. 2 among American universities in number of patents awarded in 2003" with 139 patents awarded to a total of 345 faculty members, equivalent to 0.4 patents per faculty member per year. To return to TNF inhibiton for influenza, a concept Dr. Tobinick originated, is AED arguing that this is of no importance, even after publications from the CDC [46] and others [47] [48] have documented the important role which TNF plays in the Acute respiratory distress syndrome which is responsible for the high mortality in H5N1 influenza avian influenza. Is AED saying that the concept that Dr. Tobinick originated, as documented above, which may, as described, potentially reduce H5N1 mortality, is not important, when the world is facing a possible H5N1 epidemic? tnfinfo 06:00 PDT, 02 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Peripitus. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historically speaking, after avian flu hits America (thats a when and not an if) this person could end up being as notable as Louis Pasteur. No reason currently to delete this, but it does need quite a bit of expert attention and cleanup towards layperson speak. Ste4k 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Surprise

[edit]

Google search 150 unique hits. No news The first link is to www.praxis brainchild of on Lanir, and the second link csel.eng.ohio-state.edu Emily S. Patterson October 8-12, 2001 refers to Lanir, Z. (1986). "Fundamental Surprise. Eugene, Oregon: Decision Research." Looking at the other contributions that the editors of this article are making, this appears to be advertising. Delete.
brenneman {L} 11:14, 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 keep the rewrite. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Island Home

[edit]

Song lyrics/poem with no context or explaination. Not relevant content for wikipedia. --11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Ladybirdintheuk

The lyrics can be found at http://www.ozmusic-central.com.au/oztabs/uvw/WarumpiBand/My%20Island%20Home.txt
I have listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 June 27/Articles suggest this AfD be closed --A Y Arktos\talk 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote that My Island Home/Temp be moved to main article and Kept, Capitalistroadster has done a great job of cleaning it up. -- Chuq 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Ladybirdintheuk 12:39, 27 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. Proto///type 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomfield Road, Blackpool

[edit]

These pages would appear to be the beginnings of potential listcruft. Can individual streets of questionable note in a town really justify individual articles? Matticus78 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

  • Delete all, non-notable streets. Not sure A7 applies here. --Coredesat 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Not even a little bit notable. Mr Stephen 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in any way that I can see.--MichaelMaggs 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Bloomfield Road, Blackpool to become redirect.) I have been along all these roads and I can confirm from personal experience that they are non-notable! -- RHaworth 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many apologies for any confusion regarding the creation of those articles. I created them only yesterday as stubs (I do not yet know how to insert the 'this article is a stub...' bit at the bottom), which need to be expanded. All those roads are significant in Blackpool and the surrounding area, and all would be well-known to those who live here. They are all A or B roads (I have no intention of creating an article for every single road in Blackpool or anywhere else). Furthermore, all, but most particularly Whitegate Drive, have some historical importance for the town. Whitegate Drive, for example, is one of the oldest main roads in the area, and as is hinted at (but I admit not yet referenced), is or has been the location of a number of important buildings. I have not read any rule or policy that would call for its deletion; it needs improving, and I welcome any constructive criticism; I was not sure whether to create a single article on all the roads or geography of the town, and perhaps that would be a less controversial decision. My further intention was to eventually create a number of coherent and informative articles on all aspects of the town. If there is no article on White Hart Lane, or any other road with a major landmark on it, that does not mean the article on Bloomfield Road (which is significant for other reasons, though maybe not enough to warrant a whole article to itself should be deleted - I would argue that perhaps those other roads do deserve an article. It might appear that articles on Blackpool are being unfairly proliferated and expanded, but you can only write about what you know. It is for the inhabitants of other towns to write about their landmarks. Sorry to have caused any offence or confusion. Scyrene 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps a valid point. We have Sepulveda Boulevard, after all, which doesn't appear to be any more notable than these streets - but it's in Los Angeles rather than Blackpool. On the other hand, New York seems to be containing its minor streets quite well in Manhattan streets, 23-42. My opinion is still *Weak Delete, but it's not as trivial an issue as it might appear at first. Tevildo 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whitegate Drive, Blackpool is four months old now. Have a look and see what you think to it. --Mr Stephen 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Advertising

[edit]

The clue is surely in the name. This is blatant e-Advertsing. Fiddle Faddle 11:30, 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 delete. Sango123 19:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United Full Record 1889-2006

[edit]

No real content. Original editors only edits were to this page early in March. It could be completed but the start is so small and the material would be better in the main article on Sheffield United. Bduke 11:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ydam 13:39, 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 Speedy close, redirects are cheap, if for some reason you want it deleted, you can take it to RfD, but I think it should stay. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Iltaf Sheikh

[edit]

initial spelling mistake, article for mohamed Iltaf Sheikh already exists. no need to use this page simply to redirect Lordb 12:27, 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 No Consensus, though I would have liked to see it deleted - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies

[edit]

Article is POV (note the word blatant used a couple of times in it for example) and really doesn't deserve it's own article. At the very least it should be moverd to a subsection on the main worldcup 2006 article-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 13:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contrary to my nom above now Very very weak keep it does read better now but I still think it is better suited in another article, on it's own it just looks like alot of POV rather than say criticism in a balanced article about refereeing at the world cup. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blantant POV. Article is not at the moment long enough to justify seperation from its parent article. Nothing salvagable content to merge either Ydam 13:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Article is now completly changed from the version that was originally nominated. All the issues that I had at the start have now been pretty much resolved. (I'm sure the remiaining NPOV issues will take care of themselves in time) Ydam 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatantly fails WP:NPOV. Absolutely nothing here worth merging. --Coredesat 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although something on the 3 yellow card controversy (as this can be objectively viewed) is possibly worth having (a subsection on main WC page?).--Binnor 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but modify. There is value is pointing out that certain events generated controversy. This can be done in a NPOV fashion. However, this article needs to focus on a factual recounting of the fact that there was controversy, not re-hashing the controversies themselves. For example - 1. Graham Poll mistakenly failed to send off a player after the 2nd Yellow. This generated the following controversy: a. Failure of the 4th referee to catch this {cite sources here}. 2. Ghana was awarded a penalty shot in injury time of the first half. This generated the following controversy: a. Video replays seemed to indicate misapplication of the rule. {cite sources here}. This would be a useful and informative article. The hard part is the subjective evaluation of what events should be included, but that's nothing new to wikipedia, now is it? --NThurston 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now at least. It could probably be rewritten after the event is complete, its too early for such an article. --Boochan 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and adapt to NPOV standards. Also, another good idea would be to describe the alleged controversies in chronological order, instead of just mentioning them in passing. A more formal approach, with information such as date, time, and location of the match, as well as venue names etc would definitely help. It could be like a "controversy recap" in that it could provide the contentious referee calls made throughout the 2006 WC. As NThurston said, there is value in mentioning the controversial plays and calls, but it must be done in an organized manner and in keeping with NPOV rules. --macgirl 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it serves no real purpose and is very POV orientated. - Deathrocker 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it serves a purpose although is currently very badly written. Cleanup and keep. --Guinnog 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have begun to wikify and restructure, but this article needs more content. Feel free to add your info, as well as to re-evaluate with new NPOV structure and format. --204.113.19.8 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This anonymous comment was made by NThurston who forgot to login.[reply]
  • Keep or at the very least merge, for example this year's Cup has been marred by an inordinate amount of very poor refereeing. Georgeslegloupier 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could easily end up being POV rants, but doesn't have to be. Well done it could be very informative. - Jon Stockton 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think it can be cleaned up... --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It can be cleaned up, and FIFA's president has now joined in criticism of the referees. However the refereeing problems are the only significant controversy so far, none of the other topics are notable. The number of yellows handed out far surpasses previous records, and the matches aren't even over yet. Xombie 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Merge I have only read it after N Thurston's restructuring efforts, but it seems to me that the POV is in the eye of the beholder. I read it as an informative piece, and it came across that way. More detail would definately help it seem more POV though.
  • Week keep / cleanup - less POV, more neutral, accurate, factual information. --Ouro 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are human mistakes, anybody can do them. This article is very POV. Gadig 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, but cleanup or rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article's purpose seems less about information, more about whining. PHF 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to Starghost and Gadig's thoughts - The purpose of this article is to document that there were mistakes made and there was a lot of whining about the officiating. This is very different from actually being a POV whining page. This page should not be a forum for people to say "my team got ripped." Rather, it is to say that many people felt that a particular mistake, event or action caused a lot of discussion among followers of the tournament. I know this is a very fine distinction, but it is a very important one. I fail to see how documenting facts surrounding an argument is POV, just because it involves documenting an argument. I agree that it still needs a significant rewrite, but maintain that it is notable and can be NPOV. --204.113.19.8 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is important to note that some of these actions have led to consequences that impact the event. Graham Poll was a likely candidate to referee the final, but that is now very unlikeley. Finally, it's not all about the refereeing. There have been other meaningful controvesies surrounding this event that need to be documented. --204.113.19.8 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that the article is supposed to document mistakes. To afirm that there really were mistakes in most cases is POV (to say there's something fishy about the number of fouls between BRA and AUS is misleading, to mention a 3rd yellow card doesn't deserve it's own article). You say it's supposed to document the whining. Newsflash, fans get upset when their teams lose. You say other controversies are meaningful or notable. I disagree. I also think giving the spotlight to some of the controversies unintentionally validates them, therefore stepping over that fine distinction you mentioned. PHF 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAP; unverifiable and/or non-notable refereeing errors are not the basis of an NPOV article in an enyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was deleted from the main world cup page for problems with POV, one mans controversial call is another persons great call, one only needs to read two different newspaper articles to determine that. Batman2005 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Batman2005. POV essay going nowhere fast. Australia call the penalty a controvery, but Italy don't. Same applies to all the rest. Intrinsically POV and poised to turn into a full blown Conspiracy Theory WP:NOR fail. Some parts - the record number of sendings-off in one game, for example - need to go in 2006 FIFA World Cup trivia section, but the interpretation of this as a "controversy" should be left to the reader, not rammed down their throat. --DaveG12345 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
World Cup trivia section? That would be 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany. Carcharoth 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and review later after tournament has finished. By the way, I got very confused about what looks like an earlier deletion of this article. See the deletion log here. I tried to find a discussion about this, but failed. Can someone confirm that this article did indeed get deleted and then undeleted? Carcharoth 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a subsection of the World Cup 2006 article, check the archives and you'll find the discussion where it was deleted as POV.
My bad, that was me ^^^^. Batman2005 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense (and you didn't sign your comment). Deleting a section of an article is a totally different process to deleting an actual article. I definitely saw a red link at some point, so I want to know what got deleted, by who, and when, whether it got recreated or undeleted, and why I can't find any "paper trail" showing what happened! Carcharoth 07:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Looking at the date in the deletion log, and seeing the date of creation of the article, I see that this is in fact a recreation of already deleted content. An admin earlier speedy deleted the article as "patent nonsense". The article probably looked different then, but as non-admins cannot see deleted content, we have no way of looking at the history. Does this affect the debate? Was it improperly speedy deleted before? Can it be speedy deleted now as a recreation of deleted content? To answer the last question, this debate already means that speedy deletion because of recreation is not an option. Carcharoth 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Continue to improve the article as far as NPOV and references are concerned. It's a very useful reference, especially in the context of the ongoing debate whether video should assist in refereeing football matches: Many of the controversies hinge on what the replays show. Also, historians and future Wikipedia users will want to consult the controversies pertaining to individual matches, or issues such as the Togo players threatening to strike over compensation, or their coach leaving the team in their support. The issue of hair-pulling during a goal at the England-Togo match is a good example of a controversy not resulting from a referee's decision, and one that a referee may well be expected to miss but which affected the score -- a fine addition to the historical record. -- Mareklug talk 01:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is absolutely no possible way this article can ever be NPOV. Personally, I think Australia got screwed today, but Italians would likely disagree. Which side is correct? Any answer that can be offered is inherently NPOV. Resolute 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but adapt to POV regs. Article necessary especially in light of the debate on usage of technology in football. Clean up and keep.--203.199.202.97 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)BalsNDolls.[reply]
  • Keep as per comments from Mareklug. It would be good to have a record of what has caused controversy, even though it may be just a "portal" to media references and broadcasted "action replays". --ric_man 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but as said above, needs a bit of cleanup. Just stating the word 'controversial penalty' means very little - controversial to who and why? , although if links to relevant articles and clips could be provided. Examples such as the 3 yellow cards are unavoidable and even FIFA acknowledge that these are real 'controversies' and are definately worthy wiki topics.
  • Comment - please note that this article was initially a recreation of previously deleted content, though it presumably has improved since then. It would be nice if an admin could somehow merge the page history of the deleted page into the page history of the recreated article, so that everyone can see the full history of the articles written on this subject. Carcharoth 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the useful stuff, and Weak Delete the rest. What "controversies" were there in previous FIFA World Cups that would warrant a separate page like this one? The unusual occurrence of 3 yellow cards to the same player is discussed elsewhere, and this is notable for not having occurred before. The T&T pay dispute is also notable and is discussed elsewhere. These should be migrated elsewhere and merged with other similar text if possible. However, it's not unusual to have refereeing decisions that caused discussion among fans of the game. Such decisions would likely occur in every World Cup and whether they were dubious or controversial can be strongly POV. No good criteria exist for selecting dubious refereeing decisions. Such a list could be very long indeed! Most of the article lacks references. The article lacks the time the various refereeing "controversies" occured and thus it is more difficult to substantiate them. Finally, the user that created the page has made no other Wikipedia contributions. --B.d.mills 08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand (at tournaments completion), and watch for sources and word selection. Currently working on formatting/sources at the moment, to improve the quality of the article. --Killfest2 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite where necessary. This subject is encyclopaedic. --A bit iffy 10:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment, but when the dust has cleared on the tournament (which should allow for some more NPOV to come into proceedings) it might make more sense to merge the useful stuff into articles on the players/referees etc and delete the irredeemable bits. BigHaz 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and a whole 'nother bowl of alphabet soup... terrific example of what does not belong on an encyclopedia... unverifiable, original reserach... whole thing should be scrapped hoopydinkConas tá tú? 11:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI dont think you can cite original research in fairness, the content is from proven sources - specifically the FIFA website. Also it is a relation of actual events which IMO does not constitue research but observation. I thinkthe important question is does the content belong here or split up and distributed between the other FIFA 2006 articles as criticism (for example).
I believe I can cite the lack of original research as the article fails WP:NOR in that the FIFA citations (with the exception of the citation of the Sepp Blatter comments) explain the rules and some editors have taken it upon themselves to interpret the rules themselves based on what they saw (all of the "appears to show" analysis is original research). Perhaps I was a bit hasty in saying the whole thing should be scrapped, as the bit with Togo, and the comments by FIFA officials could certainly be distributed appropriately (not criticisms, so much as news) elsewhere. However, these few bits of encyclopedic information do not excuse the completely POV OR nature of the article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon further review, I'm going to vote Keep for now per others, so we can have a reference point for all of this, as the competition isn't even over yet. Once over, we can collaborate and write it in such a way that it'll be encyclopedic and a great addendum to the 2006 FIFA World Cup article, as the yellows have been flying like crazy. Having said that, I plan on deleting some of the obvious POV passages for now. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a bit of time on the article today and have researched all of the sources and citations, and I'm going back to my original Strong Delete vote; I actually tried to justify what should and shouldn't be included by using stringent WP policy, but was unable to, given the nature of the sources and incidents. I had to interpret the sources and citations from WP policy, but it was my view of whether or not the sources were NPOV or not, as it's so subjective. Therefore, much of the editing I intended to do was compromised. One can see the talk page for a look at what I was trying to do in remaining NPOV and NOR. Certain incidents, however, such as the three yellows, the record number of cards, and the Sepp Blatter comments should be merged into the article where appropriate. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are all saying here and perhaps the title 'controversy' is a little mis-;eading. I think the thought of the original and cirrent authors is to highlight areas of dispute / human error in the 2006 finals. If 2 newspapers take a different view over something (eg the final seconds penalty in the AUS / Italy game) then it is obviously a dispute of interest. THe article does provide an objective view of that (and all the other) incidents (or just about anyway) in my opinion. Taking the example of that penalty again I don't think saying one team find it a controversy and one team don't is fair. I watched the match and am impartial (supporting neither team plus England are unlikely to play either of them) and think that it was a contreversial decision - not because it was wrong but because of the outcome from it -> Italy scored and won the match. Now even if it is a foul (I personally think not but that is your own opinion) the decision would be contreversial. It is the timing and the oucome that determines it!!! Some of these commments are response to bits and pieces up the page so I stuck it down here for ease. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I deleted the original red link to this article a few days ago because I feared the article would be POV-a-go-go, and so it has proven. This can only be, as all football (soccer) related discussions turn out, to be one sided arguments without citations or evidence. This article would not be accepted in any other form, it should not be accpeted just because it's football or an ongoing event. Delete without hesitation doktorb | words 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a fan, you can't deny there's been controversy, mainly of officiating. Mention it on another page, but it's irresponsible to keep this sort of POV backwater. Crunk 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, maybe change section titles, especially "errors" as that's subjective POV. haz (user talk) 16:31, 27 June 2006
  • Keep, tidy up, and link from the World Cup page A valid article idea - just needsw to be improved and properly linked.Robertsteadman 19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this controversy is part of the sport. At one point in the article, about the Italy v Australia, there is mention of a Italy v South Korea match in 2002. So, there is interest in understanding what are the claims surrounding that match. This article will be reference to future sport disputes. It is an integral part of the game, despite FIFA and all trying to hide or ignore some blatant, factual mistakes, like the 3 yellow cards to the same player. --JoaoCastro 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, controversy and discussion on sports are a essential part of it. It as a vital role because it explains the context of the Wolrd Cup --Job 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not "explain the context" of anything. Any pub bore can waffle about how such a ref is this or that - the facts are thin when opinions rule a topic like this. This article has no independent view point, just conjecture and bias. It should be deleted doktorb wordsdeeds 07:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but definitely needs a lot of work.. Vanky 09:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - give it a chance. violet/riga (t) 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the controversies are current news just as much as the actual match results are, and definitely a subject that has scope for encyclopaedic coverage. 84.70.98.78 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is largely POV, as it stands now. Apart of a couple of matches, all of the other claims are dismissible, and not requiring an article.--Panairjdde 13:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to conform with WP:NPOV and to cut down the excesses. I think it will be sufficient to cover each controversial event in a few sentences, noting what the event is, the opposite viewpoints over the controversy and some references, without going through all the details. 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany should be a pretty good reference. --Pkchan 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep / HOLD - This article surely cannot be deleted until after the world cup is finished, only when it has finished will we be able to see what the article is like. --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is POV, most "controversies" are not notable and can someone explain why all but two of them involve Australia? GhePeU 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article could go on forever and not just for this world cup. Besides a page like this is controversy in itself.
  • Strong keep - The article contains information presented encyclopedically: it is encyclopedic information. Why delete?! Velho 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs a thorough copy edit but there is notable content here that could benefit the Wikipedia reader/researcher with a good rewrite and better referencing. -- Alias Flood 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, NN, etc. - Mike МиГ 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Bits of unrelated trivia culled together into one article. Also major problems with WP:NPOV. The so-called section of "Disputed calls" essentially accuses referees of making mistakes on those plays. --Madchester 07:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry, but I have just read through every objection to this article and can find none that warrant its deletion. Sure, the article may currently have POV issues, but take a look at Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner which is an article which should scream POV, but doesn't, due to the tireless work of a number of editors. I believe that this article has potential to become a very good article about a relevant topic. NPOV is not a criterion for deletion! MyNameIsNotBob 10:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to delete this. Besides, even if there is POV in it right now, there won't be in the long run. Time will always be able to iron out these things, and this article will not be an exception. This is a valid article, despite it being POV-sensitive. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 14:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A number of people are putting effort into improving this article and sorting out NPOV and verifiable source issues. Increasingly relevant and valuable supplement to the World Cup topic. Believo. 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The title itself sounds like an invitation to a debate, but I would prefer that such controversial edits take place in this article rather than elsewhere (that is if they must take place at all). Also once the tournament is over it will probably be easier to determine what is of relevance and what should be removed. --Oden 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As per other comments. The controversies are part of the 2006 FIFA World Cup.. and unless we want the main article to get even larger than it already is, we'd want to keep this page. -Tcwd 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NPOV issues with this article can and will eventually change. Some calls can be proven correct/incorrect due to the TV replay available these days. With quite a few of these calls, it is certain that a mistake was made because of the replay. That is objective. You cannot dispute reviews that give certainty of an event. -User:CunniJA
  • Keep It is perfect, just needs maybe a modify or two but really its great, absolutly keep. 12:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abreuzinho (talk • contribs)
  • Keep History is never perfect. Having a Wikipedia article on this means that 10, 20 years down the road, we have records, accounts, testimonials of what happened 10, 20 years ago. This will mean Wikipedia has information on this because it interests fans. This will mean that people will visit Wikipedia because that information is there. As like there are two sides to a coin, there are two sides to history as well. If we delete this article because it is not neutral, then we may as well delete those articles on World Wars, etc. -- mh 13:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Will (message me!) 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup to remove weasel words, POV, and the like. This has a lot of potential and use. Beginning 01:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deurosis

