Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

Purge server cache

June 6[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Ling[edit]

Vanity for Mr. Ling. His work with Naschy and the Grandmother Martha project can be (and mostly has been) merged with those respective articles. Holding an out-of-date couple of Guinness entries is not a free pass to notability, nor is trying to pass oneself off as a member of the Holy Roman Empire. For your examination, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-04-27, searching for "Sydney Ling" and, as further evidence, don't take my word for it - see The official Sydney Ling site. Still convinced of notability? Girolamo Savonarola 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Seems somewhat notable. --Ezeu 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Main reasons to keep are borderline notability in low-budget movies, and to debunk the hype. Tearlach 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. RobLinwood 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per Ezeu. QuizQuick 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems marginally notable. Tachyon01 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. Marginal notability is not a keeper. Tychocat 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We're not running out of space and he is somewhat notable. Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Home produced movies are about as notable as vanity published books. -- GWO
  • Delete, not notable per GWO. - Motor (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per GWO. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gotta love the link to the official Sydney Ling site. in the nomination (not the article itself), but that little laugh notwithstanding, the article does suggest sufficient notability for mine. Colonel Tom 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject does not meet inclusion criteria at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure, there's a little notability, but definitely not enough. -- Kicking222 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. Jmsloderbeck 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete not quite notable enough for me. —Mets501talk 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Home movies does not meet WP:BIO. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guiness Book of World Records is not an indicator of notability. Part of the appeal of the book is that most of the people in it are entirely obscure. If he had the world record for something more notable we cold talk, but making a long documentary of his grandmother doesn't really qualify. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough, as said --SeanMcG 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough, as said --—Gaff ταλκ 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough Bwithh 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems to be sort of notable Chipka 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per savidan Computerjoe's talk 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there is some notability and wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (power)[edit]

Seriously? Maybe even speedy delete under nonsense. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete and bjoadn nonsense Benon 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN SM247 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: as nonesense.Deathawk 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Not funny enough for BJAODN. DarthVader 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per nom WCX 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. RobLinwood 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: as nonsense. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 6 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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalisticity[edit]

Delete. Original research. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism, heavily POV. --Bachrach44 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No other references/information outside this entry.
  • Delete crap neologism. SM247 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete but mind the NPA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • SM247 seems to be referring to the neologism and not the creator of the article, therefore there is no P at which a Personal Attack could be directed. Peyna 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct. I believe crap is an excellent universal word of a derisory nature and in this case was clearly directed at what is obviously a coined phrase of no common usage or notability. If I had said 'crap editor' (which I certainly do not mean), you were indeed correct to remind me. SM247 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If user x writes an article and user y calls it "crap", it is most certainly a personal attack. Why don't we err on the side of civility, please? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • With all due respect, I disagree with you here, Russian. I don't think you're a bad person, so if you wrote a bad article, I would easily be able to call it crap without calling you crap. I call articles garbage in AfD discussions frequently, but it's because I think the article- not the person(s) who wrote/edited it- is of little value. -- Kicking222 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with Kicking222. Excellent editors are capable of making crap edits. Me. For example. -- GWO
            • If user X is offended at user Y calling user X's article "crap," then user X needs to read WP:OWN. Plus, WP:NPA pretty clearly explains what is and isn't a personal attack, and this was nowhere near that. Peyna 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO. RobLinwood 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per neologism Masterpjz9 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references. Reads like original research. Tachyon01 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like nonsense to me.Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Molerat 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Guinnog 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletisticity savidan(talk) (e@) 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Deville (Talk) 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above redfox 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism. Ace of Sevens 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very POV neologism, no sources. WP:SNOW? Grandmasterka 04:16, 8 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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philorthodox[edit]

creator deleted prod w/o explanation. fails WP:WEB. Bachrach44 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Rmhermen. DarthVader 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martinolagucci[edit]

Delete. Violates WP:BIO. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:08, 6 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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia cars[edit]

1. This article is trivial. 2. Advertising - Only reason for existence appears to be to link to commercial site DavidCane

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final option[edit]

  • Delete. I'm not certain, but I lean towards deletion on this. Thought I'd err on the side of AfD, since that'll open it up to consensus. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient context, merge content to an appropriate article on counterterrorism or the event described. SM247 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad for an old movie. Tychocat 07:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, dreadful article but could conceivably be expanded into a discussion of the final step in police/counter-terror activity... but unless that happens quickly or someone comes up with a good redirect target... delete. - Motor (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's no way this is a formal or specific enough term to make an encyclopedic article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as the only contributor has blanked the article in this revision [1] BigDT 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, I believe this fits G5, since he blanked the page. --Terence Ong 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've unblanked the article. I'd like to give the editor who created it a chance to improve it. - Motor (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With some cleanup, expansion, and attention, I think it could be expanded into a very useful article. At the moment it focuses on one incident related to terrorism, but I have heard it used in other contexts, and it is more or less a general law enforcement term. It definately needs expanding, but it is worth keeping. ONUnicorn 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is almost content-free, pretty much all the content it has is false other than a dicdef, and it is hard to see how it could ever be improved. Redirect to Who Dares Wins (film) (which is nothing to do with the incident described, but was indeed called Final Option in the US). --Guinnog 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do as you like. Delete or keep. But DO NOT say the content is false without explaining. Also, if you cannot see how the film Who Dares Wins, AKA The Final Option, illustrates the term, or do not believe that it was inspired by Operation Nimrod then perhaps you are unqualified to comment. As for content, there wil never be any if it is deleted. I thought the entire point of this obviously anal site is improvement through open contributions. Once again, do as you like. It obviously means more to you than to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianb0806 (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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Rushford-Upton-Berkeley[edit]

Looks like vanity but I'm not sure. Got precisely zero google hits when I tried to look for it. Francs2000 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete G4.  RasputinAXP  c 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Action Party (2nd nomination)[edit]

Per previous AfD, utterly irrelevant political grouping, comprehensively shown by the content of the article to be NN (I hesitate to call it a party - if it is, it is almost certainly a boring one where even the vaguely interesting guests have all gone home) SM247 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It is not an expression of opinion and provides fact. If this should be removed, then many other things-such as old baseball players-should be removed. If it helps people learn, it shouldn't be removed. Alex 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only does the article state that the "party" is no longer active, but they (or "he", most likely) aren't (unlike old baseball players) even of historical interest. RobLinwood 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More nn political cruft. KleenupKrew 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like a one man party... MarineCorps 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article says it all: it has no chapters anywhere, no candidates for office; the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form. I'm almost wondering if this is speediable, since I'm not seeing any claim to notability. Peyna 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The party has not grown any more notable since its last AfD which ended in a delete. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this probably qualifies as a speedy for recreation of previous deleted content, no? Peyna 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD debate was a while ago. DarthVader 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've added a db-repost tag anyway. Quote: Currently, the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form as it's website currently is off the Internet. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peyna. Tachyon01 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, politicruft and repost of already deleted material. I've added a db-repost tag. - Motor (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, politicruft, nn party, its a repost of the old article. --Terence Ong 13:59, 6 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. Redirects don't belong on AfD; and no incoming links is not a valid reason to delete a redirect anyway. Peyna 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RC airplane[edit]

While fixing double redirects, I see that no pages link here EuroSong 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to radio-controlled aircraft - I think that it could be used as a search term. - Richardcavell 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you might try listing this on Redirects for Deletion instead, if it was just a redirect and you think it's not needed. Otherwise, change the redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. KleenupKrew 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (probably speedy). In-bound links are NOT the only reason for redirects--they're used for searching alternate terms and to prevent duplicate article creation, among other things. This should stay as a redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. 24.18.215.132 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It already was a redirect prior to be listed for AfD, therefore this AfD is improper and I'm going to close it now and change it back to a redirect. If you want to relist it, do so at Redirects for Deletions. Peyna 01:18, 6 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 Global Positioning System. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homing device[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 Speedy Delete by User:Harro5 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJM Games[edit]

Blatant advertising for a nonnotable, and possibly completely made-up, game company -- dcclark (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Either a hoax or somebody using Wikipedia to spam. No such game company exists. Web search came up blank. KleenupKrew 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm new to the speedy delete process, and a quick readover of WP:SPEEDY didn't exactly help me -- there seems to be no obvious template for spam or advertising. Could someone help? -- dcclark (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{db|Article about a corporation that fails to make any assertion or claim of notability}} probably would suffice. Peyna 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles which were created primarily for the point of advertising their products may be considered nonsense to some and have absolutely no place on wikipedia. I think many users like to speedy articles because there's a lot of spam articles and they need to be dealt with more quickly.--Andeh 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete, pure spam/advertising.--Andeh 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As per Peyna above, I have moved this to a speedy delete.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Hidden Frontier[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

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


  • Delete. Fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Star Trek cruft. MilesToGo 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this seems to be a notable fan production. Note that Star Trek: New Voyages also has an article and both fan productions are mentioned in the "Canonicity and other storylines" section of the Star Trek article. It has plenty of non-trivial google hits and has been mentioned in Variety magazine [2]. I had never heard of it until just now ... but then again, after the debacle of Enterprise, I haven't kept up with the Star Trek scene. Anyway, it looks notable to me. BigDT 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I just downloaded an episode ... unwatchable is putting it mildly ... the CG is amazing, but everyone has a green glow (from a green screen) around them ... and calling the acting bad is putting it mildly. The only saving grace is that B&B aren't there to screw it up. BigDT 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Upon watching the first few episodes, I considered it really cheesy, but I have to say that their production values and acting have improved as they've continued. Michael Robson 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm series, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above, a notable, respected, and popular fanfilm series. Tachyon01 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A "well-respected and popular fanfilm series" sounds like a contradiction in terms almost. More to the point, how the hell do you measure whether a fanfilm is "well-respected and popular"? --Calton | Talk 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The Variety article pushes it just over the notability bar. It and New Voyages are pretty well the two main productions of this subgenre. 23skidoo 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. HF, Exeter and New Voyages are notable films and should not be deleted. HF is the longest running Star Trek fanfilm, with the largets body of work. They've been featured in Variety magazine and have an extremely large following. Nick Cook 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) This comment was accidentally posted at the AfD discussion directly below this one. I've just cut&pasted it here, leaving the content unchanged. Reyk YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton. Reyk YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fan fiction is generally not notable, but this looks like a very popular series. JIP | Talk 08:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. Being popular with a small collection of people with internet connections and a wikipedia accounts does not justify an entry on Wikipedia. See also, flashcruft, flashartists, furries etc etc etc etc. Copy it to Memory Alpha if it's not already there. - Motor (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Memory Alpha does not accept articles on fan fiction - see [3] - their mission is information on the canonical Star Trek universe. It isn't a question of notability for them, it's a question of being off-topic. BigDT 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is actually a notable, popular and long running fan series. Ben W Bell talk 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just not popular enough. -- GWO
  • Keep, This is the longest running fanchise out there. It inspired just about all of the current fan film producers to take up the camera. JusticeCEO 11:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as an example of fan-produced/amateur film production as a whole --Mhking 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this surpasses cruft, and hovers peacefully on the event horizon of notability. A little more lead paragraph info and a little less episode documentation wouldn't hurt, though. Colonel Tom 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this fan made series are usually non-notable, but this is exceptional. If its non-notable, I believe it would only have one season not seven, notable fan film. --Terence Ong 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fanfic is rarely suitable article material, but as Terence Ong has stated above, the sheer number of episodes this has generated would seem to make it something of an exception to the rule.--Isotope23 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kirok and others Su-laine.yeo 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I don't particular care for the series, it's definitely notable for its influence on the fanfilm community and longevity. TheRealFennShysa 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more trekcruft— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable fan production. It also has very active forums with 60,743 Posts in 3,053 Topics by 2,418 Members, which means it is not something that someone is doing independently. —Mets501talk 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable fan fiction. (For what it's worth, although I'm an ST fan, I'm not a fan of ST fan fiction. I found this through WP:AFD and WP:ANI, not by an "invitation".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - if we're going to have any fanfic type stuff listed here, then this is the one to have. not an st fan. frymaster 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete nonnotable fanfic/fancruft. Please find a or start your own fanfiction star trek wiki if you want this online Bwithh 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hidden Frontier is anything but "non-notable." In addition they already have their own wikipedia and a very active circle of fans. That those fans are limited to Star Trek fandom does not make them non-notable.
It's great that you have your wiki. so please transwiki Bwithh 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion. -- Wikipedical 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Variety article and IMDB. Easily verifiable. Ziggurat 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of it, and I'm nto exactly a big Trekker. It seems notable to me. Ace of Sevens 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a fairly notable series, unlike most random fan-fiction this is well respected and heard of by people outside the community Wolfsbane Kane 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They're also listed in a variety of other news source as well, including CNN. IMDB.com also has a page dedicated to this fan series as well. Despite the fact that it may be of poor quality or laughable storylines, it does have the virtue of being the Longest Running Fan Series for Star Trek, and one of the first to attempt to sucessfully recreate the Live Action series style from the professional TV series productions - 59.167.44.106 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if any fan films are notable, this is. Eluchil404 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just in being a venture lasting many years with a large following grants it being in Wiki. Wiki is not just about history and many works of literature that are separate from the original venture, such as in Star Wars have been allowed to remain so this should be allowed to have its own page. Wiki is about bringing knowledge to the people and it would be inappropriate to make it harder to get information of this fan series. Lord_Hawk 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC-8)
  • Keep - with a large amount of television shows on this site already, i see no reason why a web-based production, albeit a fanfilm, cant have a place here. Arkadyfolkner 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is this user's first edit on Wikipedia, and his sole contributions have been to this vote
  • Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Nick Cook, Kirok of L'Stok, Lord Hawk, and Arkadyfolkner. If anything, though, the page should be improved, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Robson (talk • contribs) 10:29, June 8, 2006
  • Keep - Articles like this are the reason I began getting involved with Wikipedia several years ago. Something should not be deleted because a small number consider it stupid or unnecessary. This is supposed to be a fountain of knowledge, an Encyclopedia that covers all subjects. If you remove this and similar articles, what is to prevent someone from making a case to remove all articles about other small subjects. When someone is curious about something, this needs to remain the place to look, and if you remove this article, you are taking away one of the valuable assets of this be a free (in charge and thought) encyclopedia, focusing on things that For-Profit encyclopedias don't focus on. TEG 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strictly because I don't understand the nomination. --JJay 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the article is self-serving at best, incomplete and useless at worst 65.113.125.77 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worth keeping, as side note, someone deleted my earlier vote to keep, if this happens again that someone will get themselves reported. Arkadyfolkner 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't vote twice, and your earlier vote wasn't deleted, as a moment's search through the page would've revealed — it was moved to the bottom of the vote [4], because AfD votes are listed in chronological order, top to bottom. (WP:AFDM#Refactoring the discussion thread: Some new users add comments at the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom. It is appropriate to move those comments to restore the logical/chronological order.) The nature of my action was also explicitly stated in the edit description itself, which you evidently also appeared to overlook before you decided to assume bad faith. Sadly, such assumptions are more the rule than the exception around here. — Mike •  05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you find time in between writing your eloquent AfD noms, please see WP:Bite. --JJay 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you find time inbetween writing your eloquent snarks, please see WP:NOFEEDING. And if you feel the need to reply to this remark, please do so on my talk page, although I'd much prefer you didn't. — Mike •  00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd rather do it here. You write one word noms, but seven lines to rag on a new user. I reiterate: see WP:bite. --JJay 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are a plethora of points you and I could engage on this discussion. Whether my actions were warranted or not. Whether you're being civil or not. Whether you're assuming bad faith or not. Whether you're disrupting the AfD process to make a point or not. Whether editors have to abide by guidelines. But the fact is, I'm enjoying my weekend, and it does in fact take two people to argue. So I'm afraid you're just going to have to satisfy yourself on this one. — Mike •  03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Strange that it bothers you that I cite one link. I suggest you read it while enjoying your weekend. --JJay 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable series, natch! DillPickle 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our series is being described as "non-notable" by a few. How are they defining "notable" that we somehow fail? How do we BECOME notable, and therefore worthy of continued inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhiting (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 11, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Aside from it being a well known fan project, the series itself is an example of the effects a franchise such as Star Trek has on fans and followers and, in this case, the internet community. Therefore it should be kept on a site that promotes learning. decapattack_uk 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has an IMDB entry and is covered in non-Star Trek blogs. I'd say it's notable enough Sumergocognito 04:18, 15 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indistriminate collection of information. A bet between two scientists is not important enough for its own article. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich. Has sufficient coverage in those articles - delete KleenupKrew 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • withdrawing nomination and retreating somewhere to Eat Crow. Would not have thought a bet like this was notable but apparently it is. KleenupKrew 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and note that the article consists almost entirely of quoted material. Peyna 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm change my vote to abstain, but I'll still move for a cleanup. Peyna 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As arcane as this may appear to you, it is not arcane to those in the field. This was a substantive event and the conclusions drawn from the outcome of the bet is of regular interest to students and scholars alike. The article is well cited and by no means a stub. Additionally the topic contains far more information than would be appropriate as an insert into either or both men's articles. Kershner 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a genuine historical event, and a decently documented and footnoted one. As far as significance, I think the article does a decent job of expressing that in context. -Markeer 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A significant event that deserves an article. --Bduke 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be redundant to have a full account in both biographies. This is one of the more famous wagers in science, and very well known in the field of population, peak oil, etc. It is notable and verifiable. -Will Beback 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a layman (in political science and economics at least), and I've heard of this; it represents a significant empirical check to Malthusian "millenialism," so to speak, and seems worthy of mention. Choess 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sometimes a bet between scientists is notable, such as the between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne and John Preskill regarding evaporating black holes. Tachyon01 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query I am not familiar with that particular bet, can you point me to an article that goes into greater detail on that subject? ... Point proven.  :) (And I'm serious about desiring more information) Kershner 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could make it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's odd that there's no article on it, and it's only mentioned briefly in the John Preskill article. The only thing I remember is that Hawking was betting only as an insurance policy: he very much wanted black holes to exist, and figured betting against their existance would provide some minor consolation if they did not, in fact, exist. When Hawking admitted defeat (thereby accepting the existance of black holes) he awarded Kip a year's subscription to Playboy. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't see any major problems with the article. David L Rattigan 08:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish Ehrlich would'vr stuck to butterflies. His scaremongering has done more harm than good. -- GWO
  • Keep, extremely notable, easily verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable historical event (anecdotally, I've even seen a blurb about this event in an economic textbook), but (rightly) contains too much detail to be integrated into the primary articles about the principal actors in the event. -- Docether 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (almost Conan-like) Keep. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich.? Notable well beyond that narrow spectrum; it was a significant prediction of the impact of 'Reaganomics' and the economic situation of the time, and culturally significant. Umm ... (calms down) ... also per above keeps. Colonel Tom 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, event is notable, verifiable, this topic is encyclopedic. --Terence Ong 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable historical event. SJennings 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a notable event which people might actually want to research. —Mets501talk 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I'd be extremely open to a rename (Simon-Ehrlich wager, perhaps). This is a hugely notable bet. I saw a documentary about it in a geography course I took this term. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I second the rename. Kershner 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per Savisan. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict?) Keep and rename. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per savisan. redfox 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename. Absolutely not fancruft as suggested by nom Bwithh 23:18, 6 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 – Gurch 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bum Rushing[edit]

Non-notable term. May be hoax King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Already covered at Wiktionary under bum rush. Peyna 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move to Wiktionary. This is a legitimate and common slang term used by many gamers to describe exactly the behavior noted. That does not justify a Wikipedia article but it does belong in a dictionary under the verb 'to Bum Rush'. At some point the original meaning of the term (as per much of slang and gamer-speak) was lost in favor of this meaning. Kershner 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the original meaning of the phrase "Bum's rush (quickly and/or forcibly removed from the premises as if one were a 'bum') has been lost except to those under the age of 16. At any rate, I didn't see much difference between what this article describes and the more succinct definition covered at the Wiktionary article I linked, except that they're applying that definition to the world of video games. Peyna 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikitionary. Tachyon01 04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is absolutely not a hoax. It's a legitimate tactic. The term is used in popular culture - see Yo! Bum Rush the Show, an album by Public Enemy. The article needs a cleanup. If it survives AfD I'll clean it up myself. - Richardcavell 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki delete as below -- GWO
  • Delete and do not transwiki. There's already an article there, at bum rush. Please don't treat Wiktionary as a dumping ground. Proto||type 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article far exceeds the wiktionary entry in scope and definition, and has various cultural significances. By the way, I've added PE's album to the article's introduction. Colonel Tom 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more than a dicdef, but article needs to be cleanup. Bum Rush has been used in pop culture as what Richardcavell said. --Terence Ong 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically just consisting of the same definition written several times and a couple of specific examples. —Mets501talk 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much more than dictdef, and already present at wikt:bum rush. Reference to video games is probably WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could not agree more with Proto. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I would have said transwiki to Wiktionary, but it's already there. Reyk YO! 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable term, but the is essentially a dictionary definition. Ace of Sevens 09:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto and Peyna; dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a non-notable dicdef. By the way, in my region it's called a "bomb rush". Grandmasterka 04:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN dicdef Deleuze 14:00, 14 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. Royboycrashfan 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Longhurst[edit]

fails to assert notability, vanity page? Almost no information. Adambiswanger1 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for little or no content, besides no assertion of notability NawlinWiki 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy. If it does not assert notability, feel free to put a {{db-bio}} tag on it instead of AfD. Peyna 01:30, 6 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 and redirect to Total Wine & More. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Beverage[edit]

Not notable company, does not meet WP:Corp, the only reason I have heard of it is because I used to live in Maryland. MilesToGo 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a real store. If this were a store in the Star Trek universe, it would be speedily kept. Let's keep this if only to help prevent fiction from becoming more important than reality in Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Total Wine & More. Company does no exist anymore so a merge rather than keep. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Peripitus. JIP | Talk 08:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Total Wine & More, defunct companies are not exactly notable in its own article, unless they were a multinational corporation. --Terence Ong 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. —Mets501talk 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:41, 6 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. Sango123 15:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Wine & More (2nd nom)[edit]

Not notable company, does not meet WP:Corp, the only reason I have heard of it is because I used to live in Maryland. MilesToGo 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, and block creator indefinitely. DS 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Kluver[edit]

Delete hoax deprodded by creator. Zero google hits for "Quadratic Relativity Theory". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy per nom, nonsense.--Andeh 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy. We need a {{db-hoax}} since nonsense doesn't really apply. Peyna 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reference: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." Peyna 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Crazy Awesome Speedy Delete...per nom...Yanksox 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded this (as it doesn't qualify for a speedy) but I'm not gonna' fight about it if it does go speedily. Kotepho 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it's not CSD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy removed since it's not applicable. Nice little article but unfortunately all false. After spending considerable time researching Kara Kluver (well one minute on google), I've determined that she is 18 from Oregon. Here is her Myspace page [5]. Strangely enough there is no discussion there of her many accomplishments. Way to go KK... --JJay 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tyne[edit]

non-notable actor, fails WP:BIO. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He played Clyde the Clarinetist Guitarist, how can you say he's not notable? - Delete ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom —Mets501talk 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Who the heck is Clyde the Clarinetist? savidan(talk) (e@) 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops wrong instrument ~ trialsanderrors 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete It's not his movies that make him notable. I didn't even know he did movies. You can delete his movie works off this article, that is not why he's notable. He's notable for his invisible theater work that he's been exploring in the New York City area. Actually I think it would be a better article if it didn't mention his film at all and a stub was added for his experimental theater work was added. What stub would this be?--In Defense of the Artist 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pretty invisible. Got any offlist leads? ~ trialsanderrors 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's part of the issue with Invisible Theater is that they don't go around advertising themselves. I found out about him through his work at Rising Sun Performance Company, but I know he's also worked with Improv Everywhere and Hella Bell. I can probably get something from Rising Sun if you want to read it offline.--In Defense of the Artist 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So there's no newspaper or magazine that wrote about him? To be included in Wikipedia, his influence has to be verifiable through tertiary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I read on the terms of service the definition of notable was an audience or circulation of 5,000 people or more which can be verified from the documentations of his work through the companies in which he worked. --In Defense of the Artist 04:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, this might still fall short of WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 9 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. Sango123 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketboom[edit]

Delete or Merge with Andrew Baron non notable video blog which recieved only brief attention. Subject is not encyclopedic and article does not establish notability - blogs are not notable regardless of media coverage they're soapboxes and Wiki is not advertisement for them. Seems like an advertisement. Strothra 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Aside from being hugely popular and the first Vlog to sell advertising, Rocketboom has been the subject of substantial media coverage [6] [7]. ScottW 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here's another reference, in case there's any doubt [8]. ScottW 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable[9], written about in such newspapers as The Wall Street Journal, Slate, The Sunday Times. --Pmsyyz 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Key citations remain missing, notably regarding who says these guys are so important. It's a question whether it's actually encyclopedic or not, not whether it got its 15 minutes of fame. Tychocat 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:WEB. Has received significant media coverage as shown above. Capitalistroadster 07:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, the vlog is notable and has received significant media coverage, and comparisons of daily viewers to cable shows. What I'm skeptical of (and I'm a blog advocate) is the separate article Amanda Congdon; I don't think she's individually notable, keeping in mind that Ana Marie Cox didn't get a separate entry from Wonkette until she published a book and "retired". --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. It has received a lot of coverage in the traditional media and has a wide following. Moreover, I think the WP:WEB criteria should be updated to mention how to treat cases like this where the fact that this is available via a web site is mostly incidental. It is a separate broadcast medium - for example, I don't use a web browsers to access it, I use the Democracy Player and so it is more like a TV show. Thus the criteria for Wikipedia inclusion ought to be more those governing TV shows than web sites. - Hayne 08:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The cited Wikipedia pages WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE are all about improving the quality of articles, not about deleting them if a set of criteria aren't met. This article seems quite noteworthy. __meco 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, meets WP:WEB, it had media coverage, notable blog. --Terence Ong 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If most people were asked to name a vlog that they have heard of, it would likely be this one. youngamerican (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. That brings up the interesting aspect of some of this notability argumentation. Most people haven't heard of vlogs at all, so does that make it more likely that such a site isn't notable? __meco 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, that's a good question, though I think there's certainly room for articles surrounding topics that may not be known to the world at large. I think vlogs should generally be held to the same standard as a regular blog, which should be a reasonably high standard. In this case, the mainstream media coverage and the fact that Rocketboom has been out at the front in development of a certain type of vlog is more than enough to meet my threshold for notability. However, what about the case in which the vlog/blog is particlularly well known in the blogging community, but has limited outside coverage? See the Chuck Olson discussion for example of one of these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Olsen. In this case, I thought it wasn't notable enough, at least for now . ScottW 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd heard of vlogs, and am familiar with them. For me it remains the difference between having 15 minutes of fame, and being notable, and my vote is unchanged. However, the upgrade in documentation (to my mind, mostly 'me-too' news releases) helps make the thing at least look encyclopedic. Tychocat 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the opposite. The addition of documentation adds notability but it does not make the article or subject encyclopedic. Rocketboom is a blog and such things are impermanent not to mention they appeal to only small portions of individuals. I could see an argument for its notability or encyclopedic importance to a subculture but that in itself, in my view, rules out its importance. --Strothra 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citations and references have been added. Pepso 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of media coverage (read an article about it a few weeks ago in Wired (magazine), passes WP:WEB. --TorriTorri 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known, popular and significant. Alexander256
  • Strong Keep Just because you, a rank and file user say's it's non notable in your nomination, does not make it so. Stop being a deletionist!--Nick Dillinger 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
haha Stop being an inclusionist! --Strothra 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Understanding the growth of vlogging requires an understanding of notable examples, such as rocketboom.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wildeman[edit]

Article about a high school art teacher. One of a series of articles created or edited by students at the University of Chicago Laboratory schools to add basically nonsense about various students and faculty. The claim to notability here is that he is a moderately successful Abstract Expressionist. I can find no evidence of this claim. ScottW 02:11, 6 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 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primax 3[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT, specifically advertising and promotion. But that's not all, this might even be a "hoax ad." It appears that this product might not exist[10]. Well, I need to refine my searching ability. Yanksox 02:14, 6 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 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trumalia[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, i.e. not notable —WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per original nomination. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an advertisement. Tachyon01 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tachyon01 Percy Snoodle 09:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:WEB. Will possibly pass the notability test in the future, but does not now. Colonel Tom 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM —Mets501talk 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote this not realizing that it was objectionable in any way. It's my first contribution and am a bit discouraged as I read the guidelines and thought I was meeting them. Can I edit this so that it won't get deleted? I was looking on the search engine page and having come across this search engine last week wanted to add it because I thought it was unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenymonkey (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 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. Sango123 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was withdrawn. (Please see original nominator's withdrawal of nomination [11]). — Mike • 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The AfD had already reached concensus before it was withdrawn. JRP 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't matter; a withdrawal is a withdrawal is a withdrawal. — Mike • 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: New Voyages[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft, per Star Trek: Mirror Wars, Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, Star Trek: Spock's Hiatal Hernia, etc., etc., ad nauseum. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this particular nomination. — Mike •  19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable and verifiable to me, especially given the involvement of D. C. Fontana and Walter Koenig. --Allen 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that we want to delete the fancruft, however this may be the only Star Trek fan fiction that I think merits inclusion in Wikipedia, due to the large number of professional Star Trek actors and writers which are participating in it. JRP 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the only one of these Star Trek parodies/fan productions I had ever heard of before tonight. It has gained tons of notice inside the Star Trek community and elsewhere. BigDT 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important enough to worth an article Roadrunner 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Koenig's involvement. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With all due respect, you have about a minute between the timestamps on some of your Star Trek-related AFD votes. Are you examining the actual topic/article or are you just voting delete without any effort to check to see whether the particular article warrants inclusion? BigDT 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have checked out each article. Quit trying to undermine me by suggesting I'm not doing my homework. Erik the Rude 04:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, he probably did what I sometimes do. I examine a group of pages throughly, then then come back and AFD them once I've got a view of the situation. Timestamps are not evidence for this kind of accusation. - Motor (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm (AND endorsed by the Roddenberry estate), I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for professional involvement ... this is not fancruft. Daniel Case 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable fan series which has had appearances by former Star Trek cast members (i.e. Walter Koenig.) Tachyon01 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why do you have the "prepare for ballot stuffing" comment? There's none of that going on here and I think we've demonstrated the beginning of a concensus that this one should stay. I wonder somehow if that isn't somehow wishful thinking on your part. Please don't take these things personally; this one may stay but many of the others that you nominated probably should go. JRP 05:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the accompanying edit description for link to a diff in which an above voter solicits ballot-stuffing from a relevant WikiProject. I wouldn't put it up just for the heck of it. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-respected fan series --Polaron | Talk 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This one is a major production that is notable on several levels, from being approved by Roddenberry's estate to being written by noted SF authors, to having cast members from the original series appearing on it. 23skidoo 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This fan series seems to be a few rungs over the normal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. fancruft at least, a cynical marketing tool for the Trek franchise at best. Tychocat 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a popular series. "Not allowing fiction to take over Wikipedia" does not equal "all fiction must systematically be removed from Wikipedia". JIP | Talk 08:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of all the fan series this is one to keep. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this is THE Star Trek fan series that has even enjoyed guest stars from the original shows. If any fan produced material is notable then this is it. Ben W Bell talk 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I absolutely do not think this was a bad faith nomination (as was suggested above) because Wikipedia has vast tracts of fancruft that need clearing out... but in this case, I think it *just* manages to justify an article. - Motor (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Guest star involvement swings it. Just. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep - Not just some random fan fiction. This stuff is big, and was featured on the cover of Wired magazine --DennyCrane 09:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Definately one of the biggest fan films out there. JusticeCEO 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This series has a lot of support from Trek veterans (And other pros) from both sides of the camera. It was notable enough to be on the cover of "Wired", it was mentioned on "Talk Soup" and was featured on G4. Also, it's very popular with the last sull-length episode being downloaded 16 million times.
  • Oops, forgot to sign. That last comment was by me.--Captain Proton 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely known project with major actors (Koenig, William Windom) NawlinWiki 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known and has received a great deal of media attention, and is a major event in Star Trek fandom. Nick Cook 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Slap me purple and call me a meat puppet, but this is notable IMO. See above for less 'colourful' arguments. Colonel Tom 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. SJennings 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fan film, this is also another exception, getting media attention is more than notable. If it was featured on the cover of "Wired" magazine and downloaded 16 million times, the film is definitely notable. --Terence Ong 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not that my vote is needed obviously but this article definatly is not fancruft. The support alone from the actors says enough. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a notable subject with major actors participating, and noted within articles in recognized media (as is Star Trek: Hidden Frontier and a few others). --Mhking 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the most notable of all the Trek fan series, as evidenced by the Roddenberry stamp of approval, the involvement of original series cast and crew, and the major media coverage. TheRealFennShysa 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. — Milkandwookiees (T | C) 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable fan project. The Wookieepedian 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many professional, original series actors does a fan film have to be before it's notable? My answer: fewer than this one. Vadder 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable fan project, with professional participation. (Not that my vote is needed.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep by analogy with WP:MUSIC per GWO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professional involvement (in addition to the several previously mentioned actors, they also have writers from cannon Trek), use of set pieces by Star Trek: Enterprise, featured in Wired and G4. -- Hawaiian717 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The only fan film that has the blessing and support of Eugene Roddenberry for the continuation of his fathers work.User:vtcrusade
  • Weak Keep Making an exception here due to involvement of Eugene Roddenberry and professionals Bwithh 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedical (talk • contribs) 23:23, June 6, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The fanfilm which has very notable Sci-Fi writers/producers/directors involved, as well as the blessing of Eugene Roddenberry, and involvement of original Star Trek actors (William Wimbledom, Walter Koenig, George Takei and others). Also New Voyages is mentioned in the official Star Trek website as shown here: George Takei Video Interview wanderer 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Found this very interesting. and notable. Ghostieguide 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Voice of Treason 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per involvement of Fontana and Koenig, mass media attention, etc. Gildir 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insanely strong keep - what's up with the mass deletions movement on clearly notable entries? DillPickle 21:35, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of non-self-generated hits ... and it has been mentioned in the national and international media[12] [13] [14] [15] ... according to WP:MEME, mention in a reliable source outside of internet culture makes it notable ... so by virtue of the CNN mention, I'd say this one is an unquestionable keep BigDT 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The CNN mention makes this one open and shut. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very unimportant stuff. Erik the Rude 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well good grief, so is most of Wikipedia. But the question is does it meet the notability guidelines for its genre and under the proposed guideline WP:MEME, it does. BigDT 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MEME is only a proposed guideline, and I suspect it'll be a cold day in Hell when it becomes widely accepted. Erik the Rude 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the fact is that whether you accept WP:MEME or not, I found four media mentions without half trying. This is unquestionably notable within the European Star Trek community and has gained media attention outside that community. To me, that makes it notable. BigDT 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'd be surprised. After all, I thought the same about CSD A7. Either way, you shouldn't be complaining, it meets WP:WEB too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per BigDT. Tachyon01 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, they apparently are reasonably known movies and the page is fine with links. - Cribananda 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable fan movie series. JIP | Talk 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable where other series are not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable to the extent that it has been mentioned several times in Finnish mainstream media and given Finnish mainstream cultural awards[16]. Thus, this is notable not only as scifi fandom stuff, but also notable as modern Finnish culture.Punainen Nörtti 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Popularity pushes it over the edge. Just. -- GWO
  • Weak keep, a fair amount of coverage... so it just about makes it. It also makes a useful bucket for stuff from the "Wreck"-cruft articles that need cleaning out. - Motor (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Popular and highly notable piece of independent moviemaking. Nick Cook 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable film, different from the rest. --Terence Ong 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Requires cleanup, though. Molerat 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very notable (even just in the digg/slashdot screentime it recieved), I believe it was the most downloaded film online for a while -- Tawker 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly notable enough. Even if the individual movies don't get articles, give the series one. Vadder 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CNN reference, etc., etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.
Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning has been broadcast in the Finnish national TV.
Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
See BigDT's comment above. See also [17] (from Aamulehti, Valo-liite), [18] (Keskisuomalainen), [19] (Savon sanomat), [20] (Turun sanomat, treffi-liite), [21] (Helsingin sanomat), [22] (IT-viikko)
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Star Wreck is the most prominent representative of Finnish science fiction cinema.Punainen Nörtti 08:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say the series is notable primarily for spawning Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, it may be appropriate to merge it into that instead. -- Hawaiian717 19:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion
  • Keep per above. Seems to have plenty of mentions in media to be credible as an article. Voice of Treason 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - Mentions in magazines, and quite a bit of viral popularity in Finland and elsewhere. Easily among the more notable ST fan works. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mauro Bieg 08:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : absolutely intresting story behind the development of the series, and the last movie is absolutely worth being in Wikipedia Malo Supremo 10:55, 8 June 2006 (GMT) — page history shows this signature signed by 212.45.98.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Keep, one of the few examples of fan-created material that has become notable itself. Kusma (討論) 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A more obvious keep is hard to find. It is definatly notable with 270 000 google hits and mentions in established media. Jeltz talk 10:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, but any chance of putting those sources in the article? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Exeter[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the only media mention I see paging through google is Slashdot [23] ... there are tons of Google hits, but per WP:MEME, g-hits alone are not sufficient. So I say delete unless someone can find other evidence of notability. BigDT 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE AND REDIRECT to USS Exeter 70.51.8.60 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This has been noted in the fan community but is not as highly regarded as New Voyages or Star Wreck. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. -- GWO
  • Strong delete, as non-notable fancruft. "has been noted in the fan community" can be used to justify the inclusion of anything at all. It needs notability outside of a small collection of super-fans. - Motor (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This series is second only to New Voyages in production value and sports strong stories and original characters. JusticeCEO 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you seriously suggesting this home movie is known to all Star Trek fans? That's what your appeal to Guinness World Records is suggesting? It doesn't matter how big the superset is, a tiny subset of them is still a tiny group of people. -- GWO
  • Keep This is hardly "non-notable" having been featured in the Star Trek Fan Club Magazine, and recieved a lot of attention when it was first released. Their second film was written by TNG writer Dennis Bailey. Nick Cook 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable GassyGuy 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfic is rarely suitable for wikipedia articles... unlike Star Trek: Hidden Frontier which is minorly notable strictly for the fact that it has run 7 episodes seasons (typo), this series has produced a whopping 1 episode, with 1 more on the way. Nothing in the article or on this discussion qualifies this as worthy of an article.--Isotope23 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's really nothing in this article that makes it any more notable than any other fanfic. -- Kicking222 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable fan film. Vadder 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm afraid I don't see adequate evidence of notability, although I could be convinced otherwise. (Production values are not important.) References in mainstream or even entertainment publications would move it to a clear Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cinescape, Flak Magazine, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and USA Today have all published articles on Starship Exeter. I beleive there are others, but I can't recall them all off the top of my head. Nick Cook 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Kicking222; as music would fail WP:MUSIC, same for books, born, sport, &c. "Very notable fan film" is tautological in my idiolect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet more Trekcruft. Nowhere near notable outside a small circle of dedicated Trekkies. Seriously, there's got to be another Wiki for this sort of thing. Stop burdening the 'pedia with it. Reyk YO! 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as "silly". Or if that's not acceptabe, let's use the ohrase "non-notable fancruft". Vizjim 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable trekcruft Bwithh 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are good citations of "Cinescape, Flak Magazine, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and USA Today" articles about this production. If that level of verifiable proof can be established, I will change to keep. Ziggurat 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed vote to Keep per Flak magazine, Sci Fi Wire, IMDB, and especially the Star Tribune article (cached version here). This satisfies WP:V and WP:WEB. Ziggurat 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flak Magazine http://www.flakmag.com/film/exeternemesis.html Cinescape http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&obj_id=37390&type_id=270286&cat_id=270355&sub_id=0 Sci Fi Wire http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-01/07/08.30.fandom USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/hotsites/2003/2003-02-11-hotsites.htm There were other media outlets, but those links are no longer active. Nick Cook 06:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Criteria 1 of WP:WEB excludes "* Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." In addition, the NOTE associate with this WP:WEB criteria says: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." - Motor (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Minneapolis Star Tribune article was a major one, unfortunately it is no longer available online. The Star Trek Communicator article was a fairly extensive article, but that is only available in print. The St Paul Pioneer Press published an extensive article, but that is no longer available online either. All of these articles were written by persons "independant of the subject itself." It's had decent exposure, is fairly well known, and was so before New Voyages. Nick Cook 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the IMDB listings are easily found. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478893/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0466584/ Nick Cook 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep google search had over 28,000 hits and returned references in Flak Mag and IMDB listing. Flak mag was a review, not just publishing a project press release. It was also once the Sci-Fi channels site of the week. There were enough links to convince this is very well known within Star Trek fandom as well. It seems notable enough. Ace of Sevens 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per articles/listing in notable online and print publications TransUtopian 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As a TV writer/producer with credits on Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, The Dead Zone, Wildfire and other productions, I personally consider Starship Exeter to be the most notable and most professionally produced tribute series on the Internet. I know several professional Hollywood writers and producers who follow the series regularly (and eagerly await Act 3 of The Tressaurian Intersection). The production values are second to none. I personally prefer it over New Voyages. The project's notability certainly goes well beyond the fan community. - Eric A. Stillwell EStillwell 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - I have to wonder if we would be going through this if the words Star Trek weren't attached to the front of this article (and the other recent related AfD nominations), based on how much certain individuals are motoring around trying to justify legitimate press coverage as substandard or unacceptable. TheRealFennShysa 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Star Trek series. --JJay 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these guys were getting noticed long before the New Voyages people. DillPickle 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" - It is a thing done by people and is therefore worthy of note. I take exception to the people who think that using major publications as "justification". As an amateur screenwriter, I'll let you know that by saying you require some corporate newspaper or magazine to justify this for you, you're insulting tens of thousands of writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, et cetera, the world over who have never had their productions appear in some publication. James J. Champlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.29.3 (talk • contribs) 00:08, June 13, 2006
    • reply An impassioned statement here does nothing to affect notability and verifiability guidelines. If you dislike them, you need to take action elsewhere to combat them. — Mike • 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verifiability is a policy; as long as it is a policy it should be followed, even when consensus is against it. On the other hand, notability is just a guideline. That means that the community can come to a consensus to disregard it any time it sees fit. In this case, I don't even think we need to do that, since the subject of the nominated article is sufficiently notable to survive any reasonable challenge. Vadder 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query about the entire process Is there a Wikipedia policy against all non-professional films? If this entry is to be deleted for being a fan film, then ergo so much all other entries on such items. Or is it noteworthiness and existing media attention that are the criteria? Or is it that the article as written is not as informative as should be for an encyclopediac entry? I do not see as valid comparisons of the merit of the films in question to other fan films. Popularity and perceived quality are poor criteria for whether or not something is worthy for inclusion. -- M. Molyneaux 67.170.221.224 06:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People seem to be arguing about our notability guidelines, such as WP:WEB.--Chaser T 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see that it meets any of our notability guidelines. I'm also curious why all of these fan communities and articles don't do more work at Memory-Alpha and related projects. You'd earn less scorn and AfD's over there. If this has been discussed somewhere, I'd be eager to read it.--Chaser T 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should they be scorned - that's rather strong wording don't you think? Because they are fan films? Because they are Star Trek? Because they are given away for free so you can't affix a price to them? Because they publicly admit to being a minor infringement of Copyright and Trademark? Because the very real benefits they give the IP owners in return are ignored? Because they represent an embarrassing reminder of civil libertarian questions posed by electronic media?
    • ALL of those points make these fan films worthy of note NOT scorn. Oh, and Memory Alpha? They have started a page but it is in danger of AfD because they aren't Canon! You people are trying to bar us because we're too Trekkie and they're wanting to bar us because we aren't Trekie enough! it'd be funny if it didn't fly in the face of objectivity and fair dealing--Kirok of L'Stok 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, I didn't say the articles were worthy of scorn, I was just commenting on the votes in the many AfD's that were brought up a week ago. In any case, thanks for answering my question.--Chaser T 18:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even more non-notable fanfilms Deleuze 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do you mean that THIS fan film is non-notable or ALL fan films are non-notable. What makes you say that it is non-notable after reading the above? Which fan film is more notable than Starship Exeter in your opinion? You have seen it haven't you? Or are you condemning it sight unseen? I'd really like you to share your critique with us - As Gene Hendricks of "Tales of the Seventh Fleet" pointed out one time, fan film producers are used to getting negative feedback but it is welcome if it is specific so that improvements can be made.--Kirok of L'Stok 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this clearly fails WP:WEB in my mind. Deleuze 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How so? Please be specific. The people who are voting to keep this and all the other articles that have been bulk AfD'd are giving detailed and verifiable responses whereas the majority of the deletes are value judgements ("fancruft" indeed! <snort>) by people who are not backing them up with examples. What happened to verifiability? The least we can expect is that you will grace us with specific instances that we might see the error of our ways.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this AfD going to be closed soon? It appears to be a no consensus keep to me (I'm biased, obviously, as I voted keep!). Ziggurat 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By my rough count, 16 deletes, 14 keeps, 1 merge, 1 neutral as of the timestamp on this line. — Mike • 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope whoever tallies the votes will look into the posting histories of some voters. After a cursory inspection, a large number of those voting keep appear to have few or no votes outside of the recent crop of AfDs. Deleuze 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a concern of yours, it's not out of line for you to note it yourself. Just do it like this:
  • Person's Vote
    • this vote is this user's first edit
    • or
    • this is this user's 10th edit; the other 9 were also AfDs
    • or
    • whatever clerical note is appropriate — but should be worded completely neutrally
And so on. — Mike • 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. Could someone please explain what this has to do with the validity of a persons vote? Am I to infer that the vote of someone who has voted on many AfD's will be given more weight than the vote of someone who knows something about the subject? So that it is more important to be a scholar of Wikipedia than an expert on fan films? So that the opinion of, for example, Eric A. Stillwell "a TV writer/producer with credits on Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, The Dead Zone, Wildfire and other productions" will be given less weight than the honeourable Deleuze, who I am assuming from his post is a frequenter of AfD's? I can respect that there is a need for woodcutters in a forest but I most certainly hope that they will NOT be given any greater standing than those who plant and tend the forest. Is this Wikipedia policy? I know it is not a democracy, but gimme a break!--Kirok of L'Stok 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not straight votes. A lot of new or anonymous votes would indicate ballot stuffing. Please review WP:DEL and assume good faith. Deleuze 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith has nothing to do with it, I am talking logic here. I assumed that AfDs were not straight votes, however if this were so then it would mean that all this hoohaa about "ballot stuffing" would be background noise wouldn't it? This also means that Mike's countup of votes on 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) is useless. I can also assume that a vote that does not reference specific instances and examples to support it will be given less weight than one which does? Good! Then I feel that ayes have it! Since all we have had from the nays seem to be unreferenced and unsupported opinions like "this clearly fails WP:WEB in my mind." and the classic "Star Trek fancruft.". Unless you have some verifiable instances and not opinions?--Kirok of L'Stok 11:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the original Exeter production predates some of the more well known fanfilms out, but that should not diminish its significance. Unfortunately, since I am a newly registered user of Wikipedia after editing for years anonymously, some appear prepared to automatically discount my vote because I haven't been a member long enough. user:MDonfield
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