[edit]

No Google hits on the word. Reads like a hoax. -- Matticus78 13:04, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakor

[edit]

Non-notable artist. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:30, 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 merged to Vladimir Putin (whether this is actually worth mentioning there, we'll see). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Wolf

[edit]

Delete this is an article about a character in some Russian jokes (clearly a very minor one, b/c I have never heard of him) who was apparently mentioned once by Putin. Characters in Russian jokes are not verifiable by google etc. The basic idea here is that this is profoundly NN, indiscriminate, and probably unencyclopedic.- CrazyRussian talk/email 13:31, 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 delete. Sango123 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microquest

[edit]

non notable advertisement. Dweller 13:45, 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 delete. Sango123 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauna Kea Beach Hotel

[edit]

Non notable hotel in Hawaii. The page was nominated for deletion in 2004 and barely survived because one user deemed it a decent stub. Has not been edited since, save minor edits. Fails WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 13:46, 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 delete. Sango123 19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KnightsBridge Castle

[edit]

advertising Jmartinky 14:02, 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 Merge to List of The Shield episodes. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money Train Heist

[edit]

Delete or Merge. I'm a fan of The Shield. I think its possibly the best TV police drama series around (Homicide: Life on the Street is the other contender]]). But this article is just about one of the main story arcs! This version is only half complete too. If its merged, it needs to be cut down drastically. Bwithh 17:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the phrase "Money Train Heist" on the show, and I've watched almost every episode of the series. There's been no episode entitled the "Money Train Heist". so who's going to search for that phrase, or even think of searching for a story arc? Bwithh 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I'm counting on you to know the show well enough to decide this. I withdraw my vote. --Uncle Ed 23:14, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the appropriate sections of List of The Shield episodes. As per previous comments by Bwithh, I can find no evidence that any episode was ever called "Money Train Heist". The only formal link I could find between "Money Train Heist" and "The Shield" was this music video on youtube, which seems to involve music being set to footage from the show (I haven't watched it). Perhaps this has led to the attribution of the title? Without going further, I'm banking on there being no such official title related to this season of the show, so Merge & Delete. --DaveG12345 01:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into The Shield or list of its episodes. unsourced, but more important this is a precedent to call for an article on every episode of every TV series. there are a million useless articles to cheapen wikipedia. Joan-of-arc 23:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it in the gub

[edit]

No more than a dictionary entry, plus nn--No hits on google for "Taking it in the gub" AdamBiswanger1 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Scottish and I agree with the first and third entry of this article. It surprisingly didn't come up on google but this doesn't mean its not true. moloch2012 21:14, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

It really does mean oral sex,its not an offensive term or anything, just slang. i was in America recently and my friends and i were saying it and people didnt know what it ment, i just wanted to tell people.. thats all. I dont mind if you feel you have to delete it but its a genuine phrase i thought people would like to know. Its used in everyday language in Scotland. Mullerdrooler 21:20, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

Comment Thanks for your input. Perhaps if you could substantiate the claim that this is a widespread term in Scotland, I would agree with you. However, I nominated this article for deletion not necessarily because it is non-notable, but because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, there is aversion towards neologisms among editors. Feel free to chime in with any evidence or support you have to save this article. AdamBiswanger1 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think if you want to save this article, Muller, you need to add more than a definition, say, when the phrase was first coined or something, how vulgar it is in Scotland, what other slang related to it, famous people who have said it etc. Dev920 22:04, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 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 Merge to IESE. Oldelpaso 07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IESE International MBA Case Competition

[edit]

This doesn't seem notable. Nothing links to it. The list of winning team members appears to be unsourced. The username of the page's creator is similar to that of a member of one of the winning teams listed, suggesting a possible vanity page. Kickaha Ota 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Update: I nominated this, but now suggest a merge rather than a delete. Kickaha Ota 18:40, 27 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 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 delete. Sango123 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CooperYoung

[edit]

A board game invented by a university student, only ever played by him and his friends, then abandoned. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Percy Snoodle 14:16, 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 delete. Sango123 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kre-alkalyn

[edit]

advertising Jmartinky 14:16, 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 delete. Sango123 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tuesday Club

[edit]

Not notable. Seems like something made up at school one day. Few web hits, though it's hard to search because there's a book with a similar title.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, now that the copyvio issues have been resolved. Default action would be to merge this back to 4000 series, so I'll apply the appropriate merge tags. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4026 IC

[edit]

I think this article raises a general issue - what should be our policy on standard IC datasheets? As it stands, the text (and, previously, the illustrations) were copied from here, or possibly from another source, so that gives us grounds for deletion per WP:CP. However, the text could easily be re-written and the images re-drawn to avoid the copyright issue. The question is therefore: do we want to include this sort of datasheet? There are three such articles, including this one, linked from 4000 series, and one linked from List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Do we want to keep them, or not? My opinion is currently Neutral. Tevildo 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cut n paste copyvio and non-notable. --Ezeu 20:56, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the topic (not the content; that is, after fixing copyvio) back to the 4000 series topic. The 7400 and 4000 series parts were revolutionary, not just notable; the individual chips, though are hard to say anything about. -- Mikeblas 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete do not merge - this is a complete copyvio, to fix it you have to re-write the article from scratch.--Konstable 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older version not copyvio, see below.--Konstable 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CD4007 - which seems OK, if stubby
4017 IC - which reputedly uses a copyleft image, but describes the pinouts (presumably not copyrighted?)
4511 IC - as 4017 IC above
7400 - which seems OK, if stubby
What to do about these...? Not a big fan of the inconsistent naming, and there's question marks over pinout info being copyrighted for two of them. Diagnosis: uncertain. --DaveG12345 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged 7400 into 7400 series. I think 7400 series and it's list are the way to go; we should have the 4511, 4017, and 4007 articles redriect to the series, and make sure there's a "list of 4000 series" parts, merging the content from 4511, 4017, and 4007 articles. This implements the idea that the series were important enough to warrant an article or description, but not the individual parts. -- Mikeblas 13:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the non-copyvio older version (to which I have reverted the article). The main article for these circuits - 4000 series has a very long list of these circuits and merging them all into there would make one huge and unreadable article. Even though there aren't many with blue links there now, doesn't mean that they won't appear. The other two alternatives are two have external links or to exclude all the info on the specific circuits. I don't like the external links idea - Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, and excluding material which definitely is useful seems like a waste. I am inclined to say keep it here, but I think that would still violate the notability criteria, maybe this would make a case for ignoring all rules. Or maybe Wikibooks could take such material.--Konstable 11:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this is confirmed to have no copyvio problems, then I have no problems with its notability. Merging doesn't really seem to address the problem of there being a hell of a lot of these.--DaveG12345 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 scenarios in fiction

[edit]

This page can go one of two ways: either it will devolve further into the nebulous, ORish "stories that bear some resemblance to 9/11," for which there is no standard of similarity and no quantifiable metric for inclusion or exclusion, or it can go the other way, and strictly be scenarios in published works of fiction that are explicitly retelling the story of 9/11. The latter would be fine with me, except none of the items currently in the list do that. (One example occurs before the attacks, another afterwards, and the rest have nothing to do with September 11.) If "9/11 scenarios" is to be widened to "Works of fiction that mention 9/11", this would mean every TV show from The Sopranos to The Shield, which both mention 9/11 and life after it, would need to be included, which would be fine except I don't want to start the precedent of Works of fiction that mention the Civil War, Works of fiction that mention World War II, etc., etc. Delete as either original research, or simply an indiscriminate collection of information. JDoorjam Talk 14:23, 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 redirect to Yeshua. Proto///type 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshuah

[edit]

Not notable. No info at AllMusic, less than ten hits searching for his name and "humdingers". Mikeblas 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Define "well known in the London area"? --Dweller 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he means he has a strong underground fanbase. I think some of you may be american and unaware of the uk rap scene. What exactly is wrong with this article? The person is of note, maybe somewhat less than others though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.60.132 (talk • contribs)
  • The problem is that "underground" popularity is impossible to verify and is, to be frank, frequently a lot less than claimed. If Wikipedia did not require some verification of a musician's notability, we would be constantly be keeping new articles for every aspiring performer who's had one performance (sometimes not even that) or posted one mp3 on a myspace page. Fan1967 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect my thoughts were that it would be about Jesus, surprised when it was about a reasonably non-notable musician, especially given the "myspace band" reference. Ansell 00:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waggish

[edit]

This page is about a small fashion house that is not well known enough for inclusion as per the policy set out at WP:Corp. It appears to have been written by someone connected to the company for promotional reasons. RicDod 21:08, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:26, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toenut

[edit]

POV chronicle of a nn band. On Google and on the article itself I see no assertion of notability. Delete as nominator. AdamBiswanger1 21:23, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:26, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serius Jones

[edit]

Five minutes of fame; no contract, no releases, just the appearance on Fight Klub. Few web hits aside from copyvios of the MTV show. Mikeblas 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serius Jones is gaining notoriety in the hip-hop and rap battle underground. As stated in the article, he defeated the former champion Jin the Emcee, but what has not been mentioned is that he won $10,000 dollars by defeating Jin and that Jin the Emcee is on the Ruff Ryder label. Defeating an MC who was a rap battle champion, is a rapper on a major label and winning $10,000 dollars by defeating said rapper adds weight to the importance of keeping this article. Keep this page. --Toddd 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC

  • Comment I meant to ask earlier about this one - is the MTV competition "notable"? For $10,000, it sounds like it should be. If it is, I'm with the Keeps. If it ain't, I'm with the Deletes, as this seems to be all he is famous for at the moment. --DaveG12345 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a $10,000 contest is notable. mscdirect.com is running a contest to win a tool box and a set of tools; would you have us write up an article about the contest and its winner? Every scratch-off lottery winner, or local poker champion? -- Mikeblas 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just working off the WP:MUSIC guideline: "Has won or placed in a major music competition". As I say, I have no idea whether this competition is "major". It's more major than that tool box comp you're citing, for sure, but I don't see the relevance of your follow-up questions anyway (poker? this is music, isn't it? "every magazine best newcomer award winner" might be more like it). I was assuming anything MTV put out is probably trivial, but would have liked some confirmation. Seriusly. --DaveG12345 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mikeblas; you don't consider defeating a rapper(Jin) on a major record label(Ruff Ryder) who has had one or two hit songs in the past few months a big deal? I know I do. --Toddd 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, CSD A7 db-bio. Deizio talk 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KonShence Allah

[edit]

Not notable. Not at All Music Guide (under either name). No hits for either name plus album names, except here on Wikipedia. Mikeblas 14:38, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schirra

[edit]

Non notable author: 96 Google hits, 37 distinct: no reviews, no published books Fram 14:49, 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 merge. I think I did this already ... weird. Proto///type 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel F. Zubairi

[edit]

A US Congressional candidate, not otherwise notable. This is in parallel with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Stein, a similiar candidate in the same race. Like Stein, he doesn't deserve a separate article, so Merge both Jeff Stein and Daniel F. Zubairi into Maryland congressional elections, 2006 or an article about the 8th District in particular. Calton | Talk 04:38, 20 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, - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:56, 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 Speedy delete, CSD A7 db-bio. Deizio talk 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Engineer (artist)

[edit]

Not notable; no page at All Music, can't be found in Amazon.com music for sale. Only edits to the page are from a single user named "Engineerdj", and external sites are commercial in nature. Mikeblas 14:57, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrasu

[edit]

Originally, this page was a copy of the Wiktionary article ameliorate. The word abrasu does not seem to return any English hits on Google. The page seems to be a dictionary definition for a non existant word (at least in English). It may be complete bollocks. Molerat 15:28, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grabsteins

[edit]

Extraordinarily obscure. Delete.- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:30, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chromavision

[edit]

Speedy Delete and sanction author Advertisement. Nothing more. DarkAudit 15:52, 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 Keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

unmaintainable - there are 174 currencies, Wikipedia is not for collections of photographs. Redundant to commons:Category:Coins --Astrokey44 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • this gallery is incomplete showing only 8 of the worlds 174 currencies and is already at the 32kb suggested file size. it would be enormous if it included every coin of every currency in use today (front and back view, i might add), while the flag gallery is complete. also because it is called 'gallery of coins' it could include all of countless historical coins like Roman provincial coins, the St. Patrick Halfpenny etc. --Astrokey44 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep concur with Joe I --Chochopk 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but split into smaller units - eg 'Coinage of [country]' - to deal with file sizes. A useful collection of images, and although there are indeed lots of countries it doesn't seem at all impossible to aim for the whole set in due course. The very similar Gallery of banknotes has survived an AfD, and the main difference here may be that there are potentially more images to store. But, in my view, that's not a reason for junking what could grow into a very useful resource. --MichaelMaggs 17:17, 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 Merged in to ACIM.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM church movement

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
  • WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an ACIM church movement exists based upon the existence of two relatively unknown web-sites; niether of which reference an ACIM church movement, and is therefore based solely on original research.
  • WP:VER - This article is wholly information which is unverifiable. According to policy; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links.
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 14:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," above, and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 30 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathways of Light center

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
  • WP:CORP - This subject of this article fails to meet the criteria for companies and corporations.

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
  • WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an Pathways of Light center is reputible and notable based upon the existence of one relatively unknown web-site, it's own, and three internally linked "See Also" pages, none of which reference this site directly and all of which create a circular reference to themselves. This violation of policy is not about the topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic matter is true or not.
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
  • WP:VER - This article is wholly information which is unverifiable. According to policy; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Failing WP:CORP, the topic of this article is insufficiently reputible to be referencing itself.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external link.
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," above, and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:37, 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 Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Miracles Center

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

Ste4k believes that this article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
  • WP:CORP - This subject of this article fails to meet the criteria for companies and corporations.