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


  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article itself makes two assertions of notability - it was shown at a major sci-fi convention and it was featured in a BBC documentary. BigDT 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The BBC documentary sold me. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, and not everything mentioned on TV needs to end up in Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's good enough to be in a BBC documentary, it's good enough to be called notable. joturner 04:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The {{afdnewbies}} template seems a bit pre-emptive and unnecessary. In fact, you're just asking for ballot-stuffing. joturner 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Votes have been solicited — diff link is in the edit description. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment So wipe the comment off the talk page - heck, I'll do it myself BigDT 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, this doesn't seem particularly notable. JIP | Talk 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. BBC notability claim unsourced and dubious. -- GWO
  • Delete, not notable, per GWO. - Motor (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tepid Delete - does not appear to be overly notable, especially when compared to more notable fan films. --Mhking 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfic is rarely suitable article material, and this is no exception.--Isotope23 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • inactive on Wikipedia since February - all new contibutions have been only in currect crop of Trek AfDs
  • Delete, fancruft, if BBC featured that film, sources is needed, non-notable after all. --Terence Ong 14:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep BBC mention + its was mentioned on Futurama. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm in the process of researching a documentary on the fanfilm genre, and this film is one of the more popular films from the pre-WWW era - that alone is going to make showing some of these early references (such as an article on the film I saw in Starlog back in the late 80s) difficult, since the film was made in 1988, and essentially predates the World Wide Web. However, some Usenet references to the BBC airing are here and here. The film is definitely notable. TheRealFennShysa 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-known fan film. Everybody I know in fan circles has heard of it. Vadder 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't a fan circle, it's an encyclopedia— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New user - sole contributions have been initiating or voting in fan-related AfDs
  • Keep. Won a film festival. That's all it needs. Kafziel 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It didn't. It won a film award at a SciFi convention. Big difference. -- GWO
That's not a big difference at all. It's an independent, notable convention. More than enough. Kafziel 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sci-fi convention = film festival? Sorry kids, that math just doesn't work...--Isotope23 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. The SciFi convention is notable, but its film program may not be, and the BBC reference is unsourced and does not apparently appear on google. (Google groups doesn't count.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see why it shouldn't, since it was a public post made by the film director, who would have known. There's some corroboration here, matching up with the description in Johnson's 1996 post mentioning the special, although the BBC catalogue doesn't list everything included in the special. TheRealFennShysa 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if those sources aren't acceptable for reliability, they should still be acceptable for establishing notability. Vadder 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a short clip on "Star Trek Night" on BBC2 does not establish notability, that would, at least, have meant showing the whole thing (and I'm more than happy to accept usenet as a reliable source in this instance). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete- more Trekcruft. Slightly less non-notable than other Trekcruft nominated recently, but still not encyclopedic in my opinion. Reyk YO! 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete silly nonnotable trekcruft Bwithh 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. - Hahnchen 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets the guidelines for inclusion. DillPickle 21:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn cruft Deleuze 14:09, 14 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) 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Seventh Fleet (second nomination)[edit]

(See also, first AFD)

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Is "fancruft" a valid reason for deletion? I don't remember seeing it in any of the wiki articles about the deletion process. Enquiring minds, and all that. JusticeCEO 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of these experts will answer your question Gene, I'll take a stab at it ..."It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.
Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." So Is this ...
  • poorly written?
  • unreferenced?
  • unwikified?
  • non-neutral?
  • violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research?
    I think not--Kirok of L'Stok 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nobody voting to keep on the first AFD gave any evidence of notability and googling, I find no media mentions whatsoever and mostly self-generated hits. BigDT 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not encyclopedic, and notability should not be inherited from Star Trek. Erik the Rude 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, doesn't seem particularly notable either. JIP | Talk 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN fancruft compared to others. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- GWO
  • Delete, not-notable. Move it to Memory Alpha if it isn't already there. - Motor (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is series is tied for having the 2nd most episodes out after Hidden Frontier. It is also the only one made by members of a Star Trek fan club, making it notable. JusticeCEO 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... for very small values of "notable" -- GWO
      • Sorry, I probably should have said "Notable amoung fan films." My apologies. JusticeCEO 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, You said that about all the rest as well. What specifically about this article is wrong?--Kirok of L'Stok 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is just as deserving as other fanfilms to be listed. Two films produced and third on the way. The Justice production team are the little ship that could. They have a dedicated following of fans, and their efforts should not simply be dismissed as fancruft. Nick Cook 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable GassyGuy 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Delete and merge" is an impossible vote. If the info is merged, the original article becomes a redirect. -- Kicking222 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fancruft. -- Kicking222 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfic is rarely suitable material for an article. Nothing distingusishes this project enough to make it worthy of an article.--Isotope23 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte, fancruft. --Terence Ong 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In order to follow the WP:WEB guidelines, I have added various links to independant websites where TotSF is mentioned. I believe this fullfills Criteria #1. JusticeCEO 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, having gone through the list of links that you added, you seem to have overlooked the "non-trivial published works" bit of that requirement (and one of them is a 404 not found). - Motor (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Please define non-trivial for me. Certainly Trek Today, Memory Alpha and Trek United are not non-trivial websites. JusticeCEO 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, that's exactly what they are. Are you really suggesting that inclusion in Memory Alpha should qualify something for wikipedia? *Bashes head against desk repeatedly*. -- GWO
          • Comment - No, I'm just saying that I don't know what is meant by non-trivial. By my standards, those sources are anything but trivial where the Star Trek Universe (of which this article is part) is concerned, but I don't know what the wiki definition is. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. JusticeCEO 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is entirely notable within the universe of fan-created film series.

--NJHeathen 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:WEB is not the right standard, the article is about the product, and in that case films, books, music and porn are the yardsticks; this product's twin wouldn't pass any of those standards for keepness, and the article doesn't even make any claim of notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per Angus McLellan. Reyk YO! 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others above Deleuze 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:RadioKirk --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan hcp[edit]

I'm not sure about this one. The clan is certainly not incredibly notable. Are there any guidelines on whether or not pc-game clans should be included ? Travelbird 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Generaly speaking clans or other online groups are not notable. There would have to be some significant and independed press coverage for us to have sources to write an article about them. --Hetar 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although it seems that this discussion is still open, the article has been deleted. Would anyone care to explain why? ---Charles 04:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Radiokirk deleted it and stated 'WP:NOT MySpace'. I guess he speedy deleted under criterion A7. Will an admin please close this AfD? - Richardcavell 05:26, 6 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: with a clear consensus that this subject does not deserve its own article but not quite enough to merit outright deletion, merged into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier. Follow the redirect back if any more information than what I merged is desired for that article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voyages of the USS Angeles[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier - this topic obviously is not notable in and of itself, but it's probably worth a paragraph in the other article if indeed the other project was the successor to this one. BigDT 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, per above. JRP 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The things that members of a Star Trek fan club do to amuse themselves has to be one of the worst article topics I've ever heard of. I've seen more encyclopedic stuff speedily deleted. Erik the Rude 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only an influential fanfilm series, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. Also, merge was discussed previously, with a consensus to keep as a separate article. MikeWazowski 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- GWO
  • Delete, not-notable... and enough with the accusations of bad faith please. Trying to bias an AFD by throwing around accusations like that is itself bad faith. There are large chucks of Wikipedia populated by articles created by fans on the most trivial subjects... we need regular sweeps through it to examine whether each article justified. - Motor (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While this is a precursor to "Hidden Frontier" it was not made by the same people and is completely independant, thus deserving it's own page. JusticeCEO 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier.Delete, upon further reflection... a fan made film that is not even available to the public doesn't really merit a merge. Though if anyone wished to mention at Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, that would be acceptible. --Isotope23 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft, non-notable. --Terence Ong 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on past discussions. Merge was discussed several months ago, but consensus was to keep as separate article. TheRealFennShysa 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, then merge into Star Trek (Fan made productions)— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier. Not clearly WP:V, but if Hidden Frontier is to be kept (as it should be), this deserves a paragraph. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the number of trekkies does not make trekcruft any less crufty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral While I'm not opposed to keeping this one, I do agree there's an argument for merging it with the Hidden Frontier article. The information should be retained in some form though. Nick Cook 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looks pretty unverifiable if the series was never redistributed beyond members. --maru (talk) contribs 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per the others. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- A fan film that nobody is ever going to get to see. That's about as non-notable as anything can ever possibly get. Reyk YO! 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Deleuze 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck Asskicker[edit]

How many of the Deletes on this page are just Bots?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • About as many as the keeps. How many of the deletes on this page come from long-term contributors who contribute on more than one subject, as opposed to single-TV-show pressure groups? -- GWO
I have no idea, but I would expect someone of such exalted stature to be able to give us exact and concise reasons for their opinions instead of computer-generated comments. Could you explain the logic of why the opinion of a "long-term contributor who contributes on more than one subject" is of more weight than a member of a "single-TV-show pressure group" or to be more precise, a fan. Do you perhaps have something against fandom and the encyclopedic knowledge that we have on our subject? Because in the absence of citations that is all you are giving us - an opinion.--Kirok of L'Stok 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want reasons why someone who contributes only on Star Trek might not be the best judge of the global importance and notability of all things Star Trek? Does this really need spelling out? -- GWO
Do I weally have to ask again? I don't think a long-term contributor has any greater logical facility and certainly not a greater knowledge of the subject. I think that's why they call them fans, y'know.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Erik the Rude above SJennings 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fanfic is rarely suitable material for wikipedia articles and this is no exception. A merge to Star Wreck is also an option. Also, User:Kirok needs to read WP:AFG before making unfounded, unsupported, accustions of bot usage.--Isotope23 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be right and it could be an accident that certain users use the exact same wording on every AfD. Mind you we could have different definitions of a Bot since WCityMike has pointed out that this Monobook thingy is a commonly used tool. Pity my most sophisticated tool is cut & paste. If your definition of a Bot is an automated programme that does multiple posts without further human intervention, then yes, I was out of line. Just how many keystokes does it take to create an AfD with one of these Monobook whatsis anyway? More than ten? Less than three? Enquiring minds want to know, unless its a secret? If this is not the place for my enquiry perhaps you could tell me where and who to ask? I weally, weally want to know.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I can't help you there. I do everything the old fashioned way; i.e. type it out, even if I say nearly the same thing every time... and since I hate to code, I never have messed with any customization.--Isotope23 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, this one is not notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nearly speedy. No assertion of notability. Possible merge into Star Wreck, if that's kept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; article makes no claims to notability as already noted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the ultimately unanswerable beauteous genius that is Erik the Rude's argument. Vizjim 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, despite what the keep vote has identically said for every last star trek fan article on wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 03:36, 7 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) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Trek[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

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


  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks like a non-notable web comic. No real syndication, no alexa rank, and no reliable sources. --Hetar 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - plenty of self-generated hits, but no evidence of notability ... please note that while the words "stone trek" show up in a handful of news articles, none of them are talking about this comic BigDT 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I call it as I see it - had you bothered to bring this up on a talk page, you might have had your concerns addressed before going on a wholesale deletion rampage. In the Trek community, these films you've targeted are notable, and those that AREN'T have already gone by the wayside in AfDs of their own. Now, to Stone Trek specificially, a Google search beings back over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series - it's obviously been talked about. SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [24], featured on G4TechTV [25], and is widely regarded as one of the better Flash cartoon series on the web. MikeWazowski 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment Well, that's really the point, isn't it? Any article is cherished enough to its own particular community (or WikiProject), and I'm sure in some sections of Trek fandom, various Flash videos and fan films are quite important to you. But AfD asks the Wikipedia community as a whole to comment. If these articles are truly as important as you say they are, then certainly they can stand and pass a consensus decision on notability on their own two legs. Now, as I'm rather sick of the ad hominem attacks, I'm off to go on a wholesale sleeping rampage. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - changing my opinion to keep based on MikeWazowski's links to media mentions of this cartoon BigDT 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see it as Wikipedia's mission to document every webcomic out there. There must be other Wikis for this sort of thing. Reyk YO! 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable web comic. JIP | Talk 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- GWO
  • Strong delete not-notable. A double whammy of flashcruft and trekcruft... and it fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable GassyGuy 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is THE trek parody cartoon on the net. Worth keeping just for the "Star Trekkin'" episode. JusticeCEO 11:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as both a fan-produced Star Trek parody, and as a flash-based web cartoon. --Mhking 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is nitpicky as hell, I know, but it's a flash cartoon, not a webcomic. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SJennings 14:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • inactive on Wikipedia since February - all new contibutions have been only in currect crop of Trek AfDs
  • Delete, flash cartoon that does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would suggest some people actually read the standards for WP:WEB - the SciFi.com and G4 references Wazowski linked, along with a plug from William Shatner's official site, easily satisfy condition #1. For condition #3, distribution independent of the creators, I found this and this for starters - all easily satisfying WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I guess it all depends on how you want to interpret "non-trivial" from condition #1, and "...well known..." from condition #3. Personally, I don't think it meets either criteria.--Isotope23 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn and fancruft. --Terence Ong 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at the moment, does not appear to be notable -- Tawker 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trekcruft— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New user - sole contributions have been initiating or voting in fan-related AfDs
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB, even without the star trek connection. new vote below — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Hetar, NN webcomic; User:TheRealFennShysa's sites don't seem like notability to me per WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just out of curiosity, if being hosted on one of the largest Flash sites on the internet, plus (using Wazowski's links above) an article on the website of one major American cable network and story on another established cable network aren't good enough for you, what is? TheRealFennShysa 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A (paid, not free press) newspaper or general readership magazine review or interview would do me. If it's a notable production, it'll make the real papers rather than being limited to the incestuous, self-referential slashdotty world of skiffydom, flash animation and webfads. Otherwise it's no more notable than the work of film students. Given the self-selection bias issues of voters and the excessive reliance on Googling, I think it's only fair to demand much higher standards of notability for web-related cruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Angus McLellan. Site of the Week? That's about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award. Which is to say, it isn't. - Hahnchen 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (into Star Trek (Fan made productions)) or Delete without prejudice unless notability is asserted in the article. The site may meet WP:WEB, but the article doesn't at the present time, nor for any revision that I've found this year. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's times like these, when an absolutely non-notable "production company" with no verifiable credits and NO Google returns survives an AfD, and yet something clearly notable within a community with legitmate references get hammered as "cruft", that I really wonder what's going on here. Just because you don't like the fact that an article has valid references is no reason to discount them or discredit them. MikeWazowski 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That example was an incredibly poor close. The outcome of that result is incorrect. How an AFD with what seems to be no keep votes is classed as no-consensus I cannot understand. - Hahnchen 04:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets the criteria for inclusion, from what I've read. It's a very funny series, and clearly has a following. DillPickle 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flash fanfilms are not notable. Deleuze 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly, people disagree - see this category for a whole mess of "non-notable" (including several actual on-air TV series) Flash cartoons... TheRealFennShysa 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flash fanfilms are not notable? You perhaps have a resource that backs that personal opinion up? Since you have chosen to base your vote on a generalisation, I shall address those generalisations in my rebuttal. Fan films are certainly notable, as can be seen from this article[26] in The Guardian. Flash fan films in the Star Trek genre are a bit thin on the ground, "Stone Trek" is definately the leader, however newcomers like Chad Troftgruben, who hit the topical bone with "Enterprise Flashed" and "Ahoyager"[27], and John Hazard's[28] "Starship Exeter, the Animated Odyssey"[29]are making a mark. But of course your generalisation was that ALL flash fan films are not notable! Including the 2003 "Run Lieia Run" (which won awards in two film festivals), the Star Dudes films? Perhaps you are talking about "Broken Saints"[30] or "Xombie" which is arguably the best of the current crop scoring interviews in Fangoria[31], Rue Morgue[32], Horror Movies Online[33], Movies Online[34] and Newgrounds Mag [35]. Still not enough? How about the news of a movie deal[36]? Once again though, perhaps your experience as a Wikipedia scholar has given you insights into Flash fan films that a mere fan has missed, eh? Could you enlighten us?--Kirok of L'Stok 03:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Marchant[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 keep – Gurch 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuli Torssonen[edit]

  • Delete. Vanity article, non-notable bio, Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable. Erik the Rude 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directed the most popular movie ever made in Finland, and one of the biggest internet phenomenons and downloads of 2005. Absolutely notable. MikeWazowski 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment No reference in article to above claims. — WCityMike (T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • the most popular movie ever made in Finland What was its box-office gross? Was it more than The Man Without a Past or Leningrad Cowboys Go America? --Calton | Talk 07:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a film that was never released to theaters, you know as well as I do there is no box office gross, and as such, that qualifier is useless. However, this is from the Star Wrek: In the Pirkinning article: Within two months of the movie's Internet release, it was estimated that more than 2.9 million copies of the movie had been downloaded from the official site alone. In comparison, the most popular Finnish movie, Edvin Laine's The Unknown Soldier (1955) has a theatre attendance figure of 2.8 million (which, of course, doesn't include TV screenings, video sales and rentals from the past 50 years). The film's service provider, Magenta sites, reported over 2 petabytes of data transfers and estimated that actual amount of downloads, including all mirrors, would be in the range of 3.5 to 4 million. [37] - There's your reference, with documented links. TheRealFennShysa 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep or Merge into the main Star Wreck article. If he has no notability outside of his creation of Star Wreck, then I'm not sure that he really needs a full bio - merging useful content is sufficient. BigDT 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm seeing a lot of hyperbole with these things. Tychocat 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable person, well-written article. What's with all this hatred of Star Trek? JIP | Talk 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
  • Merge into Star Wreck and delete. Re: JIP's comment. Clearing out non-notable fancruft from Wikipedia does not equal hating Star Trek. - Motor (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Star Wreck for now (or keep). May merit a separate article in the future, but for now he is only known for the series. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only reference on IMDB is to the Star Wreck fan movie. If that article is kept per previous VfD merge this article into that. SJennings 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wazowski. And Comment to WCityMike: I'd suggest you reread the articles you're nominating - I quote from this article: After 2 weeks of its release the movie had been downloaded over 1.5 million times, so it could be one of the most watched Finnish movies, especially outside Finland. The article needs to be updated, but the info is there. TheRealFennShysa 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Directed the most popular v. could be one of the = the difference. Lack of cites to same = WP:V = the difference. "Biggest Internet phenomenons and downloads of 2005" = no reference for same = WP:V = the difference. — WCityMike (T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-fan/cruft-maker— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mentioned here[38]. That barely slips on WP:BIO Yanksox 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Star Wreck? (I don't think the additional movies deserve separate articles, so that he should go there.) Alternately, keep. per Yanksox. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MikeWazowski. Note he is also working on Iron Sky which appears to be non-Star Wreck related (and needs to be mentioned in this article). -- Hawaiian717 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Yanksox; article needs TLC as it's rather effusive at present. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Not quite abstaining, but I don't feel it needs a deletion. Either keeping or redirecting/merging, I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculously strong keep. Are you kidding me? He produced, starred in, made the special effects for and edited what is most likely the most popular movie to ever come out of Finland. (It has already been downloaded at least 3.5 million times, as reported in Helsingin Sanomat, the largest Finnish newspaper about six months ago -- I wasn't able to track down how many more times it's been downloaded since then.) Yes, it's free to download from the internet, but that's not really the point; I think he easily passes WP:BIO on the "Multiple features in [...] national newspapers" front; the movie and Torssonen himself have gotten a lot of coverage in Finland. He's been on national TV more than once. He was just recently featured on the popular and influential Finnish IT business web publication digitoday.fi over the deal his production company made with HP. He gets over 40 000 Google hits (and his movie gets over six million of them). I mean, what exactly are we debating here? This is not some guy in a garage who makes a five-minute clip of crappy lightsaber combat for TheForce.net, he's pretty much responsible for a minor (inter)national phenomenon. Seriously. -- Captain Disdain 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you have to understand he doesn't work for Paramount. JIP | Talk 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither does Aki Kaurismäki, so I fail to understand the relevance of that comment. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was being sarcastic. The point was to illustrate that film directors should not be automatically considered non-notable just because they work independently and not for a major international studio. JIP | Talk 07:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I want to be absolutely clear on this -- the national significance is pretty big, here, and I don't think Americans or Brits really understand this unless I elaborate. Internationally, Torssonen is not a huge name, of course, and I'm not going to pretend that he's a household name in Finland, either. But as far as WP:BIO's requirements go, this one's a cinch. There's really no argument. He absolutely meets the criteria therein, as far as the publicity requirement goes. The "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" criterion is also fairly applicable, since his work is getting a relatively wide international audience -- previously, Finnish films have been internationally known for Aki Kaurismäki, and that's really just about it. Obviously, that's not registering at all on the Hollywood scale, but when it comes to Finland, that international audience is extremely significant on a number of levels, and it has certainly been noted as such in the media. I realize that a lot of people consider the film a crappy Trek parody, but quality is not the issue here at all. To compare him to, say, the thousands of Americans who make parodies or fan films that never really make a blip on the radar is just uninformed. If, say, Kevin Rubio (whose inclusion nobody really contests, I would imagine; at least that article has never been up for AfD) had been featured on CNN and Fox News, and Troops had been aired on a national American TV channel and gotten, say, in excess of fifty million viewers who then, went to work the next day and debated whether the movie was as good as Citizen Kane and representative of American moviemaking to foreigners, that would be a comparable level of fame... even if the general public couldn't really remember or care who Kevin Rubio was a couple of years later. Tempest in a teapcup, absolutely. But in a country that has a population of only about five million, shit like this just doesn't happen every week. Not even every decade. -- Captain Disdain 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Famous in Finland, Captain Disdain raises a good argument. JRP 14:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captain Disdain. Furthermore, I see no evidence of vanity here. That sort of accusation should never be made without some serious proof. --JJay 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not vanity, vanity. — Mike •  01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take that as a bit of a vanity post since everyone here is aware of the guideline pages, particularly the unintentionally humorous and largely misbegotten vanity guideline. Instead of evasion,User WCityMike, why not expand on the reasoning behind your vanity claims? --JJay 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to know too. From all the information given in this AfD discussion, the reason could just as well be "I haven't heard of him", or "He's a fan". Could you give a specific, detailed explanation on why you think this article was written by Torssonen himself or a friend of his? JIP | Talk 11:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm starting to have a feeling that if Torssonen's film hadn't been a Star Trek parody, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There are articles about smaller, less-known, not professionally funded indie film projects on Wikipedia, and no one is complaining about them. But I guess reading the words "Star Trek fan" triggers a reaction towards fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Star Wreck, his source of notability. Kusma (討論) 00:40, 10 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 in some form - considerable consensus for merging, but as that would require a different article structure I haven't attempted it myself. Merge tags added. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck 4½: Weak Performance[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please see my comments about Star Wreck (link to AFD)- there are plenty of mainstream media articles about this series, including CNN. [39] It's unquestionably notable. BigDT 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck, if that one survives the AFD. Otherwise, delete. JRP 03:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic, even if it was on CNN. CNN runs 24 hours a day, and they have to fill time somehow. Erik the Rude 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable movie. JIP | Talk 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
  • Merge with Star Wreck and Delete. They made this as a small test before making another film? So utterly not-notable. - Motor (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck. "In the Pirkinning" is currently the only film in the series that merits a separate article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SJennings 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck (or delete if Star Wreck does not survive it's own AfD).--Isotope23 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Isotope23 . — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck. Only Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning is notable enough for its own article. -- Hawaiian717 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete+Merge Star Wreck may be notable, BigDT, but a small little test movie for it is NOT. Really, only episodes for major TV series should ever see the light of a separate article, and even then.... fancruft. Kevin_b_er 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck per abovePunainen Nörtti 09:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same reasoning as Star Wreck would be kept - real media mentions, quite well known in Finland and elsewhere. Though I have to say that I'm on a bit more vague grounds here; this definitely wasn't the high point of the series and certainly not the most popular and well-made one. At worst, this is Mergeable material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Star Wreck, does not need an article of its own per Ilmari Karonen. Kusma (討論) 00:49, 10 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please see my comments about Star Wreck (link to AFD)- there are plenty of mainstream media articles about this series, including CNN. [40] It's unquestionably notable. BigDT 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck, unless that one also doesn't survive the AFD, otherwise delete. However, the sum of the Star Wreck articles would seem to be notable. JRP 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, very notable movie. Why this Holy War against fiction? JIP | Talk 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
  • Merge, with Star Wreck. - Motor (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Star Wreck. 3-4 million downloads reported, award winner, on IMDB, shown on television (not in the US but this is not Americapedia I think), many mentions in newspapers. This is not a couple of guys messing around with a camcorder like your average fan film. I think merge+redirect is perfectly reasonable too since there is only one movie in the series so far. Weregerbil 10:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, there is more than one movie. Only one of them is full-length and with professional quality, though. JIP | Talk 10:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not fancruft: download statistics and being shown on national television clearly indicate interest beyond hardcore Star Trek fans. Well written article about a notable free content indie film; nomination makes about as much sense as calling Spaceballs "Star Wars fancruft". Merge would be (barely) acceptable, but I see no harm in having distinct articles — we're not paying by the article count here. (Disclaimer: I own an official copy of "In the Pirkinning". I don't watch Star Trek, though.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Star Wreck if that article survives VfD. I really don't believe every single Trek fanfilm ever created merits its own Wikipedia article. SJennings 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not "every single Trek fanfilm". Do you know any other Trek fanfilm that has had 1.5 million downloads, has been mentioned in a country-wide newspaper, has been mentioned in TV news even in foreign countries, and has been shown on national TV? I have said it before, but one more time: just because it's done by fans does not automatically mean it has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Star Wreck or delete if Star Wreck does not survive its own AfD.--Isotope23 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck, since this is a fan show, only one article is needed for the time being. --Terence Ong 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Star Wreck. (Could go either way.) Meets WP:WEB, if nothing else. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep aired on Finnish TV, features professional actors, followed by national media. -- Hawaiian717 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep alone, clearly demonstrates notability.  Grue  19:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck. The contents of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning and Star Wreck overlap considerably.Punainen Nörtti 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going to be merging Samuli Torssonen and all the other minor Star Wreck articles into Star Wreck, as the emerging consensus seems to be, the article will grow considerably and will require a major rewrite. Tossing Pirkinning into the mix wouldn't IMHO be a very good fit. The redundancy could (and should) be eliminated in the process. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not yet convinced that we actually need two articles. Also the articles on Samuli Torssonen and the 4 1/2 film repeat the same facts that can already be found on Star Wreck and In the Pirkinning article. The extra information in In the Pirkinning article not found in the other articles consists of detailed trivia on characters, spaceships and sometimes even explanation of the jokes of the movie. IMHO a part of that could be deleted, for example I doubt that we need the detailed analysis of the Kari Grandi joke in the article. I still suspect that after rewrite the current material amounts to one good article, but of course I'd be glad to see two good articles.Punainen Nörtti 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We definitely do not need a detailed analysis of how Finnish culture glorifies drunkenness in the article. I've already written an article on the original Kari Grandi commercials, this should suffice as an explanation. JIP | Talk 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Say what you will about other SW articles, SW:ITP was a phenomenally successful and a well-known movie for above-cited reasons. This was a Major Event for Finnish Cinema. =) And anyway, as noted above, this article is pretty extensive, and would be really, really difficult to merge to Star Wreck anyway. Can't really hurt to have an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hate fancruft as much as the next editor and probably more than most, but this ain't fancruft. If you want to do Wikipedia a favour, go nominate something like Star Wars Republic 76: The Siege of Saleucami (and the other several dozen articles in that series on individual non-notable issues of a non-notable comic). That's fancruft. — Haeleth Talk 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have to disagree a little - the comic seems to be notable, but individual issues of it are not. JIP | Talk 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most viewed finnish film of all time, and a milestone in open content distribution. Hohenberg 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the examples for notable fan created content, also for meeting WP:WEB. Kusma (討論) 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep StarWreck is very notable in every aspect, plus it did Finnish movie history, with over 3 milj. viewers world-wide. It is very big thing, because those guys did that only for fun and hobby, not for money - i think that is notable. And we should respect that!-Solarius 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly notable enough. --KFP 22:15, 15 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 -- Longhair 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog[edit]

Wikipedia's guidelines on websites Teke 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable website. Boarderline BJAODN. --Ezeu 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. C'mon, G—, we're trying to write an encyclopedia here. Choess 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delelete a blog entry about a nn blog. Probably the next step is for the Blog to comment on the AfD and that to get another self-reference article written about it - Peripitus (Talk) 03:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha. Are you Jimmy Shmitts? NO ONE REALLY KNOWS, according to the article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the ... delete BigDT 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability of the website to which this article refers aside, that article is indecipherable garbage. I would hope that the quality of writing on the blog is better, but who the hell knows. ---Charles 04:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tachyon01 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems mainly to constitute unsubstantiated information from a fan. David L Rattigan 08:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not funny enough to be BJAODN. --Bachrach44 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, also seems to be too POV. —Mets501talk 17:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per the resounding consensus above. I'd have tagged this for speedy nonsense if it weren't already AFD'd. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was tagged speedy briefly, removed by the author. Other people were fiddling with the article, so I just AfD'd it to get concensus. Teke 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete per WP:WEB and common sense. --Strothra 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There is nothing about this article that should merit the courtesy of an AfD. --EngineerScotty 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic and fails WP:WEB Eluchil404 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone... This is an embarrassment to all Americans against the war. Grandmasterka 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spoiler warning part really clinches this as a BJAODN candidate. Do that. Grandmasterka 05:22, 8 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 15:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cawley[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft -- non-ST material is non-notable and brief. Possible speedy delete under WP:BIO. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge in with the main Star Trek: New Voyages article. Also, please note that there are a TON of news hits right now for James Cawley, but they are talking about a marine who was killed in Iraq - a different person. BigDT 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as not at all notable. Erik the Rude 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- GWO
  • Delete, not notable fails WP:BIO. - Motor (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, per BigDT. Not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO by a mile also WP:V issues with claimed notability ("reputed to be one of the best Elvis impersonators in the United States" needs more than link to IMDB). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge in with the main Star Trek: New Voyages article. Not noteable at this stage . Ghostieguide 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Star Wreck, if the writers of that article didn't feel it necessary to mention what the equivalent of Starfleet was, neither do I, and there's no other content to merge here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-Fleet[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main Star Wreck article ... there's no way this merits its own article BigDT 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Star Wreck isn't notable, so this surely isn't. Isn't there some way this could be speedy deleted? Erik the Rude 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough one but I say Merge because this doesn't have enough for its own article but it can be used as added information OTAKU 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Star Wreck. Not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
  • Delete... for the love of God... delete this. A fictional organisation in a fan film. - Motor (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Not much to merge there, actually. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SJennings 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Star Wreck.--Isotope23 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Star Wreck. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the eldritch horror of a cruftstub related to a trekfanfilm proves that there are things that man was not meant to know; and also because it's very much not notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 6 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 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander la Zouche[edit]

The information on the page was originally taking from an early genealogy book on the famous Greene family of Rhode Island, endeavoring to prove their descent from English nobility. The earlier parts of the pedigree are, unfortunately, riddled with errors, and there's no good reason to believe this particular individual, aka Alexander de Greene de Boketon, ever existed. Choess 03:03, 6 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 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Bash[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as it stands does not meet WP:V and I've run more impressive sounding Sci-Fi conventions that certainly don't deserve an entry here. non-notable - Peripitus (Talk) 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... no evidence of notability or sources with which to expand the article ... and I fail to see how the term "Star Trek fancruft" is appropriate here ... BigDT 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a completely non-notable organization. This probably could be speedy deleted, as notability is not even asserted. Erik the Rude 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Tachyon01 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn -- GWO
  • Delete, not notable. - Motor (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SJennings 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy. (Not notable even within star trek fandom.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability, no claims of notability, no sources, no future. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:RadioKirk [41]. BigDT 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maquis Forces International[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article claims it "is the first completely Internet-based Star Trek fan organization" which would demonstrate at least some historical significance, but the claim is not backed up or referenced. Markeer 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability and does not meet WP:WEB as far as I can tell ...
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Erik the Rude 03:50, 6 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 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCIP[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft (although perhaps borderline due to age of organization). — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability BigDT 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no way this is notable. Erik the Rude 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn -- GWO
  • Delete, can't find any evidence of notability outside of a few fans. - Motor (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not delete, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.24 (talk • contribs) 19:04, June 9, 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Perhaps there could be an encyclopedic article on Star Trek simming (currently Star Trek (simming) is a redirect to Simming). This article would be a good starting point for that, but for now its barely encyclopedic. There should be no prejudice to including appropriate quantities of this content in such an article. Vadder 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warp 11[edit]

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft -- possible speedy delete under {{db-band}}. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Allmusic lists 2 of the 3 albums but the label ( reboot ) I cannot find leading me to believe that they are a very small independant label - Peripitus (Talk) 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep only because the article refers to having songs performed on Dr. Demento and appearing in a documentary, which negates {{db-band}} by showing at least some significance. Markeer 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BAND says that media mentions are a criterion ... [42] [43] BigDT 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Erik the Rude 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep some parts should be included in article OTAKU 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable band. JIP | Talk 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn -- GWO
  • Delete, fan band. The allmusic listing isn't much help and I can't find any real evidence that it sneaks through WP:MUSIC. - Motor (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC press citations listed in this discussion are too minor to apply.--Isotope23 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This band might not be quite notable enough on it's own, but this information ought to be kept somewhere. Any band with Kiki Stockhammer, Play, Inc.'s well-known spokesperson in the 90's, should be noted somewhere in this encyclopedia. Vadder 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, so copy the information into Trekkies 2 or Star Trek fandom... but this article should be banished. - Motor (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd remove it from either of those articles myself; why would an article about a documentary or about a subgroup of fandom record the names of members of a band? If it doesn't fit here, then unless we're prepared to have an article called Star Trek themed bands (which would be speedied about five minutes after it was created), then we should keep this article here. This information fits here or nowhere. Vadder 05:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BigDt.--Pokipsy76 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Deleuze 14:17, 14 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 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sensenbrenner[edit]

Despite vast claims to notability, '"Ryan Sensenbrenner" saxophone' only brings up 5 Google hits, one to his personal website where he declines to give personal information (such as where he is performing and what recordings he has done, hmmmmm), and the others posts to various forums. '"Ryan Sensenbrenner" saxophonist' brings up four. Again, no information as to where he has performed. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 6 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) 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Fleet (second nomination)[edit]

(See also first AFD)