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
  • WP:NOT - Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable.
  • WP:SPAM - Advertisements masquerading as articles posted on Wikipedia should be dealt with by listing them on these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
  • WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that a Community Miracles Center is reputible and notable based upon the existence of one relatively unknown web-site listed three times, it's own, and three internally linked "See Also" pages, none of which reference this site directly and all of which create a circular reference to themselves. This violation of policy is not about the topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic matter is true or not.
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
  • WP:VER - This article is wholly information which is unverifiable. According to policy; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Failing WP:CORP, the topic of this article is insufficiently reputible to be referencing itself.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, and a book in it's contents.
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Any reason not to WP:AGF here? User: Ste4k's edits could be viewed as an attempt to clean out multiple articles created by a leader of the ACIM movement, who appears to be a little confused on the purpose of Wikipedia (i.e., that it is an attempt to create a real encyclopedia and is not just a venue for people to promote their causes/organizations). Using terms like "jihad" to refer to another editor's work is not really all that productive unless you have actual evidence of some anti-ACIM bias on his part. JChap 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And might I add, the user's motivations do not change the evaluation that I or others make on this article. Pascal.Tesson 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note:To be fair, please note for the sake of documentation, that I performed the citation research for the premise of notability and was denied access to making the factual changes to the single article at the base of all afore mentioned articles. I brought the matters to discussion with other editors about the matter and was ignored, harrassed, and otherwise denied access to justifiable edits; specifically speaking, the thesis statement of notability. I would be more than happy to discuss this or any other matter regarding that research, but please be aware that policy on Wikipedia states that any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Consensus being preferrable to ambiguous motives, it is my opinion that nominating any group of articles for the scrutiny of others to decide upon is a more civil means of challenging and removing problematic articles than otherwise. Thank you. Ste4k 01:36, 27 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, CSD A7, db group. Deizio talk 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kodesmack

[edit]

non-notable Jmartinky 16:15, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KVRaudio

[edit]

Exactly - billed by itself. Looks like an advertisement. -- Jack Blueberry (t)⁄(c) •  16:29, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ochoa

[edit]

Non notable event/music promoter. advert/Spam Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 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 at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Was Only Half the Job

[edit]
I - the author of this entry - concede that the afD is stacked up in favor of "delete" and support the deletion of this entry whenever a moderator is able to perform such action.JB196 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC):::[reply]

Many are concerned that this is a vanity article that doesn't meet WP:WEB; hopefully we can settle this here. William Pietri 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<<<Mainstream celebrities such as Ron Jeremy and Verne Langdon have endorsed it. To say that it is not notable is entirely ignoring that fact. It has also been unofficially endorsed by pro wrestler Chris Hamrick. Wrestling superstars such as Shane Douglas, Jerry Lynn, Chris Hamrick, and Missy Hyatt have done exclusive interviews for it. Adult film stars Kristi Myst and Lizzy Borden also read the retrospective. Verne Langdon has unofficially endorsed it, and Kevin Kleinrock (the former VICE PRESIDENT of XPW) has officially endorsed it.

<<<It is PRINTED on sites which Wikipedia considers "Verifiable." The information printed in the retrospective comes from people who were in XPW. None of that specific information is published here; All it is saying is that the information is published in the RETROSPECTIVE. So the argument that there should be a "Verifiability" tag on the article is not a fair assessment.

<<<ObsessedWithWrestling.com - one of the web sites that the articles are printed on - was featured in Harley Race's autobiography and has also gotten other coverage. At WP:WEB it says The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. The OWW site is definitely "well known" and has received mainstream coverage as mentioned above. So I would think it meets that WP:WEB guideline. If OWW is not notable, then over 100 wrestler profiles should be edited on Wikipedia because htey include OWW.com as a reference.JB196 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT

The problem I have with the article is that it clearly refers to something that does not exist. It is an article about someone intending to write and publish a book rather than a page about a published book. An article about someone intending to write a book seems like vanity to me. Minus the book, this is an article about a collection of short pieces written for the web and posted on a few websites. That would seem to fail the test 168.127.0.51 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment* While I do not have a formal vote on this AfD (I have a mediation going on with the author on another article, so my neutrality is compromised), would it have been better if the Wiki entry was written by someone OTHER then the person who is writing the series of articles? In other words, if we remove the "endorsements" (Sorry, JB, Ron Jeremy endorsing it (paid or unpaid) shouldn't be notable), and focus on what the series of articles ALREADY PRINTED covers (namely, XPW's history), Reference that it's a series of ongoing articles and try to remain NPOV, I think it would be ok. SirFozzie 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ronnie did it unpaid. I don't see why you would question that, as it could be considered a violation of WP:AGF. I am fine with having somebody else writing it. Although I don't see how the endorsement of such a high-level mainstream celebrity shouldn't be mentioned. I mean, he is THE RON JEREMY. Not to lose focus, but how can one argue that Lance Storm's criticism of DVDVR should be included in that article and yet argue that Ron Jeremy shouldn't be included here? With all due respect, that argument holds zero ground because without the mention of who has participated in/endorsed it, OF COURSE it's not notable, because its just a creation by a fan. It's the fact that such notable people have attached their name to it that makes it notable. Also, you are a DVDVR board poster and you wrote the entry for that site that should be kept mind when you suggested that someone other than myself write the entry.JB196 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now folks can see why I took the other case to mediation.*shrug* Tried to extend the olive branch, but got it thrown back in my face. SirFozzie 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just responding to your claims. There was no hostility anywhere in my reply.JB196 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Just a vanity page about something that does not exsist and does not belong on Wikipedia--72.130.161.161 19:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything notable in here. An upcoming retrospective? What does that mean? Ron Jeremy "endorsing" it doesn't mean anything, because it is not a commercial product. I never will be a commercial product either, because no publisher will touch anything that has already been published on the web for free. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that most of the wrestlers who are being interviewed were honest with the author. I think this article should be deleted.75.2.219.164 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think a page is needed for an upcoming internet article, and certainly not for an upcoming internet article on such a fringe subject.66.46.138.11 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site is being made by a sexy man named Ethan Feldman, who lives in NYC. BOW DOWN TO HIM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.142.167 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 June 2006 UTC.
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A large percentage of what he writes is untrue and cannot be proven. 69.234.25.179 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete as original research, though the sockpuppetry is absurd. Wickethewok 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel it first fails WP:WEB. Above quoted is A3 of this: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." However, the last line too of WP:WEB is quite explicit - "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." That's the failure, IMO. The article cannot assume passing WP:WEB because the entire site is considered notable (as OWW may well be in terms of, e.g., its wrestling profile data).
This suggests other criteria must be weighed up. I personally think this article fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy implicitly, since the author is writing the article themselves. It obviously fails notability criteria for books, since the book artefact does not yet exist. For that reason, it also fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, since the text of the article clearly refers to a future publication, and asks the reader implicitly to trust that it will be notable when it arrives. Finally, it seems to go against the vanity guideline that states:

Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.

"Overtly promotional" would appear to me to be the tone of those celebrity endorsements. Celebrities endorse many products that would not fulfill WP notability criteria. Drawing attention to their endorsement of a yet-to-be-released project appears, to me, "overtly promotional". The notability should come from neutral and reliable third party sources with zero interest in the project's genesis, not the testimony of people involved in its creation and promotion.
Taken as a whole, and with nothing personal against the editor whatsoever, I feel these factors - taken all together along with all the foregoing discussion (which I have read with great interest) - constitute a delete IMHO. I have tried to weigh up all the evidence here in good faith, so apologies for the length of this comment. --DaveG12345 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it to Parsonburg's edit. He is the one who put it there, not me.JB196 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have readded the material at least four times [52] [53] [54] [55], so I don't think saying it's somebody else's fault quite explains the situation. It still looks like self-promotion to me, and your comments make it clear that your goal is to dodge the community consensus that comes out of this AfD process. If people think the material belongs elsewhere, they they can suggest a merge. --William Pietri 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The readding of the material were reverts to Parsonburg's edit.
"your goal is to dodge the community consensus that comes out of this AfD process."
William, I expect better from you in terms of following WP:AFG. That is not my intent at all and I am upset that you would think that it is. Also see talk page of XPW for more info.JB196 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to somebody else's edit does not absolve you of responsibility, especially in a case where you have a stake in this. As to good faith, I certainly tried to assume it, but your edit comments include "Paulley the entry for BWOHTJ is going to be up for deletion in a few days. If it passes afD without being deleted then we can take it off this page, but until now I'm putting it back on" and "readded Bleeding Was Only Half the Job info as the entry is going to be deleted". I was unable to come up with an explanation other than that you were determined to keep the material in Wikipedia even if the AfD results in deletion. What interpretation do you feel I should be making instead? Thanks, --William Pietri 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my intention was "to keep the material in Wikipedia even if the AfD results in deletion" then wouldn't I have continued to revert Paulley's edits to my version rather than say "(sounds good)"? Of course. That is where I see flaw in your interpretation. Sometimes people make misjudgments like I did; I am not saying you violated WP:AGF because I know where you are comiong from, all I am saying is to use language that so strongly casts me as someone I'm not ("dodge the community concensus" has a very strong connotation). Something that I think has gotten lost in a lot of this is that from the very beginning I have done everything I could to try to make any mention of BWOHTJ on Wikipedia fit to Wikipedia's standards. To deny this is simply ignore the NUMEROUS examples of my edit summaries along the lines of "Let's try to work out a wording for this that we can both agree on" and various modifications of that summary.JB196 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're trying to work with other people on wording. However, you haen't addressed my main point: You don't seem to be following WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO. The consensus is pretty clearly that this material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you add the material into another article, as yet another edit comment today [56] suggests that you intend to do, then that is dodging the community consensus. I'm glad you're excited about your project, but Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. If you can't bear to lose to the material, move it to your user page, where it's perfectly appropriate. William Pietri 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, your arguments have failed to convince anyone. The best you can expect now is a link in external links on the xpw article. The edit history on that article today shows exactly what you have done and shows an unwillingness to compromise as far as I'm concerned. People have told you over and over again that you can't write about a book that doesn't exist. 64.12.116.6 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people who looked at my edits objectively would easily see that "an unwillingness to compromise" is the last thing that my edits show. If you are tryiing to argue that I am not willing to compromise then you really have not been paying any attention.JB196 23:29, 27 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, nomination withdrawn and doomed to fail regardless. - Richardcavell 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Jain

[edit]

A man running a Nebraska insurance company doesn't seem hugely notable, even if he is slated to be the successor to a significant businessman (Warren Buffet) -- the linked news story states he is only a "possible" successor. This seems to be jumping the gun somewhat. -- Matticus78 16:59, 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 No consensus. Although there are only three !votes (keep and deletes) and one neutral, there are sufficient number of comments arguing on both sides for me to close this as no consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Content

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Not yet notable. See review here BlueValour 17:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has already blanked the article's Afd tag. BlueValour 17:08, 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 speedy deleted as obvious vanity/hoax entry. Apart from the creator all voters agreed it didn't belong in the article namespace. Creator has copy on their own website. Userfication not needed. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Targo and Abbdona

[edit]

Delete as NN micronation/vanity page. Original article was {{prod}}ed and contested by creator. Article currently claims to have declared independence from the UK as of yesterday (25 June 2006). Article was created by the micronation's 17 year-old king (King Finn I --> Prof. Finn). --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User already has own copy on his website. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG

[edit]

I am the only person who knows enough to write any more than a sentance about Targo and Abbdona. Do you think H. M. Queen Elizabeth II is in denile about the fact that she is a Queen? NO! I have to refer to my self as the King! You don'y go round deleting the Kingdom Of Lovely artical do you? NO! I actualy am the King of at least 10 time the land on King Danny!!!

Accept this artical because it is NOT A HOAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prof. Finn (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Actually, you have done something wrong. You have vandalized my user page, apparently in retaliation for the nomination of this article for deletion ([64], [65]), and you have started making what could be seen as bad-faith deletion proposals ([66]). In other words, you aren't doing anything to help yourself out, you're just stirring up trouble. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- That you are the only person who could write more than a sentence about the topic is a sign that it's not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. See WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO for more info on why you should let other people write about yourself and your projects. --William Pietri 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; micronation silliness. Kingdom Of Lovely had a TV show based around it. You haven't. (Quite honestly, though, the KoL article could use some serious work.) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any one who says this is just compensating for the fact that they are not real them selves Oh, and I'm sory Bugwit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.189.94 (talk • contribs) .

I sent a declaration of independance to No 10! Why would I go to all the trouble to set up 2 websites about my REAL COUNTRY and a wikipedia entry???

[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Finn (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Countries are only real after they've been recognized. And if they're not only major press attention could warrant an article about them. Since yours was only recently formed it fulfills neither of the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 28 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. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Timson

[edit]

Non-notable artist. ScottNestle 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree with nom. —Centrx→talk 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Matt Timson is a professional illustrator who has had work published in (IIRC) The Guardian, The Observer and Radio Times amongst other publications. He also has worked prolifically for American and Canadian clients. It should be noted that the deletion proposal of this entry from ScottNestle is a personal one, as he narrowly escaped legal proceedings for defamation of character against Timson, for which at the time was made to publicly apologise for. Scott is a prolific Internet 'troll', who holds stalker-like grudges against published writers and artists due to bitterness over his failure in the field himself.
  • Again, I'd urge care in slinging around insults. I know the Scott Nestel that you are referring to well (hell, a quick Google search would tell me anyway), but you can't prove that this is the same individual. It could just be a coincidence of there being 2 people with virtually the same name. Vizjim 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In another deletion proposal ScottNestle said the reason he was proposing dozens of small press-related entries for deletion (even when they have other notable claims to be kept) is "because I consider them inherently non-notable. ScottNestle 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" This shows a fundamental (and wilful?) misunderstanding of the British small press comics scene. Granted you can run off a self-produced comic on a photocopier and call it a comic but the small press publications that he has worked for are anthologies and so can have their pick of who works for them especially when it comes to artists who tend to get commisioned to do the work on accepted scripts. To top that Matt has also been commisioned to produce the covers of a number of publications. The only real grounds for non-notability for the small press would be on circulation which misses their importance for the British (and international) comic industry as breeding grounds for new talent. (Emperor 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
If the notability of small press titles is judged by their importance in breeding notabletalent, surely they should only be added once they have actually generated that talent? Also on top of that you;re listing people who are otherwise non-notable because they are affiliated with a publication that MIGHT make them notable and then assert their own notability... It's a bit of a wobbly house of cards isn't it? ScottNestle 20:16, 22 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, - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:15, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry lee jones

[edit]

Possibly non-notable musician. Article shows a MySpace site as the relevant external link. But claims a couple songs "went national", so might meet WP:MUSIC. I can't tell based on a quick look and want the AFD community to review. Treat as a technical nomination, so no opinion from me. GRBerry 17:19, 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 Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1980s retro movement

[edit]

While I don't debate the existance of '80s retro, this article as written is completely original research. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep the article. Let's at least have a crack at editing it into an acceptable form first. Besides which I'm not sure I class much of it as research, it's more a list of easily verifiable examples that back up the existence of 80s retro. --Matthew Humphreys 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response to Comment - I didn't say the article is perfect as it is, I was disputing your categorisation of it as "research". My main point is that just because a given article doesn't currently conform to Wikipedia standards, that doesn't automatically mean it ought to be deleted. If these types of concerns are raised about a specific article, those interested in the topic should work to bring it up to scratch, rather than simply deleting. There is potential here for a good article, though it needs a bit of work (if there wasn't, I would wholeheartedly support deletion). --Matthew Humphreys 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article isn't really written in an encyclopedic manner, but it needs to fixed, not deleted as this is a proper topic. Is this the best namespace? Ace of Sevens 23:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Popular culture always is referenced to some degree in various parts of time, and I do not believe that decades are but an arbitrary way to define culture and cultural movements. One could cite examples and attempt to prove retro movements for any arbitrary period of time, but it's not particularly useful and attempts to imply a significance where none exists. Also, pretty much bound to be original research. GassyGuy 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual Retro trends are too common / short-lived / uninteresting to deserve an article. -- GWO
  • Keep. The article is quite interesting. Sahasrahla 07:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Sorry I kind of changed it. I didn't see the deletion thing until after I moved the page sorry. The '80s had nostalgia or a "Retro Movement" towards the '50s. And '70s culture had an impact of the '90s too, so these crazes must exist. (Tigerghost 04:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • I don't know how to revert my edit back till before my previous edit, im still a newb. (Tigerghost 04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • I hope you don't mind but I've reverted all of your changes to the article. Assuming the existing article isn't deleted, please try to discuss any drastic changes with other users prior to making them. I can think of good reasons for the changes you made but there are equally good reasons for having seperate articles. --Matthew Humphreys 15:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot see any asserted rationale that stops this being a virtually random list of items of tangential relevance to "the 80s" per some random editor. Fails WP:NOR. --DaveG12345 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like another rough draft in list form of an article that hasn't been written. Ste4k 06:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs editing and developing not deleting. There are other fads and retro movement articles so the principle is acceptable, it's just the approach and writing of this one that is causing concern. SilkTork 10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as below. Deizio talk 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dddb

[edit]

Not really encylopedic, plus its a copyvio from this page. Wasn't sure if it qualified for speedy delete or not, so I listed it here. ~ Falls End (T, C) 17:42, 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 Keep. —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6loWPAN

[edit]

An IETF working group. Article created by user:6lowpan.com and already deleted once as promotional material. But I would be happier if had an AfD debate before it gets deleted again. -- RHaworth 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. _Exceptionally_ boring article, but a (potentially) notable subject and not pushing any sort of commercial venture. I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted, but I can't think of any concrete reasons why it should be. Tevildo 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dull but worthy. But what about a bit of wikification? Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All encyclopedia articles can't be exciting. And I already tagged it for a wikify but someone took it off. I'll put another up. BJK 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with IETF Working Group. I would much rather see each of these groups (of which there are dozens) get a pithy summary of what it is they do instead of this monster. Recury 19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 6lowpan.com is not a company, but just a user name chosen by a student. As the advisor of the students, I don't believe the text is a promotional material, and if it contains such contents, I will modify under through review. The motivation of this writing is just to introduce the terminology 6lowpan and the related activities in IETF because the terminology is not such a frequently used one. Also, I am aware that the text should not be the original research. I tried to include only the works at IETF. One thing to change is that the terminology 6loWPAN should be changed to 6lowpan or 6LoWPAN. Prof. Ki-Hyung Kim 08:16, 27 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, so keep. Pity indeed the administrator who sorts this one out. It would seem to be the opinion of the keep voters that the article has indeed acquired referencing. This is often the goal of deletion nominations which rest on the question of referencing and verifibility (if it can be referenced, then it shall be kept). No clear consensus to delete; "cruft" has never been a criteria even though we've all done it at one time or another. On a further note, this is the third nomination in three months. Absent strong consensus this is not inappropriate, although a fourth nomination would need to address different criteria. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber combat (third nomination)