  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Hayter's comments on the first AFD BigDT 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Editing can be article in this encyclopedia with some minor changes OTAKU 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a keep? - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gaming clans are routinely speedily deleted. I don't see how this is any different. Erik the Rude 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Such gaming clans are speedy deleted based on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Specifically, standard A7 says that speedy deletion is permissible for "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This article asserts its importance based on it being (1) long-running and (2) having 1500 members. I would suggest reading the first AFD as there are plenty of comments in there about this organization's notability. BigDT 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn -- GWO
  • Delete It may be old and well-populated, but it's still not nootable. GassyGuy 10:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. References are all to their own website, with one to a web forum post that appears broken. Not notable and Wikipedia is not a fan listing. - Motor (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too crufty and NN Ydam 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor and as recreation of previously deleted stuff. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable. --Mhking 12:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gaming clans are not suitible material for Wikipedia articles.--Isotope23 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article for what appears to be a splinter from this group, Obsidian Fleet, is also in Wikipedia. If Bravo Fleet is deleted, I imagine Obsidian may need to go in its footsteps. I will leave it to somebody else to judge, though. GassyGuy 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. --Terence Ong 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB and, per Isotope23, WP:NOT for gaming clans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments in the first afd. Why has it been renominated now? Isn't there a rule about providing reason with nominations? Even if not, in response to Angus McLellan it doesn't fail WP:WEB. That page says a site is notable if it meets any of the mentioned criteria. BF has been the subject of discussion in at least one printed non-fiction book, and its creator has been interviewed on Internet radio alongside one of the Enterprise actors. BF claims to have been awarded 115 website awards. And then there's the subsidiary groups, websites and forums. Individually, they're not worthy of note but coupled together (as they are) under one banner they are. Perhaps the article needs rewording to reflect this, but that's not grounds for deletion. - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who hasn't checked the old nomination, my original comments run thus: I've just finished looking at some similar afd's (one of which was nominated by myself), have checked the Bravo Fleet site and forums and have reconsidered my position. First, Bravo Fleet (the website) merely serves as a hub for the simming group itself. The majority of 'business' conducted concerning the group is not seen here. I don't mean the emails that relay back and forth with any co-maintained website, but this. Bravo Fleet rules state that every individual game must have its own website. Looking at the group's posted stats, that's 186 websites. Add to this forums and posting groups and the numbers suddenly shoot up. We can't measure the combined visibility of these websites and they probably don't deserve their own articles, but there's no denying they add to the totals presented for Bravo Fleet, given that they are subserviant to it. As well as this, on Wikipedia's notability page for websites, it is stated that with regards to (sign up & read) forums, that a total post count totalling three times the user count is 'good.' The BF forums have a post count that is 64 times the member count. Now I feel this method of judgement is somewhat lacking, but Wikipedia adheres to it and so it should be considered. The page also cites An established comic or site which has set a trend eg. Bob and George, while not the first sprite comic, did inspire many others. This seems to fit Bravo Fleet rather accurately. It was not the first Star Trek RPG group (its own history confirms that "Tango Fleet" is at least a year older) but many ST RPG groups seek to mould themselves in Bravo Fleet's image i.e. a large 'fleet' containing multiple 'task forces' and games. The closest written example to hand I have is taken from Expansion Fleet,
A Feedback/Suggestions forum is opened for all members to discuss freely their ideas and suggestions. This initiative proves succesfull and the idea is born to turn Expansion into something bigger and creating various divisions, similar to the style of Bravo Fleet and Tango Fleet.
Also note that the Wikipedia guidelines regarding website notability are often ignored in individual cases. I have no intention of extensively debating the suitability of these guidelines (as I find them to be largely unobjectionable) or defending this article, but given that the above strengthened my mind on the issue, it may be that it affects others. Clearly piece by piece these 'loopholes' if you want to call them that, don't seem much and don't warrant inclusion by themselves, but there are clearly a number of them in this case making this (I feel) an exception to the general rules. - Hayter 14:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per my reasons in the first AFD (which I've included here). Also, this is being proposed by a pseudo-deletionist without a real reason why it should be deleted, without citing any valid Wikipedia Policy. I'm sorry, but show me where "fancruft" is a valid policy. I'll admit to being a senior member of BF, but I have also been a Wikipedian for over a year and a half now. BF has been around for about 9 years now, and is a strong member of the Star Trek on-line gaming community. Using WP:NOT, We're (wikipedia) not a paper encyclopedia, so, why can't we have a topic like this. Is it hurting anyone by keeping it there? I'm sure you can tell that I am an Inclusionist. Its (the information in the article) not slanderous, its verifiable, and we have kept sites that are just as non-notable before. Also, I don't see how it meets the WP:WEB standard: It has won web design awards, and has been included in a book on Star Trek and the creator has been interviewed a couple of times. Also, I'd like to see some definitive reasons it is considered a vanity site WP:VAIN. Is it enough to say it doesn't meet a number thresh-hold (WP:WEB) and that it is vain (WP:VAIN) without citing why? --Azathar 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responsive points:
  • When Azathar links to "pseudodeletionist," he links to the category of "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist." I have no idea if the actions of this association's users don't actually correspond to the midpoint philosophy suggested by its name — but that's of no matter, as I have done nothing with them. I merely chose to associate my account with their category because they seemed to be a useful midpoint between inclusionism and deletionism, with a title expressed in a humorous way.
  • Regarding my use of the term "fancruft":
    • The WP:CRUFT essay — not policy, but a peer-reviewed essay — states, "[Individuals who dislike the term "fancruft"] might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is nevertheless in common use there."
    • Said essay also states that fancruft is commonly used as a shortcut in AfD to reference the "indiscriminate collection of information" clause: "Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating 'indiscriminate collections of information.'" That would be what I originally meant.
    • It is questionable whether using the term "fancruft" is a proper reason for a deletion nomination, but if it is, this shortcut has been committed on a massive scale in AfD for God knows how long.
    • That having been said, I've realized after my June 6 nominations that using the term "fancruft" seems to generate unnecessary offense. One might posit that these individuals are going to get offended anyway, but I've started using the direct policy cite.
  • The policy language under "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" does not support inclusionism. But I'm not about to start debating with Azathar the merits and faults of inclusionism. It's a battle that's raged on Wikipedia long before I got here, and it's not been resolved. I doubt Azathar and I could come to an agreement.
  • I'll let others respond to Azathar's questions about WP:WEB and WP:VAIN. I did not cite either in my nomination. In fact, I don't see anyone the WP:VAIN clause in this AfD, but perhaps Azathar couldn't be bothered to tailor his response to respond to the actual claims.
  • Azathar has got his vote, and if this goes against him, he's got WP:DRV. But Wikipedia isn't his web host, and that means his article isn't a God-given right and is thus subject to community consensus. — Mike •  20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate the response. This isn't my article, in that I didn't write it, but I do have a vested interest in it. And you are correct regarding the inclusionist argument, we probably couldn't come to an agreement. I know you didn't cite WP:VAIN or WP:WEB, I included them because I mentioned them in the first AfD, and I did say that I voted Keep based on those same reasons. You are right that I don't have a "God-given" right to have my article up on wikipedia, but you don't need to be rude and say "God-given" right either. Remember Wikipedia:Civility. Lastly, "fancruft" is just an essay, not policy, and as such, it shouldn't be used as a reason for an AfD, though you are also correct that is has been before. Perhaps though you should be an example for other editors and correctly state your reasons why you think this article should be deleted. Your "corrected" reason is a much better one to use then "fancruft". No, I'm not offended that you used the term, but instead am annoyed that you are using an essay (though peer-reviewed) that is NOT policy to justify an AfD. Just because every one else does it does not mean its the correct way to do it. And yes, I do have WP:DRV, thanks for the reminder.--Azathar 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to qualify + no reason given for deletion. --JJay 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was kept after the first try at deleting this article, no reason given this time for deletion. --Saberwolfe 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What I get from this article is the history of a fan club. The article fails to credibly assert why a non-member might care about what's going on in Bravo Fleet. We should keep all the fan film articles nominated recently because those films by their nature reach beyond the circle of friends that produce them; this group should keep its own records on its own website. Kudos to whomever is so into archiving the activities of Bravo Fleet that they chronicled the saga of people stealing images off the fleet's web pages[44]; I honestly think such minutia should be recorded and archived for the ages ... just not here. Vadder 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete utterly non-notable beyond a small circle. Completely unencyclopedic. Deleuze 14:02, 14 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. Sango123 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Micro Circuits Corporation[edit]

This company is not prominent enough to have an article. WP:NOT Masterpjz9 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems not like Wikipedia material; some sounds like advertising OTAKU 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think it meets WP:CORP. It was just recently removed from the S&P 500 index[45] and still gets mentioned in major publications like Forbes[46] and Investor's Business Daily[47]. The company doesn't seem to be doing terribly well but I think it's still notable. It does read like an ad, though, and I will tag as such. -Big Smooth 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Big Smooth. A company (recently) on the S&P 500 is notable. I definitely agree tht it needs to lose the press release tone, but it's a company readers might reasonably want information on. LotLE×talk 17:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable company, but reads too much like an ad. —Mets501talk 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above comments. Have to ask, "WP:NOT" what? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 7 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 Speedied. Tawker 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAO CHAMPA[edit]

This page was tagged db-bio and the original author placed a hang-on tag in response. However, rather than indicating the notability of the topic, the author simply removed the speedy delete tag and made no improvement to the article. The db-bio tag was restored along with a db-repost tag, both of these tags were removed as well. If this topic is notable, the author has had opportunity to say so. At this point, it seems indecipherable. Charles 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless improved to show notability. Google test results[48].Yanksox 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. also nn. Tychocat 07:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in the article indicates notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is it just some guy? Did he do anything? —Mets501talk 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete actually a buncha guys, for whom notability is not asserted. Essentially a family. I readded db-group. A note to Yanksox, Google results are meaningless, as Indian languages are not expressed in the Latin alphabet. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You and your facts. I'll keep that in mind. Yanksox 00:50, 7 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 – Gurch 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin BBYO[edit]

Not notable. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information as per WP:NOT Masterpjz9 04:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable enough to have its own separate article. joturner 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to the parent organisation, B'nai B'rith Youth Organization, per the large number of North American Federation of Temple Youth region articles that were recently put up for deletion and subsequently merged/redirected. -- saberwyn 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. nn. No context. Tychocat 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The organization is not noteworthy enough for its own article. Perhaps merge per saberwyn. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Why Wisconsin Region is Special" was a giveaway :) —Mets501talk 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now it's "Differences from other regions of BBYO"...better, but not much meat to it. -- Scientizzle 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still getting more info about this region. I expect to add to that section by next week. I was thinking about putting a small section with information about each chapter. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should see what Dantheman531 has to put together. Even if we keep it, the whole article needs to be rewritten; as it is now, its just a collection of indiscriminate information. But, if it's not anything that really makes this BBYO significant from other BBYOs, then it still should be deleted. -- Masterpjz9 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what you should add, but the Wisconsin BBYO needs to have something about it that makes it worthy (for lack of a better word) of an article on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT and WP:5P. If the Wisconsin BBYO does not fit this criteria, then it should not be included in WP. -- Masterpjz9 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete extensive consensus has been reached in the past that regions and chapters of notable organizations are not notable simply by virtue of association. This is true with BBYO, with NFTY and with USY. Any information which differs this region from the others should simply be included on the main page - pm_shef 01:13, 12 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. -lethe talk + 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Institute of Mathematics[edit]

Sounds like an advertisement and contains no important information Masterpjz9 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Very notable mathematics organization that has provided a large amount of funding and organization for basic research. They were the ones who sponsored Paul Seymour and Neil Robertson's work on the perfect graph theorem, for example. --Wzhao553 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: that's listed in the AMS Notices reference as one of the big successes of AIM's workshop format; hopefully somebody can incorporate that into the article. --C S (Talk) 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I added the graph theory problems they've sponsored. --Wzhao553 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. nn, no context. If there's been such important research, that needed to be in the article with citations. As it is, it's an advertisement for Fry's with a veneer. Tychocat 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat Deleteme42 10:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It's billed in a printed AMS publication as an "mathematics institute of international renown". I think they're qualified to make that judgement. Current article is kind of silly, but the subject is notable. flowersofnight (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the organization contributes to research which is more than Caulfield Grammar School or Hopkins School does. Cedars 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely notable. Multiple Google hits. Gandalf61 13:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of seven NSF-funded mathematical institutes. The quote referred by flowersofnight is from the AMS Notices article cited as a reference in the article. I urge anybody, thinking to delete, to read it before making a decision. (available here; 2.1 MB pdf ). As for the claim of advertising for Fry's, given that Fry has invested much into starting and running the institute, it is hardly advertising to mention that he founded it. One focus of the Notices article is on its unusual workshop format; I believe describing this should make for an interesting article for Wikipedia. Finally, let me mention that AIM workshops (which have involved a number of distinguished mathematicians) and fellowships are very well-known and high-profile. There are only a handful of other institutes (like MSRI) in the U.S. that I can think to mention ahead of it. The article is kinda crappy but that's a reason to improve, not delete. --C S (Talk) 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notable institute. Paul August ☎ 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand Highly notable, and the article is not at all advertise-y. -- Kicking222 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Notices AMS is a reliable source (or even a notable source), if the article is not a paid advertisement. They didn't take multi-page paid advertisements when I was a member of the American Mathematical Society, but I dropped my membership because of issues related to sponsorship and affiliations. (The article doesn't have an assertion of notability at the moment, if the institute is notable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wasn't aware that featured articles in the Notices could be paid advertisements, or that their regular staff writers would engage in such activities under the guise of journalism. This is a serious charge...what reason do you have to believe this? It's easy enough to check out the Notices article, if you haven't already. --C S (Talk) 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, notable institution, doesn't sound like an ad at all. --Terence Ong 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a notable mathematics organization, even though it's not the best written article. —Mets501talk 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If you feel an article is not written properly, rewrite it. Do not nominate it for deletion. -- 127.*.*.1 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable institution, does need a little npov. Kevin_b_er 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep remove overly-detailed location info, expand the rest Walt 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep despite being behind a Fry's Electronics, it's still an institution no less (although I hear they're expanding into a actual location? anyone?) Itsthomson 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep. What do you mean no actual location? The current place is great if you like the idea of a math library inside an armaggedon-proof bunker. Silly rabbit 00:44, 10 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. Sango123 15:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Michael Baldwin[edit]

Minor actor with a dozen credits, the most prominent being the four Phantasm movies (there were four of them?). Wikipedia is not IMDB2. Calton | Talk 04:46, 6 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. This is a pretty clearcut non notable bio, and a selfwritten one to boot. --++Lar: t/c 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher A. Herring[edit]

Pure-vanity bio (from User:Christopher A. Herring -- note that his user page originally was a redirect to this article) of some mid-level publishing exec. Gets 304 total Google hits for "Christopher Herring" -- many of them not him -- and six (6) Google hits for "Christopher A. Herring" -- NONE for him. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment, Removed dated prod tag because wikipedian editor Calton was rude, calling me "some mid-level publishing exec." Information is verifiable in print: see masthead in physical copy of Forbes magazine -- though how someone who works in New York publishing would set such a low benchmark for rudeness, I don't know. Calton | Talk 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Politely delete per WP:BIO, as the person does not appear to meet any of the guidelines and tests there, and his position does not seem equevilant to any of the examples given at this notability guideline. Also, I don't know how far into detail the print masthead for Forbes magazine goes, but on the online masthead, I am having great difficulty finding his title or equevilant position (Note: I am looking for his position here, not him). Maybe they abolished his post after he left, but even so, the sum total of the verifiable information (assuming an equal level of detail between the online and print mastheads) is that a person by the name of Christopher Herring *worked in that position, in NO way enough for even a stub unless fleshed out by original research which is a definite no-no or 'vanity' work which is highly inadvised. -- saberwyn 06:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. David L Rattigan 08:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The online masthead for Forbes.com does not include people who work for the parent company, Forbes Inc. You'll notice that Steve Forbes is not even on the online masthead, but controls the entire Forbes enterprise... I do not think my work is vanity work, and in the magazine publishing space, I am well known. Please provide guidance on how I can specifically alter this entry and I'd more than happy to do so. --Christopher A. Herring 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to prove the facts presented through a third-party, externally verifiable source (in other words somehting written by someone else published. For every aspect of the article, we must be able to confirm it wothout having to go and physically ask you or one of your close colleagues. That would be a start. -- saberwyn 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as failure of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not establish notability NawlinWiki 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete, since "many Wikipedians oppose the use of [the] WP:BIO guideline," myself included. As the WP:BIO guidleing states, I encourage you to provide "a personal and specific message about your concerns about the article, on the article's talk page." --Christopher A. Herring 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang on - you just argued that it shouldn't be deleted because you and others oppose the BIO policy, and then you argue that we should discuss this on your talkpage - as per the BIO policy... In any case, I think the main point of contention is that this is a vanity article. David L Rattigan 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any verifiable evidence. All seems to be original research on a subject who isn't particularly notable in the first place. Strange that someone who is inclined to write articles about himself opposes WP:BIO... hmmmm... Wickethewok 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, unverifiable, vanity. --Terence Ong 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, waste of storage. --Charlesknight 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:VANITY. Also, so-named author has been considered rude against other Wikipedians, AFAIK. --Slgrandson 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I would be open to a loosening of WP:BIO I don't see any assertion of notability here, in addition to the violation og WP:VANITY. Eluchil404 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you must, but I don't see why WP:BIO can't be loosened so that people can place bios of themselves in the world's greatest encylcopedia. As for Charlesknight, are we really concerned about storage space in the year 2006? Christopher A. Herring 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • why WP:BIO can't be loosened so that people can place bios of themselves in the world's greatest encylcopedia. In a word, "quality control" (okay, that's two words). If this is, indeed, going to be "the world's greatest encyclopedia", it'll be that way by not being mistaken for the Yellow Pages or the university alumni newsletter. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 12 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. Kotepho 00:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila McGibbon[edit]

Non-notable actress. One TV film in 1988, and 11 theatrical roles over 50 years. Calton | Talk 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason why I can't post that statement above as a valid 'keep?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceofhearts (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 June 2006 -- please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~).
  • Ballot-box stuffing, maybe? Attempting to pass off one statement by one person as if it were two different votes by two different people? Changing other people's comments to change the meaning of their words? Not signing what you do? Other than those minor issues, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -I'm sorry! I didn't know you could only put in one Keep or one Delete! I thought you could put as many as apropriate! Im sorry! I've never done a article deletion discussion before. I also changed your sentance too 12 plays, because I had added it wrong, sorry..

I didn't know I had too/how too sign my comments. I will in future. Is this how? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceofhearts (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I add another keep? I just found a DVD (converted from video) of one of the television shows, The Last of a Dying Race, and she was the lead actress. Could I add a media file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceofHearts (talk • contribs) 1:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You can add as many reasons as you like for the benefit of other users, but only one "keep" in bold, to register your vote. David L Rattigan 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for helping, and can I add more info to that one keep I previously put? AceofHearts 3.15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to 'stuff the ballot box,' but I've informed IMDb that Sheila McGibbon was in several television shows, they got back to me and said that they are going to update her IMDb profile. AceofHearts 9.23 10 June 2006
  • Strong Keep Any actress appearing in several television shows merits an article in Wikipedia. She was also a lead actress in The Last of a Dying Race. Moreover, the quality of verification for this article is excellent. Considering all these points, even if she remains non-notable to a few Wikipedians, we should err in the side of caution and keep this article here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean the article is no longer up for deletion, seeing as how there have been a number of arguments against the deletion? AceofHearts 5.39 11 June 2006
  • Keep?I have a poster for the Tea in a China Cup play, in which she is on the cover as the main actress. I could upload it if I figuire out how. I also have a standard photo of her, I believe it to be her headshot. im not a regular user, but my name is Siobhan Rice, 2.48, 14 June 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Non notable and written by a member. --++Lar: t/c 04:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainless Horseman[edit]

Local improv comedy group. Greatest claim to fame is a member who made a TV show. Not a TV series, a TV episode, the "reunion episode" of You Can't Do That on Television. Good luck on your future show-biz careers, but Wikipedis is not a PR vehicle. Calton | Talk 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm an inclusionist for just about everything except vanity articles. In this case, this article about a comedy troupe founded by David Dillehunt was created by DND aka... David Dillehunt! David L Rattigan 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BuckRose 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Seems to be a vanity page. — Mike 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the article's primary author. It lists my group and one of our notable achievements -- no so-called "vanity" or "PR Vehicle" activities. Unlike dozens of similar articles that even provide links to their official websites, our page is simply a database record. Please do not delete this entry. Thanks. — Dndfilms 18:56, 8 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. Plenty of time to establish notability (some mention of amounts under managment, or specific article cites would have done it), and depeacock. I'm afraid Wikipedia is going to have to go short on this one. Non notable bio. --++Lar: t/c 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Laudani[edit]

Yet another vanity bio, this time for a self-promoting investment advisor, created by CLaudani (talk · contribs). Stuffed with peacock language. Calton | Talk 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Samir धर्म 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know the editor doesn't just coincidentally share the name "C Laudini"?
  • Delete, by the way. David L Rattigan 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotion NawlinWiki 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep If the claim multiple mentions in the listed media including the The Wall Street Journal he may be notable. I've added a message to the user's talk page asking us if he can supply us with the relevant articles. If someone has access to Nexus right now, it would be appreciated if they searched for them. JoshuaZ 03:21, 7 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 into Port Rowan, Ontario. Kotepho 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Port Rowan Good News[edit]

A monthly newspaper for a town of 1,000 people. Calton | Talk 04:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Quest[edit]

A science-fiction book series that has somehow entirely escaped the attention of Amazon -- and Google. The various components have been speedily deleted/redirected as soon as they've cropped up, but absent any evidence of its very existence, it's time for this one to go, too. Calton | Talk 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ... assuming good faith that this might be a self-published thing or something like that, I tried googling "HML Inc" (the purported publishing company) and I couldn't find them. So I guess hoax it is. BigDT 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per BigDT. Without reliable references it as to be treated as a hoax. - Motor (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I first encountered this article, I attempted to verify it and I believed it was the series of books by Sigmund Brouwer, which can be found on Amazon. The Wikipedia article for this author also mentions CyberQuest. However, upon revisiting this, I see that there are inconsistencies in the publisher's name and the books' characters. I've left a message on the contributor's talk page asking for the names of the books, and I will reserve my vote pending his or her response. Accurizer 13:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since the contributor saw my questions noted above but did not respond. He/she added to the article but did not provide the names of these supposed books. Accurizer 11:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article isn't about the Sigmund Brouwer christian sci-fi series, but something unrelated and likely unverifiable. No real publisher would release books titled so similarly to an existing series (and same genre too!). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think my biggest issue is the way the articles were first put here--they took a form such that I wanted to db-bio them, until someone pointed out the word starship to me! I mean, besdies the already noted problems, I'm liable to think of this as possible vanity. Probable, even, having been a vanity editor myself back when. Niki Whimbrel 18:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice This is pure spam, the user HMLINC (talk · contribs) tries to use Wikipedia to market himself and/or his company, named HML Inc. /Magore 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism-only account". Seems like an odd block to me... But anyway, delete as unverifiable vanity. Grandmasterka 05:45, 8 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) 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of visible minority and aboriginal candidates in Canadian elections[edit]

It stinks of WP:NOR and fails to cite. Delete Ardenn 04:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All Canadian elections? Ever? Unmaintainable and I'm not seeing much point. And are Aboriginals not visible minorities? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 23skidoo 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I see the validity of User:Cooltobekind's intentions in creating this, I don't find it particularly useful as structured. Ardenn asked me to comment here because I've previously edited it for glaring typos and such, but in actual fact I have no qualms about killing this. I think it would be far more appropriate and helpful to list minority candidates in a particular election on that particular election's own article — I don't see the value in a giant omnibus list (especially one that's this badly written and formatted). Delete this; put any relevant information into the articles on each individual election instead. For what it's worth, though, it's not particularly original research to compile a list of people's known ethnic and racial backgrounds. Bearcat 06:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, POV, listcruft. KleenupKrew 11:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Information into party and election articles, then delete. Bo 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, although there may be some scope for an encyclopaedic treatment of the issue of minority candidates in Canadian politics. Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. Pecher Talk 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is hard to cite sources - but I have contacted the political parties themselves to check there records - should I include that as the source? Cooltobekind
You would need a source we could all check with ease. Read WP:RS and WP:V.
  • Keep I see the Wiki-Nazi's are at it again. Time to call in reenforcements. Bluffsman
User's first contribution to wikipedia. ---J.S (t|c) 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's being a Nazi; just not everybody thinks that this article as written is actually the most useful presentation of the information. I'm all in favour of this kind of thing if it's presented in a useful way. Bearcat 18:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another list that deserves a quiet burial in the wiki-trash bin. Clunky and disorganized. Really deserves a non-list article on Canadian electoral trends. Delete this and start again. --Atrian 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I can't really see the usefulness of this list. Break it up into the individual elections... and even then, I'm not so sure. Why do we need a list of "non-white" candidates? Should we also have a list of "white" candidates too? ---J.S (t|c) 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Properly done, the list would show the increasing numbers of 'non-white' candidates, and thereby that the Canadian Government is becoming more inclusive. Its not a bad thing to show the growth of Canada as a multicultural country. Bo 11:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per KleenupKrew and Atrian. --Suttungr 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RestartI pretty sure Ardenn is you Bearcat. I got no problem deleteing it and starting it again though.

I copyed all the info onto my profile, so just visit my user name to see the data. Also I have been going to the library microfiles to look at old newspapers - as every election they write a little article on the subject. Cooltobekind 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I pretty sure Ardenn is you Bearcat. Excuse me? Would you care to explain this comment? Bearcat 06:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the compliment. I strive to be as great an editor as Bearcat is. Alas, we are not the same person. Ardenn 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I've been trying to get some interest in bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards ( see talk page), but have had no success. This is just a data dump. It does not present useful information in a way that readers can make any sense of it. Sorry. It should go unless someone want to clean it up to Wikipedia standards. Ground Zero | t 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure this list is really necessary, and frankly i kinda find it offensive. Anything under the sun can count as a visible minority. Personally whether someone is Black, White, Brown, or from 70 Virginis b does it really matter? I don't see these kinda lists as anything more then racial segregation. When I vote I want to see what there policies are, vision and if they will be a good effective representative. --Cloveious 00:20, 15 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 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water pollution and society[edit]

Delete - This is someone's personal essay, and is identified as such at the beginning of the article. WP:NOT a source for original though, etc. Gershwinrb 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as repost - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is an essay and a violation of WP:NOR. However, it does not look like a speedy candidate ("essay" is not a criterion for speedy deletion) and WP:CSD G4 does not count if all the deletions were speedies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-identified OR. Just zis Guy you know? 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Molerat 14:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, and surely all the potentially useful stuff is covered elsewhere. Grandmasterka 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting essay, but not appropriate for an encyclopædia. I feel sorry for the author if he or she wrote it. --Starionwolf 01:50, 11 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 - empty. -- RHaworth 10:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate summit[edit]

NN business conference. User who submitted article has been putting up vanity articles for himself and his company. Dismas|(talk) 05:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article doesn't say much about the conference, and no significance is explained. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes no assertion of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The article provides no context. Tagged. Grandmasterka 06:04, 8 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, this defaults to a merge to WQAQ. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slacker Radio[edit]

NN college radio show. No claim of notability. Dismas|(talk) 05:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. College radio stations are WP worthy, but college radio shows? No. -- Kicking222 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most significant information into WQAQ; no need to keep as a separate article. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge At the very least. Though not globally significant, individual shows are notable at and important to the understanding of individual college stations, which as conceded above are worthy. As long as factually accurate, I see no reason this article need be deleted.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Article needs a lot of work, it's start-class at best, but topic is notable enough. --++Lar: t/c 04:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar of Shame[edit]

(I added this just because of standard procedure. I hope to clear this ridiculous AfD formally. I am not the one who propose this AfD.)--Spring Dennis 05:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the creator of this article. May I know what is the reason to put this article in AfD? Please explain for any AfD propose! --Spring Dennis 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe get rid of some more irrelevant sutff towards the bottom to make more consise SM247 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't determine notability in this case. Could someone with a bit more expertise in this area of statues please comment on whether this is notable or not? DarthVader 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it seems to have some degree of notability and cultural significance per the article. GassyGuy 08:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GassyGuy. A quick google search seems to bear out its notability. Fluit 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable. Eluchil404 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps mark as "needs work". There are now five, not four; the external link gives good information about the subject. --EricTalevich 11:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason to delete --Hunter 12:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the language could be improved, POV made more neutral, and some comments about the origin of the phrase 'pillar of shame' (who coined it ? is it a translation of a chinese phrase ? etc) --Heysan 00:56, 13 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 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar 3[edit]

Pure crystal-ballism. No sources (and I can't find any), and it looks like pure and hopeful speculation. From the creator of Ice Age 3 and Shrek 4 (the articles, not the films). Whoops, I was wrong. Calton | Talk 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a Madagascar 2?? (*follows wikilink*) Which is in the very early production stages and won't be released until late 2008! Madagascar 2 is just past the borderline of not being crystalballism. What is this? -- saberwyn 06:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See [51] for a taste. I just tagged the most obvious violaters of the "No crystal ball" rule. Someone else can decide if Shrek the Third and Madagascar 2 ought to be nominated. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shrek The Thrid is verifiable. I'll a little iffy on Madagascar 2 though, but wouldn't comment either way if it was nominated. -- saberwyn 07:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 07:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per cyrstal ballism. This can be recreated of more information comes to light. Ydam 11:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The crystal ballism is pretty amazing, considering the second movie won't come out for two years. That means that even if this movie is made, it won't come out for, what, 5 years? -- Kicking222 14:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. --Guinnog 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, eek. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vaniac 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ballism. Voice of Treason 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per cyrstal ballism. --Caldorwards4 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it might be worthwhile to have an express criterion for future movies (greenlit, actually in production, or whaterever) but this fails any concievable limit. Eluchil404 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the time this is made, I'll have an article. ;-) Grandmasterka 06:09, 8 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. Pretty clear cut.. not yet. Soon perhaps, but not yet. --++Lar: t/c 04:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek 4[edit]

Pure crystal-ballism. No sources (and I can't find any), and it looks like pure and hopeful speculation. From the creator of Ice Age 3 and Madagascar 3 (the articles, not the films). Sorry, I was wrong there. Calton | Talk 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Shrek 3 won;t be released for another twelve months, and itself only has basic information available, what chance does this stand? -- saberwy 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 07:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, two films in advance is just too far. -- Mithent 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Variety (magazine) (the main reputable newspaper for the hollywood film industry) reported on March 7, 2005 that Tim Sullivan has been hired to write the script for Shrek 4. [52] I can't find the original on Variety but this is real. The movie is in very early and tentative stages. --Ben Houston 14:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jmsloderbeck 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think even if a writer has been hired, it's still too early to be an encyclopedic topic. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edgar. No news but a writer isn't worth it.--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 14:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Caldorwards4 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Delta 23:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete not enough at this point to justify an article. Any verifyable information could be merged into Shrek#Sequels. Eluchil404 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the time this comes out, I'll have an article. Grandmasterka 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation until Shrek 3 is released. As Mithent and saberwyn point out, this is not one but two films in advance; it's unlikely that much information is going to come out before then. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Avador 04:11, 13 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 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperreal.info[edit]

Article does not appear to meet criteria of WP:WEB, and does not assert notability. No other articles in mainspace link to it except a "see also" from crypto-anarchism. Alexa rank is 181,345 and falling.[53] Google search for "hyperreal.info" [54] yields 36 results (ignore the errant 513,000 figure shown at top). -Big Smooth 05:54, 6 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 2525; No consensus for the rest. Default action is to merge all years to their respective centuries. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2123[edit]

I don't think any individual year, beyond the 21st century, can be notable enough to a have a page of its own. Also, most of the information on these pages is repeated either on the corresponding decade or century page Philip Stevens 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concur with nom. Waste of time - some of these entries have no value at all as they only contain entries related to minor future-set fiction. SM247 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anything where the only entries are "In Star Trek/Halo/Time Splitters". Also Delete any with "it will be the 300/200/100th Anniversary of World War 2/Founding of the U.S.". The others where there are entries for astronomical events are debatable but preferably Delete those too, since if I want to know when a solar/lunar eclipse occurs I won't go hunting through year pages. Actually... you can probably just delete the lot and not lose anything at all. - Motor (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:NOT a crystal ball which seems like thats all they could ever be. Ydam 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non encyclopedic. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 22nd century and the others to their centuries --Astrokey44 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2525 due to reference in Zager and Evans song In the Year 2525. SJennings 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to their respective centuries per convention. -- Kicking222 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hera1187 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect alll. I was inclined towards a weak keep for 2525, but anything regarding that year is included in In the Year 2525 and Zager and Evans. Fluit 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but 2525 for reaosns above and nom. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be inclined to delete that one, too, since that information could be placed on a page combining all of these things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2240, see its previous VfD (result was keep). -- Jeandré, 2006-06-06t19:32z
  • Delete all except 2525 per User:SJennings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to respective centuries. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including 2525 as per nom. Bwithh 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The years that have pages are random and sporadic, and those which have pages don't need them anyway. If a coherent strategy had been adopted for the creation of such pages there might be incentive to keep them, but since they are so far in the future there hasn't been, so there is not.Greg Stevens 22:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all except possibly 2161 and 2525 I think these two are significant/iconic enough to warrant their current status, but the rest are pretty arcane references. Also, designing a coherent policy for these and all such future entries seems to be in order--redirecting queries to a single page for each century would totally solve this issue. Kyuss-Apollo21:10, 6 June 2006
  • Merge per Arthur R. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Arthur R. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the little pages and organize the information contained therein better. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all info into their respective centuries. Although, it may mostly be there already. Grandmasterka 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think the people who say Delete, Redirect or Merge, want pretty much the same thing. I should point out to those who want to merge that most of the information on these pages is already on the relevant century pages.
  • Delete all including the exceptions...nearly any year of the form 2XYZ can include the 1000th anniversary of what ever occurred in the corresponding year 1XYZ. Doesn't make them notable for that reason. And as for fictional occurrences in these years, keep the fiction in the fiction article (Trek or whatever). Carlossuarez46 17:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, redirect 2525 to In the Year 2525 --Zoz (t) 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing occured in the future as of yet. Nobody can predict the future, but let's hope humanity will still be around by then. Nobody can live to the year 2552 unless you're a 4000-year old bristlecone pine tree. + 207.200.116.133 08:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the above Deleuze 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any of these pages containing only anniversaries; Keep all pages which have their own inherent properties, particularly 2525. Matchups 18:00, 15 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simulcast *[edit]

WP:BAND Non-notable "band" is actually a DJ; the "album" is self-published and sold at shows, and the "huge gigs around the country" refers to the Brisbane clubbing circuit. See review: [55]. Sorry. John Nagle 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will adjust the band title to DJ. Simulcast has supported a number of international artists on their Australian tours, as well as headlinging his own shows.
The Big Day Out is an internationally recognized festival, and the Sydney leg of the festival that he played is the biggest of the lot. SOOB is also a Nationally recognized festival. Surely this is notable.
- Heath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IlluminationRecords (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Could we hear from some Australians on this, please? Anybody heard of this guy? Thanks. --John Nagle 07:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable band, vanity article. JIP | Talk 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, extreme vanity article of non-notable. --Roisterer 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop a beat, delete! Completely non-notable, and definitely vanity (or, at least, an ad). The article for Illumination Records was just deleted for the same reasons. -- Kicking222 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am Australian and I have never heard of him. More tellingly, he doesn't appear to have had any media coverage with articles in the Australian media about Simulcast being about broadcasting rather than this guy. He doesn't meet WP:MUSIC for mine as yet. Capitalistroadster 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Peta 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, unverifiable vanity article. Also as per Capitalistroadster: lack of media coverage and WP:MUSIC. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:05, 13 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 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synapse Corporate Solutions, LLC[edit]

Advertising. Notability not established. Sleepyhead 07:37, 6 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 reasons to keep were 'anyone in the fandom knows about it', 'I don't see an AFD on foo', and 'referred to in it's domain'. Only one decent argument to keep (from User:GreenReaper), and far better ones to delete from the nom, Kotepho, Andrew, Reyk and so on. And not the "Pokemon test" is WP:NOTPOLICY. No issue with this being redirected to furry fandom afterwards. Proto||type 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yerf[edit]

Website for the collection of furry art. Completely fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn furcruft. Fan1967 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone in the fandom knows of its existence, as it's one of the most prominent art archives. Passes the Pokemon test with flying colours. Googling for "yerf art -wikipedia" gives 146,000 hits, and judging by the first page, most or all are relevant. --Christopher Thomas 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second choice: Merge/redirect to furry fandom. I fail to see why a redirect shouldn't exist, as the term has obviously been searched for by users. Spare the hundred bytes to do this. --Christopher Thomas 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, "anyone in the fandom knows of its existence"... can be used to justify the inclusion of absolutely anything at all. - Motor (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if you accept any fandom at all as being significant. The furry fandom has enough support to hold multiple annual conventions with attendance in the thousands in North America alone, and is noteworthy enough to be ridiculed in national press a couple of times per year. Surely that merits inclusion of at least the top half-dozen touchstones of the fandom? Yerf, VCL, FurryMUCK, and Anthrocon would be the top four (in no particular order). If we can have articles on every village in the US, and every last pokemon character, how exactly can you justify setting the bar this high for a fandom? What I'm asking for is a _consistent_ bar, and I believe the Yerf article is well above anywhere you could reasonably place such a threshold based on the contents of Wikipedia. --Christopher Thomas 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, no-one is stopping you from mentioning the website on furry fandom. This is about whether it has enough notability/relevance in the rest of the world outside of furries to justify its own article. It does not. - Motor (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You keep _stating_ this, but you haven't yet stated _why_ you consider it acceptable to have a varying standard for notability. Go and AfD all of the minor Pokemon articles referenced by the essay you dislike, and all but the more notable of the 30,000 US cities added by Rambot, if you're sincere about removing cruft from Wikipedia. Failing that, explain why furry fancruft should be removed while the other material in this example shouldn't. I have no problem with _standards_; I have a problem with _double_-standards. --Christopher Thomas 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Asking me to AFD every bit of cruft before I get around to your personal favourite is just a little unreasonable, don't you think? Have you watched AFD recently -- did you see the mass Trekcruft nominations a couple of days ago? There's still a lot more of that to go. You aren't making an argument for Yerf... you are arguing that because there is lots of cruft in Wikipedia, we should have more. - Motor (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am asking you to go about your anti-cruft campaign in order of inverse notability. Go after the items with hundreds, instead of hundreds of thousands, of Google hits first. My argument is that given that all of this cruft that is far less notable than Yerf is currently being _kept_, a) Yerf satisfies whatever de-facto threshold for notability is being used on Wikipedia at present, and b) people seem to be using this de-facto threshold, as otherwise the cruft wouldn't be present at all. --Christopher Thomas 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1. Yerf does not satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. 2. Notability is about more than just being known to a few fans of the genre. 3. Keeping cruft in Wikipedia is easy, deleting it is hard work since block voting is commonplace. People vote keep regardless of guidelines, policies or arguments -- and this includes you. There's a much larger argument here about how Wikipedia is collecting unencylopedic rubbish because people can't get it in to their heads that Wikipedia isn't their personal diary, or a directory of fan crud, and that the AFD is so horribly broken that any crappy article can be block voted indefinitely by half a dozen fans (even though it is technically not supposed to be a vote). 4. Your argument boils down to this: there's already worse crap in Wikipedia, so why get rid of this. This is unjustifiable given the way Wikipedia works. We are dealing with Yerf now. - Motor (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Would creating a new page, something like Furry art sites, and using that to combine the current Yerf, FA, and VCL articles, be an acceptable compromise? Tevildo 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment, This isn't the place to be striking bargains about other articles. This is a discussion of the notability of Yerf. However, I can't say how other editors would react. All I can say is that if you create an article for Furry art sites, I will put it up for deletion. You don't need it, and they are not notable outside of the furry sub-culture. If you want to discuss Yerf, do it on Furry fandom. It does not justify its own article. - Motor (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • In practice what'll probably happen is that I'll do a minor rewrite of furry fandom to list the most notable art sites, conventions, people, and so forth (top handful that most people in the fandom know about), and a few years down the road when enough mentions in the press exist to stave off an AfD, expand the sections out into articles. It just annoys me, greatly, that a) this article is being deleted vastly out-of-order if we're sorting by notability, and b) User:Motor seems to be dismissing all offshoot articles relating to furry fandom as non-notable out of hand. To give an analogy, this would be like doing the same to the goth subculture 10-15 years ago (which is the main reason I'm not worried about this dismissal affecting the long-term outlook for inclusion). --Christopher Thomas 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Conditional merge I still think Yerf deserves its own article, but, if the consensus is against this, I would support merging the content with furry fandom as per Motor and Christopher Thomas rather than deleting it altogether. Tevildo 11:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Delete, is my choice not merge. I've no trouble with the content being copied into furry fandom, but with no "Yerf" article, redirect or otherwise. - Motor (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Merge without redirect" isn't a valid vote. Your choices are (more or less) "keep", "delete", "merge and redirect", and "redirect without merge". Zetawoof(ζ) 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I know what my choices are. That's why the vote to which you just replied said very clearly Delete in bold at the beginning of the line. - Motor (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, What "Pokemon test"? Oh you mean the opinion essay with no status at all in this discussion? - Motor (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly as famous/notorious as VCL, and I don't see an AfD there. Tevildo 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I'm testing the water per the deletion guidelines. - Motor (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely that's what proposed deletion is for? GreenReaper 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, no Prod is just for articles that you don't think anyone cares about. I was planning to put a lot of furry website/cruft up for deletion. The guidelines say to just put up a few and see how things go before doing that. - Motor (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment * smiles * - In that case, you're going to find the general consensus is to delete all references to the fandom. We _are_ universally despised, after all. :) If Yerf goes, certainly we can {prod} all the furry websites - probably Doug Winger, as well. Tevildo 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment, not really since furry fandom is notable by itself, and if someone else AFDed that I'd vote Keep. For what it's worth... I don't despise Furries... I don't care about them at all. I have the same attitude to the growth of cruft from whatever fangroup it happens to originate. - Motor (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm somewhat hesitant to weigh in on some furry AFDs, but not this one. Yerf is a decade-old website whose significance as the premiere all-ages anthropomorphic art site is hard to underestimate. It has been temporarily less busy (alexa ranking details) because for a time the site was down, and it is still ramping back up to full operational status, but that does not diminish its historical impact. If the WP:WEB guidelines do not cover it, then I believe they are in error. It may be that this article does not sufficiently establish the site's notability. If so, I suggest inclusion of some of the information available at WikiFur's version. GreenReaper 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I was about to suggest you take the other direction and move it to Wikifur, where it belongs. - Motor (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WikiFur is not a furry dumping ground. There are many, many topics on WikiFur that would not be suitable for Wikipedia. I believe that Yerf is one of the few that is. Of art archives, the ones I would judge "noteworthy" nowadays apart from it would be FurAffinity, the VCL (Vixen Controlled Library), SheezyArt (not specifically furry) and Yiffstar. Funnily enough, those are the ones that already have articles here. GreenReaper 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for article sabout minor websites Bwithh 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I tried to be convinced of this site's notability but it just doesn't seem to be of encyclopaedic stature GassyGuy 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--not a cylindrical receptacle for information on every website. Kotepho 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for the same reasons as FurAffinity, below. Article is all hard-drive-failure this and server-downtime that, with no mention of any cultural relevance, media attention, etc. Might be possible to clean up, but current article is unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If Wikipedia accepted articles on every website that is known only among a small group of enthusiasts, it would soon be flooded with fancruft. Also, the Pokemon test is not a guideline and it never should be. Reyk YO! 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely well-known and heavily referenced within its domain. Calling it "cruft" is prejudicial. The page needs work, though... "yerf" is a term with some history and story, not just some website. -- Taral 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I hear this a lot when people defend articles. I'm heavily referenced within "my domain" too. - Motor (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes, but "your domain" doesn't have an entry in Wikipedia. -- Taral 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, actually, it does. But like Furries, it's rather small and only just notable... hence the reason "I" don't have my own article separate from it. - Motor (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per precedent of VCL. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, per Motor's reason. --Starionwolf 01:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, nom Deleuze 14:19, 14 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 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y!gallery[edit]