[edit]
  • First AfD.
  • Second AfD (new name).
  • Strong delete. This article is a textbook definition of original research. In its original nomination for deletion nearly a month ago, and in the defense mounted during the subsequent deletion review, the most convincing arguments to be kept were made by those suggesting that the material was good but that they would need to prepare citations from "games and several books" or from various other references. Since the time of the article's nominations coming up on three weeks ago, no efforts at improving the article's references have been made [67], although the article has been actively edited by many editors. To me, this demonstrates a lack of interest in bringing this article up to Wikipedia verifiability standards. Other keep votes during the original AfD had no substantive policy support behind them, only using phrases such as "this is important" and "this is interesting" and "it does no harm" and "it really helps out my Jedi Academy clan" which offer no supportive Wikipedia policy for keeping an uncited, unverified original-research article on Wikipedia. — Mike • 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clerical note. I'm sure others will argue that I've nominated this again too soon. I disagree. Wikipedia's deletion policy states that "[t]here is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations," and the community of Star Wars fan editors on Wikipedia have had several weeks since the original nomination was opened to improve this article with regards to its citation of sources and its verifiability. I do not consider this an "immediate" renomination. — Mike • 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CLERICAL NOTE REGARDING MERGE AND/OR TRANSWIKI VOTES. For those who would vote to merge and/or transwiki, please clarify whether or not your vote stands for preservation or elimination of the material, as some closing admins have in the past interpreted merging and transwiki-ing as keep and delete votes, respectively. Furthermore, please note that you may instead wish to vote either as a straight keep or as a straight delete, as Wookieepedia already has an article on lightsaber combat. — Mike • 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this nomination began, it was listed as Lightsaber combat (second nomination). During the course of this nomination, it became clear that the article had been nominated once before under a different name. I went through and renamed lightsaber combat's first nomination as a second nomination (correcting references), and then renamed this nomination as a third nomination (correcting references). However, when I nominated this, I was only aware of it having gone through one other nomination; I was assuming that when someone referred to it have gone through "two other nominations," one of the two they were referring was the article's deletion review. Hopefully, though, the matter is now clarified. — Mike • 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wookieepedia. Strong Delete. Worst sort of fancruft imaginable. Tevildo 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The AFD was closed 11 days ago as Keep, it hasn't even been two weeks, let alone several. This is ridiculous. 11 days is still too soon, especially if we're dealing with non-full time, non-professional editors. hateless 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • response It has been three weeks since the date the article was first nominated — June 6, 2006 + 21 days (3 weeks) = June 27, 2006. Nothing prevented editors from cleaning up the article while it was being considered for deletion — in fact, that's often a common tactic used to save articles from deletion, as was seen in Lost: The Journey — when someone completely rewrote it during a deletion review of the article's second nomination, it pretty much saved the article — it was relisted and its third nomination looks to be either a straight keep or a keep by no consensus, when it was definitely going to the graveyard before. Star Wars editors have had the opportunity to rescue this article for three weeks now — they've done nothing to the article's citations, although they HAVE done a plethora of other wikilinking and tweaking. It's obvious there's no desire to bring this up to Wikipedia's verifiability standards, and so, it needs to come for community review again. — Mike • 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fancruft. Artw 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When an article is threatened with deletion, most editors scurry around and do something to improve it within an hour or two. Three weeks is plenty. Besides, there's nothing to say it can't be taken off to a sandbox or a personal site and improved. --Dweller 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Klingon language, seems to be comparably notable. - Wickning1 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Klingon language may be equally notable but that article is not original research. The Klingon Language was created in detail and research has not been required to piece it together from espisodes and novels etc. In this case this material is being pieced together for teh first time before our eyes.--Nick Y. 01:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many wikipedia articles combine information from multiple sources. Read WP:OR carefully. I see no evidence of suppositions, no interpretive claims, no original ideas, just information compiled from many different pieces of fiction, all of which are verifiable as Lucas canon. I understand what you're saying, that's exactly why my keep is weak, but it's a very subtle difference. (minorly edited) - Wickning1 05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Upgraded to Keep after article update - it's been made explicitly clear that this info is canon, and not a work of originally researched fan fiction. - Wickning1 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is the definition of original research. However, since it just survived an AFD and a DRV, you will probably have eleventy billion people citing the new speedy keep criteria where basically if you survive an AFD, you get a six-month get out of jail free card. At any rate, the patently wrong decision was made before. There are a disproportionately high number of redlinked users who basically said "keep because I like it". The concern that it is completely and totally original research was never addressed by anyone advocating keep in the first AFD. This is a textbook, obvious delete. If I were to write a similar article about a subject which did not have such devoted and loyal followers, it would probably be unanimous. Unfortunately, however, the popularity of Star Wars does not allow the WP:NOR policy to be violated. BigDT 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, by the way, apparantly the new WP:SK guideline has now been removed ... go figure ... BigDT 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it appears from a brief perusal of that page as if the individual who added that guideline added it in so he could then refer to it in an AfD. Nice. Gotta love keeping your policy on a wiki. ;-) — Mike • 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone posted this a while back in a userbox debate ... it's a great quote ... from Alice in Wonderland ... I absolutely love it and it's very relevant to this discussion. At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out `Silence!' and read out from his book, `Rule Forty-two. ALL PERSONS MORE THAN A MILE HIGH TO LEAVE THE COURT.' Everybody looked at Alice. `I'M not a mile high,' said Alice. `You are,' said the King. `Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen. `Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: `besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.' `It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King. `Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice. The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. BigDT 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record, no, actually, I didn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One. It is a great resource on lightsabre combat with the forms coming from Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Two. Stop being childish and keep on nominating a wiki page. If it fails to be deleted the first time, stop nominating the page. User:Lord_Hawk 20:16, 26 Jine 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Lightsabre combat belongs on Wookieepedia. Tevildo 20:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response First, sources mean nothing if they're not documented within the article itself. If you'd like to take the time to bring the article up to a situation where it's adequately referenced and sourced, all the more power to you. Second, there are articles on Wikipedia that have been nominated for deletion for five or more times, because despite being on a popular subject, they flagrantly violate one of Wikipedia's policies. This article is in the same vein. And lest you forget, Lord Hawk, as a Wikipedia editor, you are not supposed to engage in personal attacks. — Mike • 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that being "a great resource" is not a criterion for inclusion. There are plenty of things that are "great resources" that are not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhosting service. The Wookieepedia article - http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lightsaber_combat - covers basically the same content as this one. The Virginia Tech message board is a "great resource" of football knowledge, but I wouldn't suggest pasting everything that everyone says there into a Wikipedia article. Further, I would remind you of the WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies. There is no warrant for believing that this is a childish nomination or anything other than a good faith attempt to remove unencyclopedic content. BigDT 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may not be the best cited article around, but most of the material appears to have been taken from official and/or authorized Lucasfilm publications, and not "original research" as others have incorrectly claimed. TheRealFennShysa 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Per above, and also per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." — Mike • 20:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOR lists under "what is excluded", "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." In other words, if an article is using words that are not a part of an every day vocabulary and does not provide a citation for those terms, it is assumed to be original research. There is no burden to prove that an article is original research, rather, an article needs to prove based on citing sources that it is NOT original research. BigDT 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article provides information that is very helpful in understanding the Star Wars saga, which everyone agrees is a legitimate topic for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk • contribs)
    • Please note that being helpful, useful, etc, is not a criterion for inclusion. Things that are interesting to the people who care about them are deleted every day. BigDT 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Transwiki to Wookiepdia if creators so desire (I imagine its already all there though). Ready the Death Star!!! Bwithh 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found the article to be interesting and informative. What's not to like? Nonsuch 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't feel enough time has passed since the last AfD/DRV, but there's been no move to improve referencing since then. I'm not going to bend on verifibility a second time. (Note to closing admin: If the referencing has been significantly improved by the end of the discussion, please discount this - I'll be on vacation and won't be able to withdraw it myself.) BryanG(talk) 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Article closed as keep 12 days ago. --JJay 00:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no such WP:SK guideline to support your comment. — Mike • 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very rapid renoms violate the spirit of deletion policy. They disrespect the previous community consensus- in this case, established just twelve days ago as Keep with massive participation. --JJay 10:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Putting aside the issue that a comment such as the one you've made above assumes bad faith on my part, deletion policy specifically states that there's not even a consensus for a specific time between nominations, and three weeks to sufficiently clean up an article strikes me as plenty when you're dealing with a fan community as robust and active and defensive of their articles as Wikipedia's Star Wars fan community is. Furthermore, an article that does not verify its content and that contains original research, as said above, contains problems that, by policy, automatically supercede community consensus. Finally, the community's "consensus" last time was largely a matter of ballot-stuffing by individuals whose supportive reasoning made no cites to Wikipedia policy and, with most votes, directly contradicted same. — Mike • 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not at all clear why you think I am assuming bad faith, although you are clearly assuming bad faith regarding my vote- further demonstrated by your attempts to move my comment out of context. A renom 11 days after a close = a speedy renom. I see no need for it following a keep result. In those cases, I always vote speedy keep, which is perfectly valid and in no way precluded by policy. It also does not in any way reflect on you, particularly as I have no idea what motivated your renom. I would suggest you try to WP:AGF regarding all participants in this discussion. --JJay 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I may have been a little hairtrigger the first time I accused you of assuming bad faith, JJay, and for that, I'll withdraw the comment here and apologize to you; but the above portion of your comment — "further demonstrated by your attempts to move my comment out of context" — is a textbook assumption of bad faith. I also honestly have no idea what you mean when you suggest I'm assuming bad faith behind your vote itself — I'm instead saying that you have no supportive guideline for speedy keep, which is a very specific item, outlined at WP:SK. Just as if someone votes to speedy-delete in a discussion, they need to provide why it matches under the speedy-delete guidelines (and not just general deletion guidelines), if you vote speedy keep in a discussion, you need to provide why it matches under the speedy-keep guidelines (and not just general keep guidelines). As for moving your comments, it was not to "move them out of context," as you suggest, but because the first time you wrote the above comment, you gave it a single bullet. That placed it not as a reply, but as a new comment in the main stream of the discussion. Votes and comments are supposed to be kept in chronological order in an AfD, per WP:AFDM. However, I wouldn't have messed with a message thread, and had you had a double-bullet, indicating your comment was a corollary to your vote, I wouldn't have moved it. — Mike • 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for your apology. You should be aware that WP:SK is a guideline. Editors choose to apply it or not, but there is nothing binding in a guideline. WP:CSD is policy. It is not a guideline and should not be equated with speedy keep. They are very different beasts. I have repeatedly indicated why I voted speedy keep- my thinking here is not at all unusual, and does not have to be explicitly included in the guideline page. Otherwise, I do not think it is proper for you to move comments on the page, whether double bulleted, single bulleted, or no bulleted. This is a discussion - one that you started - not an art project. Frankly, I think you need to focus less on style guidelines and more on the crux of the matter - namely that there is no consensus to delete this article. That was the case two weeks ago and is still the case today. Despite self serving comments like "I just want to gauge community opinion", the fact is that repeated renoms waste everyone's time. --JJay 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • To respond to your comment:
              1. A guideline is "something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus" (WP:RULES). My sense of it has always been that it is semi-policy: it can be countermanded, but only with good reason.
              2. My citation of WP:SK was basically to denote that your "speedy keep" vote is exactly equivalent to a "keep" vote; the "speedy" adjective prepending your vote had no supporting weight to it in the WP:SK guideline. I believe the only policy reference to "speedy keep" is in a section of WP:DEL where it refers to "if a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached." That instance would be an end result a closing admin would come to when closing a matter early, not a result an individual editor could vote for.
              3. With regards to whether or not it is proper to move comments to improve readability, that was already decided on Wikipedia a very long time ago by community consensus — yes, it is perfectly acceptable to refactor a discussion to make it more readable.
              4. With regards to your comments about it not being an "art project," your belief that I've made "self serving comments," and your belief that this nomination "waste[s] everyone's time," I would appreciate it if you would remain courteous and not attack me personally. — Mike • 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Mike, given your clear propensity for wiki lawyering, it would have at least been intellectually honest to cite the second line of WP:Rules, namely: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. There was eminent common sense in my speedy keep, designed to prevent the writing of hundreds of lines of text in a sterile debate ten days after the close of a previous discussion on the same topic. Therefore, I would ask that you stop trying to impugn the validity of opinions on the opposite side of the aisle. Regarding your remark on refactoring, moving an obvious response to a comment to a completely different part of the discussion does not help "readability". It lessens readability. It creates confusion. You should desist from moving comments on this page and not edit war when your moves are reverted. I'm also not sure why you continue to harp on civ, npa, etc, etc. Challenging the validity of someone's vote, and then displacing an explanatory comment, is likely to provoke a reaction. It is not personal, despite your continued assertions to the contrary. --JJay 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • To respond to your comment:
                  1. Wikilawyering (WP:WL) is defined as "[u]sing legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy" or "[a]sserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express." You've not cited principles I've attempted to override with technical interpretations. If you are calling me a wikilawyer simply because I am familiar with Wikipedia policy and am responding with it when disagreeing with you, I don't believe that qualifies.
                  2. With your regard to my quotation of WP:RULES, I paraphrased the second sentence you cited by immediately saying thereafter "it can be countermanded, but with good reason." That was my sense of the phrase based on the term "occasional exception" (emphasis added). Therefore, I don't think you can validly call me intellectually dishonest.
                  3. With regard to moving the comment, I moved a comment which replied to my message to an indented spot underneath my message. This is how it is done in Wikipedia nearly universally. It is not only permitted by the guidelines, it is a common action performed by numerous Wikipedia editors every single day.
                  4. I am not attempting to impugn the validity of opinions on the opposite side of the aisle. Please do not use straw man arguments when disagreeing with me.
                  5. Despite your citations of "eminent common sense," I again do not see any justification for calling your remark a "speedy" keep. I was not arguing that prepending the adjective "speedy" made your vote worthless (again, a straw man argument), only that it was of no practical difference from a normal "keep" vote.
                  6. Finally, I am "harping" on one of the core pillars of Wikipedia (pillar #4 of WP:5P, also see policy trifecta) because you appear not to be respecting it, once again with your phrase "clear propensity for wiki lawyering," as well as with the implication that I was intellectually dishonest, and the poor characterization of my actions. And even were we to assume that I had done a wrong to you, a point I do not concede nor agree with, being wronged is not considered acceptable grounds here for being rude or personally attacking someone. — Mike • 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, but you moved my response to your comment to a completely different part of the discussion, while leaving your comment in its original place. Here is your diff to refresh your memory [68]. By so doing, you created enormous confusion. You destroyed the readability of the exchange. You forced me to review numerous diffs to try to figure out what happened to my comment. You forced me to restore my comment to its original place in the discussion. You also added a comment implying that I was trying to vote twice. This was a significant waste of my time, and attack on my character, but then you went further by edit warring over the change. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the tenor of many of your responses here, such as the one above, demonstrate a continued focus on wiki lawyering. --JJay 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • To reply to your comment:
                      1. Either a comment is made separately, in which case it is then moved to chronological order within a discussion, or it is a comment made in reply to a statement, in which case it is indented properly to show that it is a reply. I moved your comment to chronological order; when you made clear it was underneath my comment as a reply, I indented it for you to denote that it was a reply. This sort of formatting is longstanding and frequently enacted in AfD by numerous editors every day, and is widely considered acceptable.
                      2. I believe your following comments that employ heavy hyperbole — "enormous confusion," "destroyed readability," "significant waste," and so on — really do not have any meat in them to which I can respond. They are very much your opinion, as counter to normal deletion practices as that may be.
                      3. I find it odd that it took you "many diffs" to locate your text quickly given that most browsers have within them the ability to look for text within a webpage — it is something I frequently do when my own comments have been refactored or are not where I expected them.
                      4. It appears to me that simply responding to you while citing policy to support one's response is enough for you to label it as "wikilawyering." If that is not the case, I would appreciate what guidelines you use to differentiate wikilawyering from the simple action of citing supportive Wikipedia policy in a policy discussion.
                      5. With regard to your comments about the tenor of my arguments, I cannot say that I have been impressed by the manner in which you have decided to present yourself during this disagreement, either. — Mike • 14:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If you think a perceived missing bullet authorizes you to move comments on the page, start edit wars, and waste my time, more power to you. You are clearly someone who relishes argument and looks for every shred of a line in a policy, guideline, or essay- linked and selectively quoted over and over - to try to support their point of view. You also continually make accusations of incivility whenever anyone disagreees with you. None of this is not my approach. Good luck in the future. --JJay 14:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I think WP:AFDM allows anyone to move comments on the page in certain ways in order to improve the readability of comments and their responses. I think whether an edit war was started is a subjective comment on your part. I think only you have a metric as to how your time is wasted. The remainder of your comments were personal attacks, and thus not able to be responded to. Best wishes, as well, to you. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you still think it is completely unverified? --maru (talk) contribs 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inasmuch as you've made efforts to add some references, no, it's not completely unverified. The largest bulk of the article seems to remain unreferenced, however. — Mike • 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree there. I've cited sections 2-6, and the introduction (obviously ext. links and references don't themselves need to be cited), leaving only section 1, the classical seven lightsaber forms (which I'm about to start on). The portion of the article which is uncited is in the minority, both in terms of number of sections and in word-count. --maru (talk) contribs 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cripes. Three attempts at deletion? This is getting to be a bit much. --maru (talk) contribs 00:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh man, Really REALLY detailed article with really REALLY few actual references. Original research fancruft run amok, more like. Delete. A bad article is a bad article. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The important distinction being lost by some non-fanatics seriously considering this is that as far as I can tell this is original research that uses valid sources to research a subject not previously researched. Yes it is good original research that uses some citations and is not ment to be misleading or distorting and does an excellent job of piecing together bits of knowledge from various sources to reach its conclusions. If someone could write a thesis on this subject I think one's thesis advisor would commend the originality and quality of the research.--Nick Y. 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced original research. Since when do a wiki and posts of a bulletin board count as reliable sources? Dr Zak 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many as WP:OR. But consider WP:SNOW — it's not going to happen. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of this stuff can be sourced and some of it is. Is some of it original research (that it, a novel interpertation or unable to be supported)? yes. Is it so bad that is should be deleted? I think it needs to have a chainsaw taken to it and a lot of work, but it is not unsalvagable. Maybe it is just the eventualist in me. On the other hand, if I wanted information on this Wikipedia is not where I would look and it is probably better suited elsewhere. It is disconcerning how some of the above have attempted to argue about the previous nominations and opininions and persons therein instead of the article. I don't see this as having a snoball's chance in hell of actually reaching consensus, as long as Gay Nigger Association of America is still around, except by attrition. Kotepho 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Re: Consensus Vs. Verifiability/Original Research But really, there shouldn't even need to be a consensus. The closing admin should be going by the Deletion Guide for Administrators, which says: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies ... " Whether people flood this with keep votes or not, it should be zapped either way. — Mike • 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's ignore my on-going edits sourcing the article. I certainly hope the closing admin will actually look at the article, and see how it is sourced better than the majority of articles, and will realize how baseless the grounds for deletion. --maru (talk) contribs 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other comment ... ya know what part of the problem is? (setting aside the WP:NOR for a moment, which it looks like maru is making an effort to clean up) We have plenty of articles about things from fictional universes. That's fine. But this one is ... overboard. An article discussing lightsaber's usage in the movies would be one thing ... but this one is describing terms that never appear in the movies and techniques that never appear in the movies. It would be like if someone started writing articles on all of the stuff in the The Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual and other related books. If the term never appears in an episode/movie, then I just have a hard time seeing it as having interest outside of the Star Wars world. I love Star Wars. I have the movies. I saw the prequels on the day they came out. I'm not some anti-sci-fi guy desparate to delete anything and everything sci fi. Lightsabre combat is fine for a topic ... but maybe the article could be restructured so that it just discusses actual scenes from the movies. Just one random thought ... BigDT 04:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - atricle appears to have plenty of source citations now (based on published sources, no less), thanks to Marudubshinki. Given the nominator's concerns for "Wikipedia verifiability standards", I think those concerns should now finally be appeased, as the so-called "original research" has now been shown to be based on citable sources. MikeWazowski 04:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above TruthCrusader 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The epitome of non-notable juvenile cruft. Take it to Wookieepedia, please, in the name of all that is holy stop contaminating a grown-up encyclopedia with such childish claptrap. -- GWO
    • Comment - can we please act like adults here? There's absolutely no call to resort to name-calling and denigration of topics that you personally have no interest in just to influence a vote. That kind of behavior is childish. MikeWazowski 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't call anybody a name. I described the article as "childish claptrap". I make no judgement about the people who wrote that article. But the article is juvenile claptrap. -- GWO
        • Gareth: I've made some effort to track down citations to point out that these lightsaber combat forms are not merely cruft but actually relevant to interpretation of the movies; could you address that please? --maru (talk) contribs 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. Sure. You're reading way too much in to what is fun, kiddies entertainment. Star Wars is not a philosophy, a way of life, its a series of childrens movies. They're fun. They're not documents to be intertextually analysed based on the writings of people with way too much free time. There can be nothing interesting to be said about the movies based on these post-hoc inventions and rationalisations of its over-excitable fans. The Star Wars "canon" doesn't even rise to the level of Tolkien's writings on Middle Earth; Tolkien, at least, had a motive for invention beyond profit, and the intelligence to weave interesting themes into his mythos. Lucasfilm is a machine for churning out vaguely-coherent product for gullible fanboys. Feel free to write as much about these meritless, fan-driven "interpretations" at Wookieepedia, and leave wikipedia for things that have an existence and importance beyond bored college kids in internet chatrooms. -- GWO
            • I think I'm going to concur with Mike here about your childishness. I specifically find citations to suggestion that the movies could be "intertextually analyzed" w/r/t lightsaber combat (the quotes were from Nick Gillard- y'know, the guy wot was in charge of the combat in the movies) and you choose instead to simply insult my work as meritless and crappy, and while you are at it, the entire Star Wars mythos as well. --maru (talk) contribs 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I'm going to concur with Mike here about your childishness.
                • Since you believe the juvenile minutiae of Star Wars trivia to be an important subject for an online encyclopedia, I don't actually hold your opinion in terribly high esteem. Nick Gillard, the man who invented Lightsaber Combat thinks Lightsaber Combat is important? Wow. I'm amazed. Did you know, the man who drives the 67 bus thinks the route of the 67 bus is important. But he's not the most impartial source now, is he? -- GWO
                  • Comment - again, PLEASE, Gareth, lay off your inflammatory statements like calling this subject "juvenile" - it's obvious that many people disagree with you, and you're not helping the situation by continually trying to cast aspersions on the subject matter. WE KNOW you don't like it - quit insulting it, because it sure as heck isn't helping your argument. MikeWazowski 14:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Juvenile: 2. Belonging to, characteristic of, suited to, or intended for youth. Sorry folks, but thats what Star Wars is. It's intended for youth (can anyone aware of Jar Jar Binks suggest otherwise.) Therefore, it's juvenile. That's not necessarily a bad thing (unless you're writing an encyclopedia). -- GWO
                      • Star Wars is not juvenile; it's intended for audiences of all ages. Most novels and comics are quite adult. Furthermore, things intended for children are not any less worthy of inclusion, if they achieve sufficient popularity and cultural impact. -LtNOWIS 02:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Although, by my nomination, I reveal myself to be of a similar mindset to GWO with regards to the presence of the more outlying and far-reaching fan articles on Wikipedia, I don't feel such inflammatory rhetoric when casting votes does anything but inflame, not resolve, the debate. Wikipedia's pretty much in many ways grinding to a halt because of widespread disregard of the need to disagree in a civil fashion. — Mike •16:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nick Y; having sources is not the same thing as having WP:RS, and citing web pages and making selective quotations from novels is not what WP:V is about, which leaves the conclusion that this is WP:OR. As well as being a fine example of WP:NOT in its original research incarnation, this is an extreme over-analysis of a minor part of the Star Wars films and an example of the systemic bias towards creating and keeping unencyclopedic content on Wikipedia. As WCityMike noted above, "Interesting" is not grounds for inclusion (nor is its absence grounds for deletion). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Keep per Maru's explanations below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources are not "Reputable"? The web pages are in general either official in and of themselves, or are copies of official material; and I have absolutely no idea why you are objecting to the quotations from novels, legitimate published canon sources. The article is not original research; all of it is/can be sourced (and indeed, in a number of cases I had to tweak text to shy away from plagiarism, which is as unoriginal research as you get). As it is not OR, your NOT contention is irrelevant, and I believe I've established that this subject is neither OR as everyone keeps chanting and also not an "over-analysis" (see my discussion with Gareth Owen and the sources in the article); assertions that the used websites and novels are somehow not references for this article (but references for other articles) smack of a double standard to me. Incidentally, being "an example of the systemic bias" on Wikipedia is not a deletion criteria. --maru (talk) contribs 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source would be a book, or article, on the subject. Now, if the article is based on "Fightsaber: Jedi Lightsaber Combat" and the like, and if Star Wars Insider is considered a reliable source on Star Wars, all would be well. Is it ? If not, it looks original research. Another WP:NOR problem is the vast list of neologisms (shiim, jung ma, so chung). Where did those come from ? And, yes, you're right. Being an example of Wikipedia's systemic bias in favour of cruft is not a reason to delete. In fact, it's usually a reason to keep, as fanboys and fangirls nearly always turn up at AFD to vote en bloc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To address your first point, Insider and the rest are generally C-canon, so they are reliable SW sources, no worries on that score. As for the neologisms- I didn't make it very prominent, but "Basic of lightsaber combat" and all sub-sections thereof are based on the two sources listed right under the "Basic of lightsaber combat" header. --maru (talk) contribs 00:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no idea why Mike (et el) is so insistant on wiping it off the face of Wikipedia so quickly. I thought it was an interesting and informative article. My feeling is that it's probably just as substantiable as many of the other Star Wars fan pages on wikipedia. At the least the questionable stuff could be "identified" as such, and the article edited. I have no idea why this short sighted zeal to delete it. Anyways who's to say someone won't just recreate it again? oblivionboy 10:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oblivionboy, your argument isn't very helpful- the primary reason proffered for deleting this article is that it is unreferenced and made up by its editors; simply saying that it could be "substaniable" does not blunt their argument. The important thing is whether the article is substaniated right now. --maru (talk) contribs 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response With regard to your questions regard "so quickly" and "short-sighted zeal," I refer you to immediatism versus eventualism. You appear to be an eventualist; I'm more of an immediatist. With regards to it being interesting and informative, those aren't guidelines by which Wikipedia decides whether articles are kept. There are plenty of informative and interesting topics that simply aren't encyclopedic. With regards to whether or not, if this was deleted, someone would then recreate it, such a recreation would then be speedily deleted under the guideline of {{db-repost}}. — Mike • 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Mike said. Any hypothetical recreation without the blessings of DRV or a really good reason for why the new version was impervious to the OR and unsourced-ness which supposedly plagues the current one would be quickly and in the main deleted. --maru (talk) contribs 00:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wookieepedia and merge any relevant information into another article. Great information, but this is a battle that can easily each compromise by a transwiki and a compress/merge combo. — Deckiller 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Strong Keep. I see no original research in this article, except for a few of the types of combat; these can easily be cited on another date. They need to be cited though; otherwise, people will not know if they are fan-created or not. And that compromises OR, but not in the sense of the majority of the article. — Deckiller 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, third nomination in 90 days with two previous keeps and vast improvements in the article in that time. Someone's being childish, but I'm not sure it's the authors. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I earlier objected to how quickly this current AFD came about, and I was rebutted by Mike with the example of Lost: The Journey. That was an anecdote, an extreme example which no argument was made for why it was the ideal way OR issues should be resolved. Frankly, to properly source this article, if it was legitimate, would be a monumental task. It is long and filled with detail, seemingly cobbled together (by me, at least) with numerous sources, adding those sources is not something I would do in my spare time. Yet, with this AFD, editors are being forced to do so. This AFD is a virtual revolver pointed at the article with a threat saying "edit this or this dies". People who value this information and could add the appropriate sources are forced to edit this page to an acceptable point. I don't agree with forcing editors to work and make edits. It's unfair and against the spirit of cooperation, with editors forcing the hand of their peers.

    Now, going into the article history, at the time this AFD was listed there were two line-items within External links referencing "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones The Visual Dictionary" and "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary". I believe this (improperly formatted) sourcing is enough to establish that "Lightsaber combat" is an actual concept that has been structured, explored and documented by people at Lucasfilm. The keep votes from previous AFD established its notability. Both points should save the article from deletion. In my view, the proper thing to do here is to wipe the page clean save for the few sentences that are so general they could be verified, tell the talk page or Wikiproject Star Wars what you've done, and asked they go through the page history and copy and paste the sections of the article that could be verified, along with the right source. It takes more work than a simple AFD, but it's the procedure outline in WP:V and WP:DEL. Instead, the AFD route was opted, a route that failed twice already. If those sources were contested as false, then that is a completely different matter that to me would merit a third AFD. But it wasn't, and it smelled like an attempt for consensus by attrition (per Kotepho).

    Over the last two days or so, if you check the page there is a growing number of bracketed numbers in superscript, I believe they qualify as proper sourcing. Maru, thank you for your work, I think you went above and beyond what editors are meant to do on this encyclopedia. I was suspecting this AFD had more to do with the tastes of editors (witness the instances of "fancruft" in this AFD, irrelevant because again its notability was established by older AFDs) than actual WP:NOR issues. I know WP:V sets a high bar which can translate to a "guilty until proven innocent" requirement. Still, I'm unsettled about raising the bar higher to the point where proper formatting, a matter as trivial as grammer and spelling, is required. hateless 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response An encyclopedia article on Wikipedia should be appropriately referenced. That is not a choice, that is a mandate, and it is one that has existed from the beginning of the project. Articles on Wikipedia that are not appropriately referenced do not belong on Wikipedia. That is, again, a mandate that has existed from the beginning of the project. Whether or not you believe articles that do not currently fulfill Wikipedia requirements should be allowed to stay in the mainspace indefinitely while they grow is a difference of wikiphilosophy: eventualism versus immediatism. It is a debate that has no more chance of being resolved than those between deletionists and inclusionists. Any Wikipedia editor, however, is required to be civil to their fellow editor and to assume that that person means well; I would therefore suggest that using such melodramatic hyperbole as "virtual revolvers" isn't useful. Moreover, it's not accurate: content is not killed when it is deleted. Even if already deleted, any administrator is happy to retrieve and then userfy an article (move an article, with its edit history intact, to someone's userspace) so that it can be worked on in a non-"live" atmosphere.

      Your argument then goes on to suggest that I nominated this article on the basis of lightsaber combat not being a Lucasfilm concept (even were we to assume that the existence of 'visual dictionaries' amongst the vast array of Star Wars merchandise was somehow indicative of the concept of formally denoted styles of lightsaber combat being officially endorsed), or it not being a notable concept, or even nominating it due to spelling and grammar issues. I did not nominate this article based on same. I sent it to deletion review because I believed the closing administrator in the second nomination allowed sheer numbers to blind him to a bevy of extremely poor arguments (such as the infamous "Jedi Academy clan" remark). I renominated it for deletion because people made absolutely no effort to improve the article in the three weeks since it was originally up for deletion by Milkandwookies. And, to make it clear, like others here, I agree that extensive quotations from novels whose canonicity has not been well-established is insufficient to rescue this article from the venue of original research. Obviously, others here will disagree with me, but if the closing administrator reads these particular words, I would respectfully ask them to look at the quality of the references, not just merely the fact that the article in question has now been referenced.

      Furthermore, lightsaber combat is neither a source of interest or expertise to me, so I would not enjoy rewriting this article, nor would I be of help rewriting this article, nor is such a rewrite required of me. If you feel policy requires same of me, I would appreciate specific cites. I enjoy the original Star Wars trilogy and do not agree with GWO with regards to his commentary about those who do, but I simply do not believe that the subject of this article is able to be saved in a way that its content would be supported by Wikipedia's policies as to what it should and should not contain. My action to nominate it a second time for deletion was thus, in my eyes, an entirely appropriate way to handle the article in question.

      With regards to a "guilty until proven innocent" requirement for articles, perhaps more accurately described as "considered unverified until actually verified" requirement, yes, that is required by Wikipedia's policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."