Website/gallery. Completely fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 07:48, 6 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.


I am currently doing research on Western consumption of Yaoi, and was hoping to find some useful information about y!Gallery here on wikipedia (to springboard ideas). I was saddened to find that this page was deleted! Based on the preserved discussion above, I see that the decision to delete was based on the idea that y!Gallery is "not notable." I just wanted to add my $.02 and state that y!Gallery boasts over 13,000 active accounts and is one of the few notable and respectable sites for the consumption of yaoi in the West, and also the subject of scholarly research. It is comparable to DeviantArt in scope and importance. --Djfinn (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FurAffinity[edit]

Furry website/gallery. Completely fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft, nn. The article itself admits the website hasn't even been able to stay up regularly. KleenupKrew 11:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yup. Proto||type 11:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Like many deletion-bait website articles, this reads mostly like a log of the mundanities of running a medium-sized website: server downtime, hack attempts, getting a new server, new users showing up, etc. All of this is trivial in an ancyclopedic sense and not interesting or helpful to anyone not already a member. If article is cleaned up into something less trivial, preferably including media coverage and such, I'd possibly change my vote. Alexa rank is 65,722, higher than most AFD'ed websites, but not high enough to be kept on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Merge with furry fandom. A major site - probably the most active one at this precise moment - within the fandom, but, unlike Yerf (qv), not likely to be of interest to anyone outside it. Tevildo 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:Starblind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom GassyGuy 06:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google search shows nearly 75,000 hits. [56] Beno1000 09:55, 9 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. IceKarmaॐ 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rcap[edit]

A how-to guide that has already been transferred to Wikibooks at b:Transwiki:RCAP. It was then deleted via WP:PROD, then recreated by the original author, who disputes that it should be at Wikibooks. As far as I'm aware, although it was transwikied it wasn't through AfD, so as a contested PROD this should have a full discussion. Personally, I agree that this is a how-to and violates WP:NOT on "instruction manuals". Delete (endorsing the transwiki). Sam Blanning(talk) 08:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original poster of this article that existed here since early april. The article describes the product and tells what it does and what you can do with it - just like many other articles in Wikipedia. It's definately not a how-to and should stay here or at least you should provide a link from the RCAP page to Wikibooks! thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandirks (talk • contribs)
Additionally, the page is not yet complete. I still have a lot of text that will be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandirks (talk • contribs)
See this document about a product catagorized under Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Blade CP. Personally, I think that this Wiki is more like an advertisement, with even street price and link to the main reseller of this product is mentioned. I have seen many more of this kind of Wiki's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandirks (talk • contribs)
Delete as an instruction manual (which Wikipedia is not) which has already been transwikied to Wikibooks (where instruction manuals should be). --james(lets talk) 09:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an instruction manual when the article is finished. I realize it looks very much like an instruction manual, but is not meant to be written like one. I have text ready to add to the article about how this thing works. Obviously, it describes how to install all hardware to it, but it also describes what it is and it will describe how it works and explain the device. User:jandirks

  • Delete per WP:NOT and it's already in Wikiboooks. Yanksox 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as it has been transwikied. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the guy who transwikied this. No need for a link, as Wikipedia should only link when Wikipedia has an encyclopedic article on the subject already. TheProject 23:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily kept, and if JIP does this one more time, he's going to get blocked. Proto||type 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek[edit]

Fancruft. We must not allow fiction to take over Wikipedia. If this referred to a real universe, it would be speedy deleted. JIP | Talk 08:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep What is this? WP:POINT? -- Scientizzle 08:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as if I even need to vote in this. Ridiculous nomination. GassyGuy 08:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is clearly vandalism, Star Trek is one of the most successful TV programs in history, and that's in the real universe. However, I do agree that there is far too many Star Trek related articles on Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 09:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a lot of Star Trek fan-fiction articles have been submitted for deletion discussion today (further up this page). I'm not sure what this submitter's WP:POINT is though, since Star Trek itself is clearly notable with decades of TV and press coverage, whereas fan flash animations and fictional organisations from fan-made films are not (or are at the very least worthy of discussion). - Motor (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with deleting Flash films and webcomics, but when a full-length movie that has its own IMDB entry, has been mentioned in several Finnish newspapers, has been mentioned on CNN, and has even been shown on national Finnish TV, is summarily lumped along with them, I have to take offense. Apparently Samuli Torssonen and his team could even win the Nobel Peace Prize and still be non-notable, just because they don't work for Paramount. JIP | Talk 11:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very clever, very funny, claim a laugh point if you collect them. :) Ben W Bell talk 09:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. If this was to make a point, that point would appear to be "JIP is incapable of distinguishing between major network TV shows and low budget dreck made by fans of that show". Point made dude, point made. -- GWO
    • I do think some Star Trek fan films are notable, especially Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, but I do not think all fan films are automatically notable just because they're about Star Trek. However, when a movie gets millions of downloads, has been mentioned in many well-known newspapers, and has started many translation projects, it does not have to be deleted just because it was done by fans. JIP | Talk 10:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly keep like no other article has been kept before. WP:POINT please. Weregerbil 10:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep suspect WP:POINT Ydam 11:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and strongly reprimand the submitter for WP:POINT. - Motor (talk) 11:20, 6 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, edging towards keep Proto||type 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults[edit]

Note: This list has been renamed many times and was AfDed without success under those other names several times. I'll link the discussions once I've found them

This list has certainly a noble intent, but it just didn't work as encyclopedic content. It has by now degenerated into a list of nearly everything, which can by linked to the word cult (in any meaning) by googling for primary sources. The immense effort some contributors put in this list, should be be redirected into adding specific, full-prose, verifiable statements about the cultishness of the groups in their articles proper.

Pjacobi 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nominations, I've found so far:
  • Also initiated by Pjacobi. Why is he referring to the previous nominations he's "found" when he primarily means the ones he started? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, finally delete this. Per the above and for violating WP:NOR. --Pjacobi 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks to me to be just a place to list groups or belief systems one dislikes. Delete LaszloWalrus 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is the fourth (seventh?) attempt at deletion, a seemingly regular occasion. This article has a long history, and is fully sourced. Due to the previous three AfD/VfDs, this is invalid. The nominator has not been active in the talk page and has not raised these issues there. Wikipedia has policies and procedures, let's follow them. -Will Beback 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regularily raise my issues on the talk page, the last time 5 days ago [59]. In addition, the list got worse, since the last AfD. At that time, a closely limited set of sources where used (which had its problem itself, but limited the amount of very silly list entries), now everything found with Google is fair game for inclusion. It's even hard to tell apart additions by User:Cairoi, who is thought to try mocking the list (in violation of WP:POINT), from "serious" additions. --Pjacobi 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I readily agree that an editor has been overactive in adding new entries recently. That is not a reason to delete the entire article. In fact, there's an active discussion about splitting the article to deal with that issue. I recommend you withdraw the AfD and let the discussion and editing process take its course. -Will Beback 10:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV magnet, listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a soapbox, etc etc etc KleenupKrew 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep this actually seems a useful research source to me. However, that said, I imagine it IS original research. Possibly merge it with [[Cult}}? Markeer 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is what categories are for; the surreptitious addition of items to lists can easily pass un-noticed, whereas addition of a category will be noticed, challenged and debated. This list should only be kept if every single entry is backed by citations within the article to multiple solid reliable authorities (by which I do not mean single books or authors-on-a-mission) - and that would be much better done within the articles as part opf categorising. Many of the cited sources in this list are personal crusades. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What category are you suggesting? I know what category leaps to mind, but it's been deleted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and was deleted for being "inherently biased", "POV", "matter of opinion" -- the same problems that the article has. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though this article is not looking its best, it is important. Cedars 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - As long as the list is trimmed. I suggest coming up with a consesus for notability or number of sources that can more readily define a "cult". Clearly this cannot be a list of every group ever referred to as a cult by somebody. Wickethewok 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote - While I think this list could be potentially useful, the term "cult" seems to have inherently negative connotation. Wickethewok 12:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:JzG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zat Guy. Fluit 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LaszloWalrus ("just a place to list groups or belief systems one dislikes"). I don't think that this would pass muster as a category, so how can it be a legitimate article? — goethean ॐ 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG's argument has convinced me to vote keep. Categories do not allow for centralized sourcing. JayW 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing can be done in individual articles, where the particular element of cultiness can be explored; categories added without sources would be a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. A source can probably be found for every religious and/or philisophical group in which a detractor refers to the group as a "cult". KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the list is in poor shape it is because it has been under what certainly appears to be a sustained and deliberate effort to push as many false negatives and false positives as possible into the list. Yes, this is the explanation for many of the bizarre entries such as "Chado, the cult of the the [sic] Japanese tea ceremony" and "Psychology of the self (Jungian)", which are supported solely by the 'personal crusades' that JzG mentions. Should those who sabotage Wikipedia articles be rewarded by deletion of those articles? Are we now rewarding disruptive editing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a POV/troll magnet if ever there was one. As stated above, just about every religious group has been called a cult by someone at some time, and there's no verfiabile, authoritative standard for what is and isn't a cult. -- Karada 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the contrary, the article defines its terms, so can be verifiable and authoritative.WolfKeeper 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inclusion is subjective ... if (insert name of theologian) calls "atheism" a cult or (insert name of atheist) calls "Christianity" a cult, (never mind that neither is a discrete organization) and some media outlet picks up on it, do atheism and Christianity make the list? What about Islam? [60] What about Bahai? Islam considers them to be a cult. Inclusion on the list is inherently subjective (aka POV) and, IMO, that has no place on Wikipedia. BigDT 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since I don't see anything inherently POV or OR about this. However, the list's references do need a very vigorous overhaul. Many of the entries assert that various publications have referred to them as cults without even providing a link or other information to verify it. So the article is in poor shape as it stands, but IMO the correct approach is to fix it up rather than deleting it entirely. Bryan 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - nothing's inherently OR per se. But how is it not inherently POV? Here are media references to Islam as a cult [61] ... here's Bahai as a cult [62] ... Roman Catholics are a cult [63] [64] ... if they're picking and choosing which ones to include, that's an inclusion based on POINT OF VIEW. BigDT 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • POV is not not NPOV. Clearer: NPOV is achieved by accurately capturing reputable POVs not excluding POVs. Note that Islam isn't a cult, because it isn't unorthodox; it's well over a thousand years old.WolfKeeper 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't unorthodox according to whom? And why does one thousand years matter? An unbiased reporting of someone's point of view is one thing. That's not a POV problem. But this isn't an unbiased reporting of someone's point of view. Rather, it's a biased reporting of someone's point of view. The requirement for inclusion given in the article is that a media source has referred to the group as a cult within the last 50 years and that the group has been in existence at some point within the last 150 years. Under that standard, Islam, Bahai, and the Roman Catholic Church all qualify. In a church I used to belong to, the pastor gave a sermon one Sunday called "How do I know if I'm in a cult" and one of the standards was that the organization does not recognize the Christian trinity. Well, just about any non-Christian religion would qualify as a cult under that standard. The fact that a subjective decision is being made about which groups to include (where does the number 1000 come from and how did you decide Islam is not unorthodox?) means that it is inherently POV. BigDT 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • These sort of criteria will have to be worked out and clearly stated by the editors of the article. It's not necessary to figure out every detail right here and now, that's not what AfD is about. Bryan 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not asking to figure out "every detail" - I'm asking about selection criteria for a list ... that's a pretty BIG detail. BigDT 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So include those, then, provided the sources meet whatever standards are decided on for that list. Of course it's possible to write a POV article by picking and choosing what to include, my point is that the article isn't inherently POV. It's possible to write it in an NPOV manner, and simply providing an example of how some particular version of it is POV doesn't change that. Bryan 04:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all due respect, I don't think that either of you have actually read the article under consideration. This article has a very specific criteria, which is not what you're talking about. -Will Beback 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've edited the article under consideration - it's the second-most-recent edit currently in the article's history, trivial to check. Assume good faith and such. In any event, the current guidelines for sources listed on the page are arbitrary and not set in stone; my suggestion that the article needs serious work may well include changing them if they turn out to be troublesome. Bryan 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited this list for a long time and participated in some of the previous AfDs. My view is that the problem with this list and with many other lists in WP is the lack of consistency and the lack of a solid criterion or criteria for inclusion. Many lists in WP are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Wikipedia content policies of No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability or What Wikipedia is not. I would encourage voters here to help make WP:LISTS a guideline to avoid problems such as the one we have experienced in this list. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Poll:_WP:LISTS_upgrade_to_guideline ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not in Category:Cults and I'm almost certain you would have to edit war to keep it in, and yet it is easy to find sources. Categories are only for main characterstics; while lists can easily cover fringe well. Everyone always says lists are "hard to maintain," but people do it. We even have featured lists. If categories are always challenged and debated (with the correct result), why was O. J. Simpson in Category:American murderers? Kotepho 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no better-sourced list in Wikipedia. Show me one which is more rigorous than this. If we delete this list, we should delete all lists. -Will Beback 10:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The quantity and availability of sources is NOT the problem. The use of inherently subjective selection criteria is the problem. BigDT 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I would also add that having done a little work with the references to see how the current situation stands, I'm not tremendously impressed with them. If the article survives AfD I'm going to convert everything over to cite.php and I expect it'll bring to light a lot of very vague references (there's already a ton of nonspecific Washington Post refs I converted on my first run-through) and references to unimportant sources. Bryan 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs strict inclusion criteria, but the AfD is not the place to discuss them. Margana 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is extremely biased to minority groups. It is a good example of What Wikipedia is not in listing opinions upheld by a majority of editors - as is mentioned above, inclusions of entries even though backed by sources were being removed time after time, dispite adhering to the inclusion criteria specified at the top of the article. Either accept a sourced entry or don't justify adding one which upholds your own POV in the matter.

Sfacets 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems pretty useful and obviously important. --JJay 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful and relevant list, does need some formatting but overall worthwhile. - Solar 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - Concept is not inherently POV, but it seems the criteria are inevitably POV. NPoV should be "List of cults according to authority X", but that would be copyvio. Gimmetrow 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I point out that the criteria themselves have been changed over time? Frankly, I'd like to see the criteria change to something more rational. However, what has not been addressed is the degree to which the current criteria were forced on the article as a poor compromise after the previous AfDs -- a compromise forced, in large part, by the same people who are now complaining that the poor criteria of the article are a reason to delete it on this AfD. (Frankly, I'm puzzled. Why does Pjacobi refer, above, to "The previous nominations, I've found so far"? Out of the six he lists, two of them are provably about completely different articles which happened to be of a similar nature. Of the remaining four, two shouldn't have been hard to "find", since in both cases, Pjacobi initiated them. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/3) Should there be some sort of limit on how many times a single person can initiate AfDs against an article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • The list could be valuable, but it is the fact that the criteria do change over time that concerns me. Even "good" criteria are unstable. In most lists, the criteria for inclusion are part of the list name, or nearly so. Gimmetrow 02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Important, and I imagine that many are interested in referencing a list of cults. However, the article should define the primary sources it accepts for inclusion in the list and why. --Monger 19:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's very usful and important list! --Roman Nikolaev 20:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Religious" cults are fairly easy to pick out with limited POV. --mboverload@ 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear NPOV violation. There's no method to find out if each single religious movement is a cult or not. So the only two available options are to delete the list or to allow everyone to include to the list everything they might call cult. -- 83.237.59.172 20:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC) User's sole edit.[reply]
  • A limited point of view is still a point of view. I dunno...the title has the word "referred" to in it, so it sort of has that disclaimer. But the word cult is quite negative. I could go either way on this one, but I'll say (weak) delete, as it more accurately fits my current view on such things. --Yossarian 22:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - cult is not a POV word, it's a technical term. Sourced entries which meet criteria for inclusion are the heart of keeping a list under control. This one should be commended, not crucified. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is useless. Either the list can have a definitive non-POV criteria for inclusion or it should be deleted. As it stands now it is becoming listcruft, with editors adding entries rigfht and left just because a Joe Blow referred to a group as a cult. Useless. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: criteria for inclusion is currently not just any "Joe Blow" referred to group as a cult - basically "Joe Blow" has to be a journal or mainstream media. Gimmetrow 23:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish you were right. See the History and recent edits as well as recent comments in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's next, List of individuals referred to as racist, List of Wikipedia editors referred to as opinionated, List of religious leaders referred to as fanatical, List of churches referred to as hate groups ? The 'referred to' part implies notability when there is none. ॐ Priyanath 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful page that needs some work. Deleuze 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The page serves a good purpose and generally works. Al 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well sourced article such as this should not be deleted. -- LGagnon 21:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what categories are for, isn't it? If it couldn't survive as a category, why should a list bypass that? Sxeptomaniac 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If it couldn't survive as a category..." Well, see, we have no information that it couldn't survive as a category. The information that we have is that on one particular occasion when it was put to a vote, a majority of the very few people who knew about the vote said "delete". Since not many people have category pages on their watchlists and because category-for-deletion tags don't show up on anything the average reader sees, it's highly questionable to think that the few people who voted represented everyone who would have been concerned -- or even a reasonable sub-sample. By the way, isn't it ironic that the person attempting to get this list article deleted (who is also the one who initiated such attempts twice before that) was also the one who put that category up for deletion? And listed as one of his reasons that it couldn't do the job as well as a list could? And now he's turning around trying to delete the list, too... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a good list for smearing a particular group, but nothing more. We might as well have a list for "people referred to as idiots." LaszloWalrus 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Please don't attempt to vote twice, LaszloWalrus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is semi-disparaging, and a category would be more useful if there isn't already one. Plus what LazloWalrus said the second time around. ViceroyInterus 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting, encyclopedic, and better-referenced than most of our articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as lacking any credible claim to notability (A7). And because it sucks like a Dyson on speed. Just zis Guy you know? 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Gohl[edit]

Non notable personage, book appears to be self published, main editor of article appears to be the person in mention. Ben W Bell talk 09:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Has Reverted whenever attempts are made at changing the article towards amore NPOV. Shouldn't be here anyway. --DennyCrane 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy seems determined to avoid NPOV and keeps removing the AFD notice. I just put it back myself. WP:NOT a place to advertise. If someone can show that this guy or his book is notable then there might be a case for keeping it although with a massive rewite. Ydam 10:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC
  • Delete - I'd personally tag it {{nn-bio}} myself if I didn't think it would be removed by the user in question... pure vanity gibberish IMHO... - Adolphus79 10:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • this could make a fine user page though... - Adolphus79 10:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - The people who originally put this article into dispute and now want to delete this page have no foundations or facts for doing this besides the fact that they have a jealous hatred of Nigel Gohl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nige 54 (talk • contribs)


the article is being proposed for deletion as somebody believes the subject is not notable. you can read more about the notability criteria here. WP:NOTABILITY If you feel the articles subject meets these criteria please tell us here. Meanwhile can you please refrain from removing the AFD notice from the article Ydam 10:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


DO NOT DELETE - This article has superior notability and is based on fact.