      Finally, with regards to your comments how you believe the matter "smells" and it dealing with the "tastes of editors," I think one of the most disillusioning aspects of the debates I have engaged in with regards to articles I've nominated for deletion is the large number of people who chose to disagree rudely and in a personal way. Very few people had the sheer class, such as Nick Cook did, to keep the matter a civil exchange on policy and reasoning, with a final resolution to agree to disagree. Instead, the vastest majority of people have chosen to accuse those supporting deletion of massive malicious intent, conspiracy, and a host of other silliness. It makes people such as Mr. Cook stand out as class acts, and it illuminates the very sorry state of affairs upon Wikipedians' attitudes towards Wikipedia's requirements that its participating editors be courteous to each other and assume that the person holding an opposing belief to yours means well, even if they disagree with you. — Mike • 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel I should add that I enjoy the Star Wars films too. They're extremely entertaining (well, the original ones, anyway). But there's a difference between enjoying something and considering every last facet of its spin-off industry as encyclopedic. We wouldn't accept a speculative essay on the mating habits of R.O.U.S. from The Princess Bride, or possible scientific mechanisms that might allow a flying Ford Anglia? -- GWO
  • Keep Someone just referenced the crap out of this article. I feel the arguements of WP:NOR are successfully discounted. A lot of them are from some magazine, but said magazine seems to be sponsored/endorsed as official. Don't care for the rapid renomination after a DRV either. Keep unless for some reason all the refs magically turn out bogus. Kevin_b_er 05:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My sincere commiserations to the admin who tries to sort this out. --Dweller 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ha ha, I agree for the admins. :) However I would just like to point out to Mike (et. el) that there are alot of other pages with far less documentation for the starwars universe. Example: Yuuzhan_Vong. For this article I count now over 35 just for this page, which seems exceptional for me even for normal wikipedia articles. Surely this meets the requirements of even such a dedicated editor as yourself. Also I feel that trying to polarize the issue into bioptional points prevents a possible larger view of the issue. My question would not be option A vs option B (eventualism versus immediatism), but rather what are all the options. Instead of delete-ism, what are the other options, what would it take to bring this article up to standard? After all, even if you got it deleted, someone would be able to come back and just recreate it again, even if under a different title. Hardly a win-win situation for all of us. Anyways the article looks fine now, so again I say keep. --oblivionboy 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I had it my way, there would be half as many Star Wars articles, but since I'm probably never going to see this happen due to the sheer amount of red tape, I don't really mind if this article doesn't stay or not now. And I will admit, this article is much more well-written and even more encyclopedic than, say, a character on a minor droid like 8t88. But we do have to start somewhere...I'm torn between how to side! — Deckiller 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reluctant) Keep I voted delete last time but given the short turn around and improved refernecing have to say keep for now. Eluchil404 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, the article is mostly original research. It is also named for an *imaginary* action. As far as I'm aware, there has never been any actual lightsaber combat. No soldier has ever gone into battle wielding a lightsaber. Lightsaber stunt work... yes... lightsaber combat... no. After committing this basic error, the article then evolved by, in large part, being written as if fighting with lightsabers is a real subject and Jedi Knights are real. I'm waiting for the next article, "X-Wing piloting", to come along and further degrade any credibility Wikipedia has as an encyclopedia written by people with both feet in the real world. This article needs to be deleted and then restarted as a more correctly named encyclopedia article about the stunt work for the lightsaber fights in Star Wars... who worked on them, and so on. - Motor (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think that it IS the point. This article is not about filmmaking (the art and the science), rather its objective is to add information to a fictional universe that people might be interested in. I think its completely releveant from that perspective, and the delete call originated from whether or not the article "was just made up" or had actual referenes in order to substantiate itself. Not if it was "imaginary" or not. A subtle difference for some people perhaps. Naturally you are more than welcome to start a page on the stunt work in the starwars movies if you're interested. I'd certainly like to read it too. :) However the larger question of if wikipedia should only contain articles on "real" things, or "fictional" things (Hemmingway's characters are fictional yet are articled in Wikipedia), is perhaps a debate out of scope for this discussion - oblivionboy (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether Wikipedia should contain articles on fictional subjects... it is whether those articles should be named and written as if they are real subjects. This article commits both of those major crimes against an encyclopedia. If Star Wars fans cannot separate fact and fiction enough to write a suitable article, then it should be deleted... no matter how much work has gone into it, and no matter how many fans show up to shout "keep". As much as you might like it to be, this is not a Star Wars fan site, it is an encylopedia. Wookiepedia exists to allow Star Wars fan to play these sorts of imagination games. - Motor (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you're that concerned about blurring the fact/fiction line, throw a disclaimer into the overview. No need to delete it to solve such an issue. - Wickning1 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, I'm not particularly a Star Wars fan, but I do lean inclusionist. - Wickning1 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding, right? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. The article states in the very first line "Lightsaber combat is the fictional style of lightsaber fighting used by Jedi and Sith in the Star Wars franchise." Fictional, and Star Wars. It is categorized as a Fictional martial art. What more do you want to ensure people don't inadvertently think this is real - besides the whole solid light thing. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, So what? Just sticking "fictional" in the introduction does not solve it. Read the rest of the article, and look at the name of it. If you added a disclaimer at the top saying that "this article has been written by people who have difficulty telling real from imaginary", it still wouldn't work because disclaimers shouldn't really be necessary in an encyclopedia. The article is fundamentally inappropriate (hopeless would be another way to describe it), by its name and by the style in which it was written. It should be deleted and restarted as an encyclopedia article that is both named and written from a real world perspective. The only reason it's survived this long is fan voting. - Motor (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Do you hav any idea how many thousands of articles would need to be deleted under that logic? There are many hundreds in each of the Star Wars, Star Trek, and Tolkien universes that exhibit these same tendencies (just to name the fandoms that I follow). While I am sympathetic to the need to maintain the focus on the "real world", there is clear community consensus for inclusion of these articles. Eluchil404 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Wikipedia's Deletion Guide for Administrators says: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies ... " — Mike • 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, from someone who wouldn't consider himself a fan: this is interesting, far more notable than all the Pokémon, now well-cited, and the amount of jeopardy and animosity toward this article (three VfDs, especially in this short span?) is something I frankly don't understand at all. Nightwatch/respond 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is far more notable than a number of other fictional topics covered on Wikipedia, and it's no longer primarily OR. I can also think of a number of reasons non-Star Wars fans would be interested in this; Gillard's work developing lightsaber combat for the SW prequels is pretty important to anyone researching, say, modern stage combat, or fight choreography in American films. Penelope D 04:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Pretty interesting, but frivolous in my opinion. It goes into more information than necessary, but it serves as much purpose as other fictional documentation here. 71.129.80.249 05:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tevildo et al Percy Snoodle 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, and stop wasting our time with renominations until you are finally happy with the outcome. You got your answer the first time. Kim Bruning 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Startlingly rude response, Kim. Wikipedia's policy allows as many nominations as needed, and the reasons used for this nomination were not only acceptable but perfectly justified. I would accept, if not agree with, rationed discourse on the issue. Comments like "stop wasting our time" don't have a place in a discussion attempting to measure community consensus. — Mike • 23:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just being short and to the point, not intentionally incivil per-se. Apologies if it seemed that way. What I'd like to know is what is the point of re-nominating in rapid succession like this? You could see volunteer time as a kind of donation to us. We should treat it with respect, and use it as efficiently as possible. Kim Bruning 00:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No hard feelings -- and that's a nice way to think about editors' time, and I'll have to keep that perspective in mind in future interactions. But my reason for renominating it was that people had obviously had time to work on the article since the article's second nomination — but evidently the community chose not to work on it in a way that would bring it up to community standards. It was that that led me to believe a third nomination this shortly after the second would be appropriate. — Mike • 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very well cited. 34 internal citations is more than some featured articles. -LtNOWIS 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lafreniere

[edit]

Songwriter yet to have a single album. Article survived prod through a user adding the guy's apparent claim to notability: a supposed romantic link to Nicole Richie, supported by a web gossip page. In any case, this still clearly fails WP:BIO or any other criteria for notability.Pascal.Tesson 17:59, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IR Gurus

[edit]

Previously deleted as spam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IR Gurus, this version is not spam but neither does it make any substantive claim in excess of those made by the previous deleted version. Not a repost (different content, different editor). I'm inclined to advocate keep due to the company's products having been distributed by Sony, but since it's in a single market (not much call for Aussie rules football in America, I guess) this is debatable. Either way if it stays here it is likely to be tagged repost without an unequivocal vote one way or the other. Just zis Guy you know? 09:06, 19 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, Ezeu 18:00, 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 Delete the copyvio version and consider the non-copyvio temp version in its own right.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keki dadiseth

[edit]

Sounds like a self-promotional autobiography rather than an encyclopedia entry Netsnipe 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's a copyvio -- Netsnipe 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Keki dadiseth/Temp for a replacement article that is not a copyvio. TruthbringerToronto 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia isn't a site for résumés though, and if Mr. Dadiseth isn't notable enough to be known outside the Indian corporate world, I don't really see the point of keeping the rather short temporary article either. When Mr. Dadiseth becomes more notable by Wikipedia standards, someone will write a better article; hopefully one not influenced by a copyvio to begin with. -- Netsnipe 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without giving my opinion on the merit of inclusion of this article, I feel that if a person is considered notable at national level in any country (howsoever small or large it may be), there is no reason why the biography can't be added in Wikipedia. We shouldn't introduce any systematic bias in Wikipedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I wonder how a person covered by Businessweek is not notable by wikipedia standards [69], [70], [71]. The Indian arm of Unilever became the no. 1 FMCG company of India under his chairmanship -- Lost 06:01, 27 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. Deizio talk 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asim

[edit]

Persian dicdef. Artw 18:10, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Your Are All A Bunch Of Cowards For Having Our Page Deleted And Wikipedia Are Spineless Sheep For Doing So!!! Hail Satanic Victory!!! I.N.R.I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.46.58 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Catholicon (band)

[edit]

No evidence of meeting any of the gratuitously generous criteria of WP:BAND. Their album release was not with a major label. There are a ton of google hits for "Catholicon", but those seem to be from Catholic dictionaries and other media by the same name. Their website is a myspace page. BigDT 18:27, 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 wasSpeedy keep due to the nomination, in my determination, to be not in good faith. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Hoops 3-on-3

[edit]

Non Notable Video Game Petunialover 18:40, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Løser

[edit]

may be vanity page by User:Loeser. Can't find much professional references on-line. Anyway, this subject may be notable, but it's very unclear LimoWreck 18:45, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Throes of Christianity

[edit]

Album by Catholicon (band) (see AFD). If the band is not notable under WP:BAND, neither is its music. BigDT 18:45, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Series runner-ups

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audioactive

[edit]

Does not appear to meet any of the points of WP:SOFTWARE, and the official website redirects to a telecommunications company. -- Matticus78 18:47, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metavideo

[edit]

Likely neologism or protologism; Google returns only companies named "Metavideo", or text copied from this very Wikipedia article. -- Matticus78 19:03, 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... eventually.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wenis (disambiguation)

[edit]

This disambiguation page is redundant and superfluous now that Wenis (once again) refers only to the Egyptian pharoah. Disambiguation page was made necessary when Nickmanning214 recreated the wenis neologism page which had previously been AfDed, speedied as hoax, and finally (just this afternoon) speedied as a repost. I recommend deletion of disambiguation page and protection against reversion. Charles 19:02, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Stories

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; the article is apparently based on rumors and are not official. No credidable sources either via Google.[72] ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:06, 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Division

[edit]

Not much context here. Does not appear to be notable to me based on a Google search so I thought I would bring up the discussion. -Big Smooth 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The three live links in the RNR article don't have much (if any) info. In addition, this is the only "satellite" unit that has its own article. I am no expert on this subject but considering the lack of information in the RNR article itself, I am not sure a 35-person subdivision is notable. Perhaps the info in this article and the others could be merged to the RNR article, with a redirect added? -Big Smooth 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is everyone's problem about this article? If you know more about the Royal Naval Reserve than the original author, then edit it! The other RNR Training Units will edit their 'red links' in due course I am sure! For the record, Ceres Division is an "up and coming" part of the RNR and is the only representation of the RNR in Yorkshire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.171.187 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Merge with A Course in Miracles. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for A Course in Miracles

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
  • WP:CORP - This subject of this article fails to meet the criteria for companies and corporations.

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
  • WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an Foundation for A Course in Miracles is reputible and notable based upon the existence of one relatively unknown web-site, it's own, and two internally linked "See Also" pages, both of which create a circular reference to themselves. This violation of policy is not about the topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic matter is true or not.
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
  • WP:VER - This article is wholly information which is unverifiable. According to policy; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already

been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Failing WP:CORP, the topic of this article is insufficiently reputible to be referencing itself. This article refers under the link "million dollar lawsuit" which may or may not be true, however, the statement is misleading and cannot be verified by the article it points to.

  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external link.
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 19:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ACIM movement as a whole is notable, and, if this is the primary organization which originated and supports it, it would appear to be notable for that reason. The article, despite the nominator's rather boilerplated text, appears to be NPOV. I agree that some sources would be an advantage, but their absence for this sort of article is, IMO, a secondary consideration. Tevildo 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that the nominator is using the same "secondary consideration" for attempting to delete several other ACIM-related articles. -- Andrew Parodi 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I hope to see about 2/3 of the rest of Wikipedia nominated for deletion. Again, a website that will give time to Celebrity sex tape and List of people with breast implants and not allow for an article about the main foundation in a growing spiritual field, is a site with some interesting issues at hand. -- Andrew Parodi 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that the statement about the law suit on this page is turned around backwards logically, that on the page it states that the defendant sued the plaintiff. Ste4k 12:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - There is a large volume of text here. However, nearly all of it is from two users. I have examined the edit history, and I have found that most users are clearly in favour of 'delete'. - Richardcavell 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Inner Peace

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

THisbelieves that this article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
Comment. Completely subjective and biased statement. A Course In Miracles is one of the most notable books in the entire New Age and New Thought genre. Foundation for Inner Peace is the original and current publisher of ACIM. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CORP - This subject of this article fails to meet the criteria for companies and corporations.
Comment Could this possibly be because the subject in question is not a company or a corporation but a non-profit organization? -- Andrew Parodi 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

Comment This is not "self-promotion" by any stretch of the imagination. Take a look at the history of the page and see that this article was started by a man named Scott Perry. On his personal website, Scott Perry is identified as a "student" of ACIM who lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan and is a professional "licensed master plumber" [73]. Foundation for Inner Peace, on the other hand, is in California and was started by Judy Skutch, a woman who comes from a wealthy New York family that, during her childhood, used to entertain Eleanor Roosevelt during breakfast (citation: Journey Without Distance[74]). Mrs. Skutch hardly needs the help of a professional plumber in getting word out about the organization she helped to found. (No disrespect to plumbers. The point I'm making is obvious.) Foundation for Inner Peace did not start this article. Besides, they are a non-profit organization that does not need any advertisement anyway. ACIM has been a steady seller for more than 20 years. Go to any bookstore and you will find it there ... all without any promotion! (You will never see an ad for ACIM in any magazine. It doesn't need it. It is grass roots and spread by word of mouth.) -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
Comment. Nor is Wikipedia a place for people to disguise their own personal bias as neutral editorial procedure. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an Foundation for Inner Peace is reputible and notable based upon the existence of two relatively unknown web-sites, one it's own, and two internally linked "Related Links" pages, both of which create a circular reference to themselves. This violation of policy is not about the topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic matter is true or not.
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
Comment. Wikipedia states that there is a difference between "notable" and "famous." Foundation for Inner Peace is not famous. But it IS notable. Whether you had heard of these sites or organizations is not the point. The point is that within their field these organizations are notable. Oh, and it is hardly "original research" to mention an organization and then link to that organization's official website. That is actually called "verification," the thing you have claimed on three ACIM-related pages to hold so dear, and yet it is also the thing you cannot accept with regard to ACIM. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VER - This article is wholly information which is unverifiable. According to policy; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Failing WP:CORP, the topic of this article is insufficiently reputible to be referencing itself.
Comment. This information is entirely verifiable if you read what is linked to in the article. For some unusual reason, you will not accept this. You just do not want ACIM to be notable. Your personal bias is showing. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links.
Comment. The proper response to such a situation is to work to improve the article, not to delete it entirely. If the article is about a notable topic (and it is), then it needs to be worked on, not deleted. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to whom? You? So, your word over thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people that ACIM is not notable? Do a search for ACIM and see how many hits you get. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad, but merge any useful material to main ACIM article. JChap 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamvertisement --Nick Y. 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable group. I hope that other editors on this page realize that the person who nominated this page, an editor by the name of Ste4k, is currently on a rampage against A Course In Miracles. Despite the fact that there is a great deal of very acceptable and verified information about ACIM (as well as Foundation for Inner Peace), this editor wants two pages about the topic deleted, and on the main ACIM page he/she will not listen to reason and accept a verified and trustworthy citation when one is presented. This particular editor is working from the basis of personal bias. Please take this into account. -- Andrew Parodi 08:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge to ACIM. This article does not assert the significance of the group - no evidence of size, influence, media coverage, uncited, no independent discussion of the group. So the article itself cries out for deletion. Whether the subject could be salvaged would depend on the existence of sources I am not sure I can be bothered to look for because I am a bad person and why should I care if the article author doesn't? Just zis Guy you know? 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice My original nomination is no longer intact and has been edited. I remain WP:0RR. Ste4k 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I get frustrated by the fact that you all say it has not verifiable evidence. It is a book publisher. It is verified that this exists. I'm also frustrated by the lack of "good faith" in all of this. These articles were started by a very nice and well meaning man who was not attempting to do anything other than contribute articles he thought would be of value to other people. There is no denying that Ste4k (or whatever) has been spiteful and mean spirited all the way through. With that, delete the article. I don't care. -- Andrew Parodi 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it is not a publisher. The book's contents are public domain. And as a publisher they only printed perhaps a couple hundred books out of a small print shop known as Freeperson's press. Have you read the valid secondary sources? The court case? Ste4k 13:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertek

[edit]

Even more corporate spam NawlinWiki 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Allen, Mike. 2001. "Profile: John Riley" Business Journal. San Diego. Feb 05.
-Anon. 2003. "Government of Canada funds Vertek Diversified Services Limited to offer employment assistance services" Canada NewsWire. Ottawa. Sep 23
and a few others. --TeaDrinker 17:41, 24 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, Ezeu 19:18, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainjogr

[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable website (18 Google hits, all either blogs or this user's WP userpage) NawlinWiki 19:22, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DataSynapse

[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement, innit. Recury 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edited by DataSynapse. Folks - I have edited this to address everyone's comments. This is essentially a listing of a business in New York. This format on this page is modeled after Identify software (who seemed to have reached compliance with policy). Hopefully these edits will be sufficient. More edits can be made if needed. I would rather have this listing stand rather than be deleted. Please let me know how I'm doing! --Data Synapse 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles aren't deleted because they are bad articles, they are deleted because they are on subjects that are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. That is what Tevildo is referring to when he mentions WP:CORP, which is a guideline that says which corporations can have articles written about them. WP:VANITY also applies, which is a guideline about conflicts of interest. If your company is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, then you shouldn't have to be the one to write it. Someone else will. Recury 20:02, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercoding

[edit]

Neologism of dubious notability, possible copy:vio Artw 20:00, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vitruvian Society

[edit]

"it remains successfully secretive" Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy retarded guy

[edit]

Two episodes of a home-made movie on a public video upload site does not notability create. -- Matticus78 20:37, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jackson

[edit]

Inventor of what appears to be non-existant fancruft Star Trek series. Charlesknight 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Charlesknight has not seen the proposal - I have and it will be a series if paramount decide to continue with the franchise; It is very promising fans keep your eye out for news on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.122.221 (talk • contribs)
  • COMMENT - You might not be aware but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What you seem to saying is that someone has submitted a proposal (Solicited? Unsolicited?) to paramount and that's about it. That's actually a case for the article to be deleted not kept. Please explain further if I have misunderstood any element of this. --Charlesknight 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, a time-out is required here before the insults really start flying. Regardless of this show's real or unreal status, something that hasn't been released yet, or even announced in any official capacity whatsoever, does not belong on Wikipedia. This is not victimization, this is not a comment on personal worthiness, this is official policy. --Matticus78 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment probably could go speedy delete as the author has claimed copywrite on the material and wikipedia is violating his copywrite by reproducing it without permission.--Nick Y. 21:35, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grimmfold

[edit]

Non notable neologism (hoax?): Grimmfold cheese gives no Google hits, Grimmfold alone gives 56 hits Fram 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide references about the usage of "grimmfold" in this context, if any. — TheKMantalk 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The difference is that every kid in the English- (or their semblance of English ;) )-speaking world is using that term; obnoxious as it may be it's entered the common parlance. Even toy manufacturers are capitalising on this (with "Bling" editions of fashion dolls, etc). And where Google enters the equation is a quick way of checking verifiability: if this term is being used a lot, a lot of people will have written about it, and it will appear a lot on the internet. If nobody can verify the information, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Matticus78 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google isn't the definitive guide to notability, but if I can't find it on Google, it is up to you or ther defenders of the article that it is nevertheless notable, by providing other verifiable sources. Mentioning on the talk page of Grimmfold a book that is equally absent on Google doesn't help your case. Fram 07:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Please allow further time to establish the relevance of contribution.

--User:BrewmasterJ

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

The result of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina

[edit]

This page is unnotable Dan200 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If she's not gonna be popular in two months, then delete the article two months from now. Until then, she consistently is watched by tens of thousands of people and merits a page. Cuttycuttiercuttiest 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep -- covered by major news sources as above, and is routinely atop YouTube's (and thus the Internet as a whole) most-viewed videos. She reaches more people daily than almost every TV personality WP has an article about. 69.142.21.24 07:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep Emmalina is watched by hundreds of thousands every week. Her newest video blog "A dance and talk about professional porn VS amateur." has gotten *340,000 views in 2 days. Tim buckley 28 june 2006
  • Keep She is a popular internet culture symbol. St.isaac 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow. She actually has an article? I think she is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, though the page may need some cleanup. --FlyingPenguins 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say shes just as notable as most of the other people in the Internet celebrities catagory, then theres the mainstream media coverage, yes she probably will forgotten in a couple of months, but no one talks about Ellen Feiss anymore and theres an article on her. Lossenelin 07:02, 29 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, nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrickson

[edit]

nonnotable company NawlinWiki 21:07, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moline

[edit]

Unremarkable personage on his own; he's the divorced husband of someone notable. Also, this reads like a press release copyvio. His mention on the Kathy Griffin page should be sufficient Tenebrae 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: His IT consulting company is a freelance home office. Hundreds of thousands of people would be included in Wikipedia on that basis. -- Tenebrae 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note: he is only listed on IMDb as the former husband of Kathy Griffin. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since being listed on IMDB is the Hollywood equivalent of what being listed in the phonebook is to the rest of us, I fail to see what an IMDB listing says about notability per se. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology as a business

[edit]

"Scientology as a business" is somewhat of a POV title, and indeed POV subject, to the point that I cannot see how this article could be worded neutrally. The article is rather anti-Scientology in POV at present. As a consequence I think it should be deleted, perhaps also merging to other Scientology articles in part. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as POV fork. Information is well-sourced, but this belongs in Scientology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs)
  • In response to JChap2007, unless I'm very much mistaken, Scientology is exactly where this material started, making this the opposite of a POV fork. Respectfully, I have to disagree with Nicholas; I agree that looking at the issue of "Scientology as a business" may be exploring a particular POV that is not shared by all sides, but so is looking at the issue of "Scientology as a religion", which is a POV not shared by all sides either, but which is explored in detail at Scientology. There's a lot of responses I think we could consider -- merging back to Scientology, renaming to Scientology as a financial entity, merging with other "Scientology as a ______" information -- but I can't defend the idea of deleting it because it's too POV a concept to explore, not when other equally POV conceptions of Scientology are given not only space but much more prominent placement. So, I might change my vote if someone suggests a better plan, but for now I really have to vote Keep. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speey Delete per WP:CSD A6=> "Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". --Rob 02:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article doesn't meet that description. This article serves to document the fact that Scientology, particularly as represented by the Church of Scientology, functions to a very real extent as a business. This is the conclusions that multiple courts of law and several government reports have come to; to lump discussion of a subject that those inquiries have treated seriously in with "Rob Jones is a total meathead" attack pages is just ... really, a very grotesque abuse of the system. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole article was in fact written to disparage the subject. No, its not like most other attack articles, but it is still an attack article, as definied in the policy. If a similiar article were written about a religion with less opposition at Wikipedia, the word "grotesque" would be used to describe that article. Wikipedia should not favor or disfavor any individual religion. Your POV on Scientology seems to have the votes on your side. But votes can't change policy. --Rob 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, in short, you want to rewrite the A6 criterion, and replace the very limited "serve no purpose but to disparage" criterion with the far broader "is perceived by some to disparage no matter what else it does." You state "votes can't change policy" as if it were those voting other than speedy delete who were advocating a change in policy. I agree that Wikipedia should not favor or disfavor any individual religion, and if any other religion were to be noted so many times in so many legal actions and government reports to be operating more as a money-making enterprise than as a religious institution, then it should be noted about that religion as well. But what you are proposing is that Wikipedia should favor Scientology over other religions by hiding this information, which we would not do for any other religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is part of the Scientology series, and has a valuable place in Wikipedia. "Scientology as a business" is not really a POV title, IMO. --Neverborn 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title of the article is not an allegation - every religion has certain financial activities that make it a business (in broad sense). Plus information about financial activities of the "church" of Scientology is widely accessed and confirmed. Futurix 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Documenting the business aspects of the complex group of Scientology companies is hardly meant to "disparage the subject", and the costs to members are part of that. It's less subject to editor interpretation than arguing Scientology theology. As for the "grotesque" angle, well .. Vatican Bank AndroidCat 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the Church of Scientology proves it is a successful business, then it would deserve such an article and not until then. Terryeo 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weren't you the one arguing that the correctness of the Church of Scientology's doctrines could be inferred from the millions of dollars it has in real estate? [75] -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you'll be happy to know that the Church of Scientology says that it operates 3000 churches, missions and groups in over 120 countries around the world, and in just the publishing business, has sold many millions of publications translated into 65 languages. AndroidCat 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Church has tried to prove it is not a business. Remembering to sign my post this time. JChap 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology is a business, since it charges money for services rendered. Therefore, it is useful and encyclopedia to include an article about this side of the thingy. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced and factual. Given that the majority of countries still view it as a business and the US did up until 1993, it is a perfectly acceptable article. --Eliotyork 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eliotyork. This is a valid content fork. Most of the editors on this AfD so far are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology (including me, although I haven't done very much.) Grandmasterka 08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In what sense is this POV? Check Wikipedia's own definiftion of 'business'. The content of this page is a truthful, useful and valid resource. It is my own POV that scientologists are wilfully undermining reason, logic and semantics in order to promote an incredible confidence trick. That this article is up for deletion is evidence for my beliefs.--Levi 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC) --The previous vore was actually cast by 194.105.174.77 (talk • contribs). User:Levi exists but has no edits. --ais523 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly weak keep - I was content to see this article deleted, but think it does add some information which the Scientology article perhaps does not- maybe a merge would be more effective here? EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it could, perhaps, be renamed Perspecties on Scientology and expanded but then it would tend to dwarf the main Scientology article. Probably best to keep it as daughter article dealing with specific facts and issues like Criticism of Coca-Cola. Eluchil404 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs to be further developed. Hubbard himself sometimes stated Scientology was not a religion. Scientology doesn't present itself as a religion everywhere it offers its service. Hubbard's infamous quote "make money, make more money..." etc. The business aspect of Scientology is important since it helps understand the undisputed controversial nature of the Church. Raymond Hill 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Useful information, if poorly formatted. Perhaps merge with the main article on Scientology? CameoAppearance 11:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page saved my life and that of my family. It opened my eyes to the real story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk • contribs)
Comment votes from IP address-editors cannot be counted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as CSD A7 - article had no assertion of the club's notability. Kimchi.sg 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1066 MCC

[edit]

Non-notable club Travelbird 22:05, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 50 Companies for Diversity

[edit]

Non-notable list/advertisement for a specific company Travelbird 21:46, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Interbeing list of articles

[edit]

should be a category — goethean ॐ 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, I created this page to have an easy way for folks to find the related articles about the Order of Interbeing and to begin the process of creating relevant articles. I actually don't know the pros and cons of using a "category" vs. a "list" - I'll look that up on the "help" pages this morning. If anyone would be kind enough to let me know the whys or the preference for one over the other, I'd appreciate it. I would like to have one or the other as a leaping off point for more articles that I believe will be of interest. Thanks! Nightngle 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the articles are now in Category:Order of Interbeing, and it appears the creator of the article agrees it should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 21:22, 28 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy Sites

[edit]

A list of not particularly notable websites. All listed websites are run by the same individual. Nonsuch 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as much as the web sites look interesting to me (A chemist by training) they are obviously just an advertisement for non-notable webs sites.--Nick Y. 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nick Y. I have added the links to the 4 web sites to Entropy which is where, if anywhere, they should be. If the regulars there like them, they will stay. If they do not they will be removed. --Bduke 01:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Linkspam. -- Jheald 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yevgeny Kats 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete this page!User: Frank Lambert (A novice to writing in Wikipedia, I have just learned how to write a page and inserted a 'user biog' under FrankLambert.)I had nothing to do with the creation of this page of Entropy Sites, and was not aware of this listing until now, although I am the author of the sites. I must differ with their being "not notable"! They were written -- as are my articles in the Journal of Chemical Education to aid beginners in chemistry and laypersons not in science.
As you can check (in the "what's new" of www.entropysite.com, this site (and those related to it) are not trivial or ordinary websites. The ideas in them and the articles cited (and reproduced by permission) in www.entropysite.com have resulted in a complete deletion of "order-disorder" in most new editions of US first-year university textbooks,15 as of 2006. This is a revolution in the teaching of entropy to beginners in chemistry. The replacement is the approach of 'entropy is a measure of the energy dispersal in a process'.
Later today, I will justify the reason for (whoever suggested!)the existence of this unit, Entropy Sites. As a novice, I would greatly appreciate your suggestions and ask for advice as to how to proceed to bring these changes to the major pages of Wikopedia dealing with the second law and entropy. It is a half-century overdue for 'order-disorder' to be discarded and a modern conceptual view of entropy change presented. (That does NOT mean any change in thermo! It means that thermodynamicists should be aided to speak understandably to the naive as well as to the math advantaged.)Thx.for your aid -- emails would be most time/space economical: [email protected] .
Response You have not provided any compelling reason to have an article dedicated to your websites. The merits of the contents isn't the issue at hand. The question is, should there be two articles in wikipedia dedicated to these marginally notable sites? The current consensus of disinterested editors is that there should not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 'Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers'. Nonsuch 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, I have added the links to the Entropy article, but discussion on the talk page is not positive to keeping them or at least keeping all of them. Sorry, Frank, I welcome your contributions to teaching thermo to students, but I have to agree with Nonsuch that these two articles are not appropriate on WP. --Bduke 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Two articles? I ran into only this "Entropy Sites". Of course "Wikipedia_ is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information" ideally, but it certainly should contain vital information about the changed interpretation of entropy for students and pros. I have no time to argue to help W -- so delete what you want to. Thanks to Bduke for including (correct!) URLs -- can I properly order them and give a sentence of explanation for each? I'll do so, but delete whatever you wish.

Now, as to a more important insertion about which I would appreciate your joint advice: The Entropy article is well-organized and well-written standard presentation. I do not want to make any changes in it, but I believe an insertion of a dozen lines is essential -- in a box, or somehow set off after the intro. They would outline the reason for the demise of 'order-disorder' in chemistry instruction with the resultant simplification of a scientific view of entropy for all levels of interested individuals. Could you give me a clue as to typographical symbols for such a box? Even better, is there any way I can submit the material to knowledgeable thermo editors for approval or rejection before laboring on learning the wikipedia format? Thanks for your aid. Frank Lambert, 28 June.

Yes, put what you want to say on Talk:Entropy and see what arises. Indeed I think you should move this debate there right now and not clutter up this discussion on deletion of an article. --Bduke 03:01, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entropysimple.com

[edit]

A stub about an unnotable website. Possible link spam. Other listed websites on the page are all run by and written by the same person. Nonsuch

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 note that most of the activity in favour of keeping this entry is from participants of Clandestine. The author of this article appears to equate his creation of the article with 'advertising'. - Richardcavell 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine (mud)

[edit]

non-notable gaming group, advertisement Travelbird 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Sorry if it looked like an advertisement. Still learning how to add a page to Wikipedia and only put that beginning info in to make sure that the page was created before I started scrounging around for information to put onto the page Blackrazer 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please look at Top MUD Sites, we have been consistently in the top 20 for incoming traffic since readvertising. --Blackrazer 01:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what the boundaries of notability are in this area. It seems to have garnered respect in the MUDing Community, which has several other text-based games on Wikipedia. It points to awards, rankings, various communities, and a large number of people who have played it. I wouldn't delete it, but I am simply unsure of what "notable" refers to. Searching the TopMudSites site ranks them 14th(at this moment) out of over 1,000 text-based online roleplaying MUDs. -D
  • Delete it. Non-notable. The 'awards' it points to are non-awards that take the agreement of about five random users to attain. There's no competition for them. I've been in MUDing since long before this MUD opened and the only people I've ever heard talk about it are the administrators. Keep in mind that very few MUDs actually participate in those silly rankings, and that virtually no users are required to reach the top 20. OneThousandYears 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, given that the people writing/submitting this article appear to admit that this is just an advertisement (see the comments above from Blackrazer), saying that their advertising personnel just got involved again, why is there even a question here? - OneThousandYears.
    • Actually, I pointed out that we have advertising again because that's going to provide notability in the future because we will have more people curious about what aspects of the game we have and the more information they have access to, the easier it is for them to decide what they want to do/have access to help and tips. We have already gotten at good amount of new people in the past few weeks and they all had to ask what we offered. Giving people a way to research things about things mud is why I made this in the first place. The only reason the other people from the mud know about this is because I linked them to it to ask their opinions about what I was writing. I'm sure the "notability" of this entry wouldn't have been called into question if I knew more about writing entries in Wikipedia and the first entry wasn't three lines long. But I didn't know anything when I started, and I have worked feverously to make it a more respectable post. If you still feel that it needs to be deleted after looking at it now, then please by all means delete it. But I started this with the full intentions of expanding it to be a very descriptive entry about what Cland is and has that other muds may or may not have. -- Blackrazer
  • To note is that "Blackrazer" certainly is not the advertising staff of Clandestine. He's not a member of the staff at all. Merely a player of several years; I know this as a member of the staff. I can also say, as a member of the staff, that you can log onto Clandestine and see for yourself that we have a larger number of players. And if The MUD Connector(who granted us one of our awards) is not an authority on the MUD-world, who is? Also to note is that many of the other MUDs that rank in the Top 20 on TopMudSites(the largest website on the net for MUD advertising and traffic) have wikipedia entries - and some of them are smaller and younger than Clandestine(Armageddon MUD for instance). As a staff member, I have no issue with the player's entry here. It also does seem to approach the game in a positive, yet objective way. I would not call it advertising, and I believe that it gives an accurate portrayal of a very popular MUD. Before you "delete" it, I'd challenge you to look up our rankings and log onto Clandestine to see the statistics for yourself. Non-notable? Beyond all of the easy-to-find information on the game, many pieces of its code were released as open-source and are used on other MUDs(especially its mini-game programs), directly influencing the community. I'd be very disappointed in any inability to recognize a strongly acclaimed and popular online game as a notable entry. I also strongly question the level of expertise "OneThousandYears" claims to have of the community if he states that you do not need a significant number of players to maintain a high rank on TopMudSites. Either that, or his intentions may not be pure. -- Donathin
  • Delete Advertising, non-notable. Several listings including MUD Connector produce awards which are or were granted regularly to games of many sizes and rankings, free and pay. [76] Windflare 07:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A simple check of the other MUDs which received the same award from MUD Connector that we did will show you that the ones that have survived the years are the most popular free-to-play MUDs on the Internet. BatMUD, Carrion Fields, Clandestine, and Wheels of Time MUD are all examples of this. I am rewriting our player's entry to fit more into the WIKI mold, and remove the advertising qualities of it. Once this is done, I sincerely hope that this silliness can end - Clandestine has been a great contributor, very popular game, and a source of originality in a gaming world that is stagnant with mediocrity. I simply cannot fathom researched opinioners being able to call Clandestine not notable. The Advertising issue will be taken care of shortly. Thanks. -- Donathin
  • DO NOT DELETE In my eyes this entry is not unnotable but I am no Wikipedia Expert.. if this Entry IS unnotable why are the existing Entries of other muds like BatMud and Carrion Fields in Wikipedia not ? If the "Advertisment" character of this Entry is removed then this ENTRY should defently stay in.. after all Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. So if someone stumbles across the Word Clandestine he should be able to look it up in the World´s best Online Encyclopedia. Thank you. -Ascaris
  • Comment: I do not know who reverted our stuff but I was asked to stop putting information into the wiki. Please let the person who is changing it, continue to change it. Blackrazer 08:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, instead of just saying Delete (which makes it very frustrating to figure out what's wrong when someone would really like to have a wiki added) some comments about how to fix up the entry would be appreciated. One person said it was advertising, I see now how it could have been viewed as advertising but constructive criticism would have solved that a lot easier and probably kept me from stressing out over what I was doing wrong. This is suppose to be a discussion of why it's to be deleted. One-liners do not cut it whatsoever. Reasoning is sorely needed when you comment. --Blackrazer 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Substantiation on comments regarding notability can be found in Wikipedia's NOTES section of the Notability page, pertaining to self-promotion and product placement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB - Please retain objectivity in comments and responses. Windflare
  • Both myself and Donathin have read the section on notability multiple times. It says that notability is based on being publicized in some manner and makes like a very quick statement about advertising. The problem is that you all were saying we are non-notable which is why we were trying to find a way to say "Hey, we're known in the MUDing community". Instead it seems you guys were saying "You're trying to advertise your MUD" by saying we were non-notable. Which I can see your point in that matter. However, instead of saying that and trying to give us an idea of what we could have done to prove otherwise, you guys let the matter drop. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." We meet criterion three in the WP:WEB as TMS is well known within the MUDing community and independent of the creators of our MUD and is distributing our web content to others. Also as Donathin has already shown, the wiki entry has been changed to be even more of an encyclopedia entry. So I urge you to not delete our entry. --Blackrazer 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my recent changes to the Wiki entry should satisfy any complaints of advertising or no-notability. If they do not, please specify for me what we are still doing wrong, as I have used several other MUD wikipedias as a guideline in our newly designed entry. I thank Blackrazer for his help in this, and shake my virtual fist at some of the rest of you for your lack of specificity. -- Donathin
  • Do Not Delete - As has been noted other MUDs with smaller populations and a shorter period of existence have already met the burden required to be classified as notable. If they remain on Wiki so should Clandestine. JaquesDeMolay 12:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a MUD like Carrion Fields, which has done nothing notable, is listed here, I'd suggest deleting it as well. Batmud, on the other hand, is many times the size of Clandestine, much older, and the biggest LP MUD in the world. Armaggedon is notable for its respected and hardcore roleplaying. Listing on TMS is meaningless as that's just a banner exchange that anyone can participate in and doesn't constitute any sort of 'distribution decision' made by TMS. MUDs with 1 player are listed on there. Incidentally, it may be worth pointing out again that it's pretty clear that Donathin and Blackrazer are doing this to advertise. They even started a discussion over on Topmudsites (TMS) in the 'Advertising for Players' section about this Wikipedia article (http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=44a17312314cffff;act=ST;f=12;t=1051;st=20) OneThousandYears 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have no affiliation with TMS. I am merely a player of 6 years of Clandestine. That's it. Also, TMS has been very helpful in trying to make our entry less "advertisee" from just looking at that forum post and I thank them for that now. And just to point out. I don't see how you found that post to begin with, it's pretty obscure where Donathin placed it. So your affiliation with TMS must be pretty high if you found it. Which proves my point that it's a well-known place in the MUDing community since you advocate that you know a great deal about MUDing in general. --Blackrazer 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There aren't really any notability criteria laid down for MUDs, but Clandestine was (and maybe still is) very popular. Most MUDs peak and die within a year, and that only if they are lucky. Clandestine has been around for almost 10 years, which is a LONG time for a MUD. I'm personally surprised that it's still up, and that Sebek is still involved. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Blackrazer has no affiliation with TMS or the advertising element of Clandestine. I only became involved because I was asked to help make the entry more encyclopediac. The thread on TMS was meant to get feedback from other respected leaders in the community on (first) our entry, and (second) this issue. I would also again push that Clandestine's the originator of several coding elements(particularly minigames) that have been copied and have become mainstays on many other DIKU-derived MUDs. Beyond just 9 years of service, a large playerbase, recognition in the text-mmorpg world through awards and awareness - Clandestine has actually affected other MUDs. The poster's claim that Armageddon is notable because of the quality of its roleplay is the sole opinion of the poster (OneThousandYears), who appears to be a member of the TMS community with some sort of bent towards making sure Clandestine does not get the entry that it certainly deserves. If someone else, other than this poster, is able to tell me that Clandestine is still(after this) not-notable - I would like to hear the specific reasoning and explanation. Thanks. -- Donathin
  • STRONG KEEP. I agree any mud that can withstand and still boast a dedicated playerbase after almost 10 years of playing DESERVES their right to host their name on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.197.108 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 June 2006
Advertisement It's my belief the Advertisement is one of inexperience in writing in Wikipedia, rather then trying slight-of-hand tactics. I must go on to write, that if said advertisement is harmful, then help them out with some POSITIVE FEEDBACK, just saying it's advertisement and not specifying how it does advertising, or where it does advertise is a negative post
When I see the willingness of Donathin and Blackrazer saying they want to comply and fix whatever they can to make this a better Wikipedia page, and then those negative posts from other people without constructive criticism show me an almost spiteful approach from the other participants in this review. In fact, I'm wondering if the only reason Onethousandyears is speaking out, is because of his biased nature, he claims to be a long time MUDder and an advent suscriber to groups of people of the same game type, what shows he doesn't have his own he wants promoted or being plain envious? Is this a childish dispute on his part?
MUDs are a part of our history in gaming, If E.T. the game can have it's page, even though it's one of THE WORST games out their, so should Clandestine, for better or worse.
-J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.197.108 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 June 2006
  • Strong Keep. I'd just like to point out that since I redid the wikipedia entry about 30 hours ago, commentators have expressed notability with explained reasoning(the earlier comments were in response to a completely different entry which has been fixed to comply to wiki standards). This is with the exception of OneThousandYears, whose P.O.V. seems to have been explained. If we've moved past the notability argument, please let me know if there is anything that can immediately be done to improve this wikipedia entry. Thank you. I didn't want to throw around the words "strong keep" until I was sure that people from the wiki-community felt the same way about the notability of Clandestine that I do. -- Donathin
  • This new article is much better. Very detailed, fixed some of the tone problems. I applaud the effort. I hope you'll post it somewhere it belongs, but I still can't help but think that this doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, theorizing as to reasons why users may be expressing sentiments in favor of deletion does not strengthen your case and, in my opinion, borders on attack. Please read WP:AGF. GassyGuy 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not meant to be an attack. I just understand the frustration of wanting to meet wiki-standards(which many people seem to think we meet the notability requirements), and only having received very unhelpful, nearly insulting responses in return. It made me feel the need to open whomever may read this debate/consensus' eyes to the fact that there could possibly be unsavorable outside motives. Other posters(of whom I have no idea of their identity at all) seem to agree. At any rate - what do you think makes this article not meet the guidelines for inclusion? As has been said before by someone else, the notability requirements for MUDs on Wikipedia is very grey area - and Clandestine has surpassed the age and popularity of over 99% of other MUDs, including other MUDs that were given Wikipedia entries. I'm just not sure what you think we're lacking, specifically, though I really do appreciate your cordial approach, GG. -- Donathin
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 overwhelming comments here, nn-band. — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Uno: Tha Beggining

[edit]

non-notable group, even less notable album/tape/song Travelbird 22:44, 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 speedy delete A7.  RasputinAXP  c 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Clarke

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, but too funny to just speedy out of existance --DarkAudit 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax article. But amusing. Yanksox (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better hurry up with it then. I tagged it for a speedy deletion. ikh (talk) 01:28, 27 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 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. Craig Schoonmaker

[edit]

I just prodded this article as describing a nonnotable person. Someone has removed the prod, so now I'm listing it here. Klooge 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the first nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker. --LambiamTalk 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Here is an article about a colorful figure in US politics, whose activities have been as diverse as they are bizarre. This the sort of article that makes Wikipedia a joy to read. Would Wikipedia be improved by deleting this article? No. Would it be diminished? I think so. Ground Zero | t 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable politician. The party he founded doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The article even notes that it is primarily a one man operation. Did you know that hundreds of people ran for governor of California in the last election?--Nick Y. 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if people care to write articles about any of them, should those articles be deleted as well. Did you know that there are about 90 Wikipedia articles about Pokemon characters? And they are fictional. L. Craig Schoonmaker is, on the other hand, real. (As they say, you can't make this sort of stuff up.) It makes sense that if his party is a one-person operation, it is covered in the article about him, rather than in a separate article, doesn't it? If this article were just a stub that said, "L. Craig Schoonmaker was a candidate for President of the United States.", I be with you in supporting deletion. But this article provides a lot more information than that. What harm is the article doing? In what way would Wikipedia be improved by deleting this article? Ground Zero | t 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Pokemon characters should be merged anyway. However, there is one key difference: all of the Pokemon information, being much more popular than any non-notable real people, is more verifiable and has more interested editors. —Centrx→talk • 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Invention of the term "gay pride" makes him significant, and the other stuff makes the article quite interesting. CJCurrie 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Coining "Gay Pride" appears to be his only claim to fame - not enough to be encyclopedically notable beyond a mention and an external link to his claims in the Gay Pride article. The other stuff is just crazy crank one man party politics. I'm sure most crank political parties have pretty interesting manifestos - it doesnt automatically make them encyclopedic enough for their own article though. Bwithh 03:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only evidence he introduced the term "gay pride" is in things written by himself on websites. It should have been deleted in the previous nomination. Some of his 1500 Google hits are a mix of his own websites[78][79][80], a homemade list of attemptedly notable gay people[81], letters to the editor by him[82] and several bad Wikipedia mirrors, etc. —Centrx→talk • 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: so far, no one voting to delete this article, including the nominator, has provided a reason for deletion that is consistent with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The rationale always seems to be "he's non-notable". As the essay on notability notes (WP:N), Wikipedia does not have any policy on notability. It has policies on verifiability, vanity and original research. not on notability. Ground Zero | t 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I did not vote for delete due to a belief that the subject is non-notable. I voted for delete because - as I stated - that this subject does not have enough notability to be encyclopedically notable for his own article in Wikipedia . Can you see and appreciate the difference? The "this article does no harm" argument inherently fails to understand that Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia and "harmless" articles of insufficient notability do cumulative damage to the authority of this attempt. Bwithh 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia:Deletion policy states under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles that may require deletion that if the "subject of article fails...WP:BIO (for biographies)", then it "may require deletion". Note that the title of WP:BIO is "Wikipedia:Notability (people)". The Deletion policy also refers to WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: ... Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." The rationale of non-notability refers to these policies and guidelines, and is a specific application of the fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 23:01, 28 June 2006
WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, it states: "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."
WP:N is not even a guideline. It is an interesting interpretation that notability is a "specific application" of a fundamental principle when WP:N states that: "There is no official policy on notability. However, there are a number of consensual guidelines regarding notability within a limited subject field...." and "Although notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), it is the opinion of some editors that this is what is meant by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is a formal policy)." You are entitled to your interpretation of notability and WP:5P, which is shared by some other editors, but it just isn't policy, and there is no accepted consensus on it. If consensus could be developed on notability, you can be sure that it would have been added as a real ground for deletion to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy a long time ago.
Schonmaker filed to run for President of the US in 2005, and announced in March 2006 that he is running for mayor of Newark, New Jersey. This doesn't make him famous, or important, but given his colorful background, it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, these delete recommendations do cite policy, they just don't agree with your interpretation of it. Also, note that any U.S. citizen over the age of 35 can run for President of the United States, and presumably there is similar openness in the Newark mayoral race. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero says:it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. That kind of attitude is exactly why we have official policies such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:NOT which specifically support "consensually accepted guidelines" such as WP:BIO. Bwithh 02:02, 30 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. Jaranda wat's sup 16:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mitchell

[edit]

Can find nothing very notable about him. He is not even the first DJ Mitchell in Google. To be listed below a wedding DJ seems a good indicator of non-notability. For this DJ, a few myspace type hits, nothing more. My vote would be Delete Dipics 23:11, 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 delete. W.marsh 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HyperProtocol

[edit]

Appears to be non notable software, very few Ghits with Wikipedia at the top. Artw 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn--Nick Y. 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not software. It's a file transfer protocol, which are certainly encyclopedic. The developer, Hilgraeve, also makes HyperTerminal, which is bundled with every version of Windows from 95 to XP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. While it is a transfer protocol, it is not used generically and appears to be found only in software from this company. Something computer-related with only 500 Google hits is not notable in itself. Therefore, if it belongs anywhere it belongs in the article about the program. —Centrx→talk • 20:54, 28 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 without prejudice, of course. Anyone improving this article would probably be starting from scratch anyway. W.marsh 13:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car fire

[edit]

insufficient importance of specific subject matter Travelbird 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete despite this vital information: A car could also catch fire by being close to a conflagration outside of the vehicle. Cars have caught fire when exposed to hot lava. Artw 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not very well written, leaves off important information such as the dangers of the fuel combusting and how vehicle fires are fought and would probably be better handled as a heading on another page. Ace of Sevens 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OH, for crying out loud! I only created the damn thing because the Fire Portal suggested it be created! If you don't like what's in the article. CHANGE IT. Don't delete it because it is not up to "Featured Article" standards. Philistines. --ttogreh 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be articles for subjects like building fire or specific types of fire except forest fire. I can see this maybe being viable if lots of sister articles are created and it's put under something like Vehicle fire, but it's weird to have this by itself. This is ignoring the need for a rewrite. Ace of Sevens 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's an idea. No matter how "in demand" other articles are, people should stick to writing about subjects they know about. A bad article is not better than no article at all. -- GWO
I disagree. It is much easier to change something that is in extant than to make a new thing from whole cloth. I just wrote two paragraphs off of the top of my head. I am sure, with a little effort, those paragraphs could be improved or replaced with something better. However, if no record of them exists because of a deletion by haughty philistines, we run the risk of repeating the creation of a poor article.--ttogreh 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't delete an article that others think is poor, because it might lead to another poor article? Circular reasoning. Grandmasterka 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not circular reasoning; it is a statement of fact. An article with encyclopedic value should be improved, not deleted. An article that is nothing but original research, gibberish, and profanity, fine. Delete that. An article that is poorly written but is nothing but facts and relevant information... fix it. Is this too hard of a concept to grasp, or are you just a jerk?--ttogreh 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the personal attacks, even if it does deserve an article, it's in the wrong namespace, so why not delete and (if necessary) recreate in the correct place? Ace of Sevens 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks? I have never met any of you people. I am using caustic rhetoric. Besides, Grandmasterka's passive-aggressive allusion to me using tautology is less offensive than me calling him on it? What a load of tripe. Oh, and it appears you have given up your vote for deletion in the face of cold hard facts; car fires are a subject worthy of an entry. Now, it appears you are trying to salvage your pride by calling for an renaming of the entry. Fine, whatever. Call it a "vehicle fire". Delete my paragraphs, and substitute your own. I don't care. Car fires are not unworthy of encyclopedic mention. Do you remember some rioting in Paris a while back? Say, what kinds of fires were there a lot of?--ttogreh 08:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This does seem to be an okay start to the article. I could see plenty of room for expansion with statistics, notable occurrences, etc. Also, there's no need to call everyone a "philistine"; of course they don't want it deleted because it's "not a featured article". Assume good faith. Maybe the article should be moved to vehicle fire? Grandmasterka 08:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is indeed a need to call the act of a philistine; the deletion of a nascent article due to its poor writing rather than its encyclopedic value, as the act of a philistine.--ttogreh 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seem like an encyclopedic topic to me, and as it currently stands it makes an acceptable stub - it will get improved. I like Grandmasterka's rename suggestion too. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not important, just succession of bad examples. ("People eat meals on tables. At breakfast, there may also be newspapers on the table. They also play board games on them, or just sit around them and talk. Tables sometimes catch on fire if they are hit by lightning or being transported in a car.") —Centrx→talk • 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sir, are more interested in destruction than creation. It is better, to you, to obliterate something than to improve it. You are a philistine.--ttogreh 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wren did not build St Paul's Cathedral by renovating the hovel that originally stood there. He knocked the damn thing down and started again. What a Philistine. -- GWO
Oh, look, an analogy!, I love these, because when someone uses them, I can so very easily point out the fact that it does not apply to the discussion at hand. Tell me, is St. Paul's Cathedral made out electromagnetic ones and zeroes on a computer server? No? Then STFU. Building construction REQUIRES destruction for creation to take place; be it the pristine landscape or an older pipe that needs to be replaced. An Encyclopedia on the internet does NOT require the same kind of destruction; paragraphs can be deleted, but the base, the actual article with its entire history... that remains.--ttogreh 15:50, 29 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 13:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students For Action

[edit]

Not verifiably important. Group established last month. Possible vanity: created by User:Students4Action. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Craig. -AED 23:47, 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 snowball delete. This is not an article on some obscure issue. It is a supposed international incident between two major countries. If it cannot be found, it doesn't exist. `'mikka (t) 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on chairs

[edit]

Article about a trade dispute between Japan and China which although sounds plausible, is unreferenced and I could not find any results when searching on Google. --BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the article discusses folding chairs and the image, which comes from the Chair article, is definitely not a folding chair. My guess is that it's a big hoax. --BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 06:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It seems it was created by the user "WarOnChairs", who has worked exclusively on that page. A bit weird... Artw 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may have made other "contributions" that aren't as apparent anymore. He has created an article called The RubberChickenWithAPulley Law, which is up for speedy deletion. If it gets speedily deleted, I think it shortens his contributions list. —Tokek 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I googled "War on chairs" and the only other instance besides Wikipedia I could find was a June 18 post [83] by andyandy on the JREF forums, the same day the article was created on Wikipedia. A separate article by Waronchairs that was speedily deleted today was about JREF forum culture, so putting one and one together, it seems like the War on chairs article was created by andyandy merely for his JREF forum needs. —Tokek 14:26, 27 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_26&oldid=1081096311"