It could be considered an advertisement but so could everything in Wikipedia!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nige 54 (talk • contribs)

DO NOT DELETE -- Please block users such as Ydam and those who have edited this article without being logged in......they are being a nuisance to the facts and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nige 54 (talk • contribs)

  • weak keep The wanker of the week award may be an interesting way of giving the person notability, but I am not sure if it fits as a wikipedia article. As a side note, a G search actually returns a few references, and the ISBN actually returns a bookstore or two, if not any more than that, which stock the book. He has appeared on the Sunrise Australian National TV program [65] promoting his profession. A Sydney Morning Herald Journalist thinks his work as notable [66]. The fact that MediaMan has nige54.com listed as an "associate" site does little for the credibility of that interview though. Ansell 10:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Autobiographical, non-notable, POV rubbish. And his behaviour here just confirms it. -- Necrothesp 10:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Appears to be an advertisement. - Gimboid13 10:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion coupled with vandalism Markeer 11:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ansell 10:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Necrothesp. Sandstein 11:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claptrap. -- GWO
  • Delete. If this article is not deleted then it is setting the precedent that ANYONE has the right to a wikipedia article, all they have to do is SELF-PUBLISH a book, run their OWN website, and be mercilessly insulted throughout the Australian blogsphere (as long as they write the article themselves, of course!). Need I remind you that "Samuel Gordon Stewart" and "Lee Hotti" both failed to make the grade as far as notability was concerned. And "Lee Hotti" had supporters other than himself. Let's face facts. The only person who has ever made a positive comment about Nigel Gohl is Nigel Gohl. Through his website, through his book and through his entirely self-written wikipedia article. Can I re-iterate, if this article is kept on the grounds of notability, it means that every person in the world capable of self-publishing their own book, maintaining their own website and writing their own wikipedia article is entitled to one. I elliot 12:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanispamcruftisement for self-published author. And dating coach, FFS. Now there's a thing the world needs fewer of. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 6 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. Proto||type 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade Plaza[edit]

This seems to be just an advertisement Gil Gamesh 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if it wasn't an advert it's still non notable and it just might infringe a bit on WP:NOT a crystal ball - looking closer it doesn't actually Ydam 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Feels like an advert. Yanksox 13:52, 6 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. Proto||type 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the VIP[edit]

Pay-for-porn web site. Aren't there like a gazillion trillion of these? Article doesn't explain why this is special (thus failing WP:WEB's The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria.) On the other hand has a surprisingly high Alexa rank of 3,910. Is this a particularly well known seller of porn? Deprodded. Weregerbil 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Very popular porn site, I've seen it myself many times, but in no way notable. JIP | Talk 09:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JIP. --Andeh 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pornlinkspamvsca. Fan1967 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe stub it and start a pron category? its actually a very notable site, blushes, and is part of a network of sites that include 8thStreetLatinas, MILFHunter, etc. Would this better be merged into an article about the parent network? Oddly the alexa rating of the parent network probably wouldnt be that high to meet WP:CORP, but the combined Alexa ratings of all subsites would probably far exceed that. The parent company is listed as NastyDollars but i believe that is just the host and the real parent company is RK Netmedia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense, but that has to be the one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard. Do you have any idea how many thousands of porn sites there are that would rush here to add their linkspam if we laid out the welcome mat for them? Fan1967
  • I agree completely. Concepts of different kinds of porn sites are worthy of inclusion, but individual porn sites should be kept out of Wikipedia at any cost. The only way for an individual porn site to be notable is to be involved in a major scandal - the kind of thing that is mentioned in pretty much every newspaper for that day. Otherwise we'll have our hands full AfD'ing thousands of non-notable porn sites. JIP | Talk 16:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think someone should create an article for Nastydollars, which is the creator of this and other sites like MILF Hunter and Cumfiesta which should also be merged and deleted. At least, that's what some guy told me who knows more about porn sites than I do. Aguerriero (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. Eluchil404 02:24, 8 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. – Robert 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Museum[edit]

This was only ever mentioned twice in two episodes, never seen and never talked about in any great detail. Clearly not notable. Philip Stevens 09:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is the kind of fancruft that memory alpha was developed for. It should be taken there Ydam 09:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom GassyGuy 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If there ever is such a thing as a fancruft museum, it'll have a home. PJM 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Regarding fancruft museum... - Motor (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even better...that's exactly where it belongs. PJM 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Wrestling Federation (Australia)[edit]

Also nominating for deletion:

Can anyone find evidence any of this exists? All articles created by User:Adam Lofitis. A few google queries: [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] Two web pages mention some of these names [81][82], neither seems particularly reliable. Outside those and Wikipedia mirrors nothing. There is a United Wrestling Federation in the USA which gets a couple of random hits [83]; these articles are about Australia so that's probably unrelated. There is also C.J. Irwin (wrestler) who lives in this same universe but that article was created earlier and gets more ghits (not much verification for the info in his article though). A bit of this wrestling federation was AfD'd earlier: Viktor Volkov. Weregerbil 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced. JPD (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. A search of an Australian New Zealand media database came up with zero hits for this Federation. If it exists, it is extremely non-notable. Capitalistroadster 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominators evidence and capitalistroadster. Ansell 00:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- their web site is offline, or coming soon. I'm sure this is one of those pub type wrestling outfits that tours about and puts on the odd show. I don't think it's notable enough for an article. Not yet anyway. Delete them all. -- Longhair 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, this is Adam Lofitis. I apologize for the lack of reliable sources on the 4 of my UWF articles, the UWF website was supposed to be up but we are having difficulties with it. It is alright if all articles can be deleted except for Adam Lord and United Wrestling Federation (Australia), as they are quite important for the future. And as far as i know, the Wikipedia articles get quite a few hits even though they do not on google as this is an INDIPENDANT promotion in which we frequently tour the country. So please bare with me as the Adam Lord and United Wrestling Federation (Australia) are the only realiable sources we have for our fans to look up in interest. Reliable sources will be posted as soon as it is running. Thankyou. P.S. FOR ONE RELIABLE SOURCE, GO TO WWW.CPWACT.COM, CLICK ON "LOCKER ROOM", THEN CLICK ON "HIGH OCTANE", THEN READ HIS PROFILE, THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE OF THINGS MENTIONED ON THE ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.203.187 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Please don't remove other editors comments from a discussion. -- Longhair 00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per capitalroadster.--Peta 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has to have been covered by sources other than the organization itself... There's no evidence of that. Unverifiable. Grandmasterka 06:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all until they can be sourced. --Roisterer 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Feedyourfeet 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete As this is an indipendant promotion, the company cannot have their name on any other promotion other than the organization itself, so i think it should stay as it is just another independant wrestling promotion, there's lots on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.203.187 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Do you know of any verifiable reliable sources for the information in the articles? Weregerbil 11:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot as per Longhair and Capitalroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:00, 13 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. – Robert 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Burgo[edit]

The individual in question is fictitious, from a faked Irish pedigree in Burke's Peerage: see [84]. Choess 22:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:03, 6 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 User:Pschemp. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngaihte[edit]

notability unclear, not linked by any Wikipedia article Deleteme42 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:03, 6 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. Information already in parent article. Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Another Life (song)[edit]

I'm also nominating Catch Me When I Fall (song), which is a song from the same album (Ashlee Simpson's I Am Me). Neither of these songs have been released as singles (nor are they scheduled to be), and both articles duplicate material from the main I Am Me page. These songs don't appear to be notable enough to warrant their own articles, and therefore the necessity for separate pages is questionable. I was originally going to prod them for deletion, but I felt consensus was needed first. Extraordinary Machine 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge content to main album article. Generally, non-single songs are usually non-notable in most circumstances. --Terence Ong 15:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination or as a second choice merge per Terence Ong. --Metropolitan90 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • merge or delete -- GWO
  • Delete. No reason to merge if content is already in album article. Aguerriero (talk) 19:53, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Blade[edit]

Incomplete nomination by 216.167.244.113. Knight Blade does look like a bonafide candidate for deletion. It looks like a vanity article. Ezeu 23:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be vanity and as written it is definitely not encyclopedic. If someone else knows more about the subject and believes this is notable, I will be more than happy to change my opinion. IrishGuy 00:01, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete evident fancruft. Used in one variant of Final Fantasy by redlinked characters. Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Just zis Guy you know?.--Andeh 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per this sentence in the article itself. "Not much else is known about the Knight Blade class, considering it is only used in one battle." AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:30, 6 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. Xoloz 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Varrera[edit]

A dead, non notable concept vehicle Andros 1337 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make; also, concept cars are rarely mentioned anywhere, including articles of the companies that present them. B.Wind 07:16, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if they build it we will care - Peripitus (Talk) 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete currently unsourced so unverifiable, also non-notable in its current form. Gwernol 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems this car has been a concept for sometime and is not going to get made. Noone even has any information about it that I could find other then its a Van Carrera high performance hybrid ... that was abandoned. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:27, 6 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXpressDSP[edit]

notabilitiy unclear, not linked by any normal Wikipedia article Deleteme42 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, no context, and it's an ad. Tychocat 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It is a real piece of software used for delevoping TI DSP chips, but I'm inside that circle of people who would know about pieces of computer engineering software. Kevin_b_er 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think it deserves a page, despite the poor state of the current one. Deleuze 13:56, 14 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. It appears to be a copyright violation. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Sasun[edit]

not wikified, not written like a Wikipedia article, possibly copyright violation ([85]) Deleteme42 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment part of it is copied from here[86]. Unless, it is severly cleaned up and notability is established, it should be eliminated. Yanksox 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the first part of your comment: Check the authorship and the creation date of both articles - one anonymous user has copied the same text to both Wikis at the same time. Deleteme42 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Not being properly wikified is not a reason to delete an article. He seems to have some notability, google turns up quite a few websites that mention him, and would turn up even more if one were to search for websites mentioning him in the Armenian alphabet. --Ezeu 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a notable, prolific artist. I agree with Ezeu, quite a few Google hits considering he's not a rock star or a pokemon critter. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. It is a cut and paste job from the nom's link? Kotepho 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Lots of cites but most are the author's own work, and the rest do not cite the specific usage of the term from a passage, they're just a bibliography. Non notable neologism. --++Lar: t/c 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic satiation[edit]

An article on a term coined by Leon James, added by User:Leonj (whose edit history consists mainly of adding links to his own sites). Looks like vanity and original research. There is a dictdef in here, but it's already at Wiktionary according to the links section. There are around 640 ghits for this term, of which most are (a) WP / Wiktionary and mirrors; (b) blogs / personal pages; (c) James' own sites. I see little evidence that this is a widespread term outside of the creator and his immediate circle, but it might just be such a specialist field that only a few experts would use it anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There are now additional references and more will be added. The reason there are so many references to Leon Jakobovits is because he was th eonly one for 30 years to publish a series of studies on this phenomenon. Subsequently, other people added new research. There are dozens of such articles still to be added. There is even a new area of application in commnications and advertising. This article should be taken off the to be deleted list! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leonj (talk • contribs) 04:47, June 7, 2006.

  • Comment If you want to make your case that the term is notable, lose all the citations from Jakobovits and find more people who cite his work. There seem to be precious few of them. Fan1967 20:21, 11 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. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Oram[edit]

Appears to be a vanity article by the subject. Notability not established in article. Was speedy deleted CSD-A7 once, recreated and nominated for CSD-A7 again; {hangon} applied but not rational provided for hanging on. Rather than keep up this cycle, I'm bringing the article here. No opinion from me.➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have edited the article so it is hopefuly more in line with guidelines. Apologies, new to wikipedia. --Steve Oram 11:30, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the credits of a working actor, with links to website and IMDB entry. To this extent (in my opinion) there's no difference between this page and one for, say, Harrison Ford except in degree. Markeer 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the fact it was written by the subject he is a notable working actor and screenwriter in the UK. Ben W Bell talk 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a fair few movie and TV credits, Edinburgh fringe festival etc... certainly notable enough - Peripitus (Talk) 13:49, 6 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. Xoloz 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian leal navarro[edit]

Very poorly written page, Google search of "Cristian leal navarro" only had one hit, which was Wikipedia, NN, Speedily delete please? Wildthing61476 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Asserts notability, but delete as unverifiable. Punkmorten 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A) Badly written B) unverifiable as the only hits are from Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's Law. More seriously, can't find anything about him, and if he's a popular modern actor, even from Chile, there should be something. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources, poor article, etc... Wickethewok 15:03, 6 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. Xoloz 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Impeachment[edit]

Not only does this sound like an advertisement, but it's NN. Dakart 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom... for now. B.Wind 07:00, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a student group which wants to expand: fine and dandy, but WP:NOT the way to achieve that. Sole reference is their blog. Zero evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I'm sure it should be Speedy A7 except they decided that nakedness was a pertinent political protest - Peripitus (Talk) 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Haven't seen any evidence they've actually done anything... Wickethewok 15:01, 6 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. Xoloz 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Crunkstar[edit]

Yet another prod removal without comment. Low Google hits, Detroit Music Award is a red link, as is every band from which their members originated, and only one released album- see WP:MUSIC. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible evidence of passing WP:MUSIC Just zis Guy you know? 13:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC and their most interestingly named album has not yet been released so not even controversial - Peripitus (Talk) 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet WP:MUSIC inclusion criteria and essentially band vanity. Detroit Music Awards don't meet the criteria.--Isotope23 14:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above comments. Wickethewok 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Former group noted in Detroit news 2000 [87] article in Metro Times Detroit [88] So the old group has some notability but I dont see much about the new group.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kotepho 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sermon of the roar of a camel[edit]

This page is unable to go beyond a dicdef. Any information regarding it can only be added to the Ali article, it will never stand on its own. Most of the page is instead taken up with references. It violates WP:NOT "dicdef" and should be deleted. Dev920 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not true, obvious if one bothers to see the external links. The references in them self are notable, shows that this famous Shi'a hadith has various sources, except Nahj al-Balagha. --Striver 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a sermon, and the most noteworthy reason for it is "Shi'a believe it proves that Ali wanted to be Caliph." An article cannot go further than this without becoming POV. Therefore any information on it should be added to the Ali page and this article, therefore, should be deleted. Your work on it, however, is appreciated.Dev920 12:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not true, and ill prove it. --Striver 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you have provided is not any information about the sermon itself, but about its authenticity. I am not doubting that the sermon was delivered, I don't have the expertise to know whether it was or not. What I am saying is that, stripped of its vast and myriad references, this article is nothing but a definition, and by its nature, can only ever remain so. This violates Wikipedia policy, and hence should be deleted. Dev920 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Striver, I appreciate your attempts to save this article, but what you have added ("the authenticity contravers") does not add anything to the content. It is paragraph after paragraph of other people saying the sermon was real. There is no information about the sermon itself, because there cannot be, because it cannot be anything more than a dicdef. THIS is why I have nominated it, not because I think it didn't happen (because again, I don't have the authority to know). Dev920 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, give me time, im working on it. And by the way, even if there was nothing more to say about it, the controversy in itself would make it notable. But aside from that, this is one of the most famous sermons, and a sermon notable in itself deserves a article. --Striver 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your work is commendable. But this controversy is a minor one. It is not notable to deserve its own article, particularly where the subject cannot take more than a stub's worth of material and is better off in Ali's entry.Dev920 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a comparision of a notable sermon, see Lord's Prayer. This is a Shi'a sermon, so its understandable that you are not familiar with it. --Striver 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord's prayer is not a sermon. It is a prayer. It is a fundamental part of the liturgy of the various Christian churches. A sermon is a talk on a religious topic. The article does not say that it is a shia prayer, it says that it is a sermon, one delivered by Ali. It does not say anything more than this, and the information you have newly added is a series of quotes by Islamic scholars saying the sermon is authentic. This doesn't matter! The only reason for this sermon to be mentioned is as a small note in Ali's entry, in helping to describe his struggle to succeed Muhammed. Therefore this article does not need to exist.Dev920 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ali is very notable and his widely written about speeches are consequently notable. Poorly written, poorly referenced, lots of redlinks etc... Not reasons to delete the article but reasons for cleanup and other tags. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This could have a claim to notability, but I don't think it's been established yet. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like most articles created by Striver this will require more work, but why shouldn't a controversial piece of theological literature make a good topic for an encyclopedia article? Talk about its creation, its author, its reception, the history of its transmission, its theological significance, the dispute over its authenticity... whatever. But of course the text itself shouldn't be presented and discussed in such detail, that's for wikisource. Lukas (T.|@) 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, Lukas, that the sermon is as controversial as Striver is hoping to portray it. I think he has placed every conceivable source he could find on the page, possibly all from al-islam.org... Unfortunately, I can't tell, but the mass of red wikilinks suggests, perhaps, that these authors aren't as distinguished as could be...Dev920 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many people that care to write articles about old islamic scholars, except for the really, really, really notable ones. The article is listing like a thousand years old scholars that are not in the top brass, and they dont have articles doesn't mean they are non-notable, just that they aren't created. How many old moderately known african scholars do you think have their own articles here on en.wiki? --Striver 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point. I concede. Dev920 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable sermon by major religious figure. We have articles on Papal encyclicals, and this is similar. Having said that, this article is rubbish. -- GWO
We do not, however, have articles on every one of his Angelus' do we?Dev920 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should if they became major points of contention between Christian groups for hundreds of years. -- GWO
  • Comment The best possible outcome of an AfD discussion is an improved article. This one clearly needs improvement. I'm reserving judgement to see if it can be improved. Some good suggestions are above. More prose, less numbered list cruft please. GRBerry 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and Cleanup the article still needs significant cleanup. GRBerry 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Important article about Shia. Khorshid 08:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The community has spoken. I'll go clean it up. Dev 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Proto as previously deleted content. DarthVader 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retard-o-bot[edit]

Nonnotable band, article recreated after deletion in Nov. 2005 NawlinWiki 12:55, 6 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. Non notable neologism (on a popular topic to be sure, but that is insufficient) --++Lar: t/c 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic psychology[edit]

Another monograph by User:Leonj on a term coined by himself (Leon James, see also semantic satiation) in 2004. Similarly low Google count, slightly more of them track to places other than James' own sites, but still does not look like a widely-used term. Looks like protologism / vanity / OR. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It does have this appearance right now because it is being looked at by several people who would like to add content on this topic but haven't yet. Also, as the article grows, more history will be added as it ties to dualism in science and to Swedenborg's stature in history. The topic deserves attention as it is related to spirituality, God, immortality, heaven, hell -- extremely popular topics for many readers on the Web. —The preceding Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages comment was added by Leonj (talk • contribs) 05:08, June 7, 2006.


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Pschemp as "nn nonsense". Zetawoof(ζ) 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoonie Fonque Wonque[edit]

Patent nonsense, the article even says so. Also delete Hoonie Foqnue Wonque (I moved the page as it asked to be moved to correct spelling but then I realised it was a nonsense article. Ben W Bell talk 13:51, 6 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. No evidience of notability, and stated readership is too small even if verified. Happy to userify this article to Cav if requested to do so. --++Lar: t/c 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's RCIA Podcast[edit]

Non-notable podcast. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Falls under WP:NOT, promotion. Yanksox 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, podcast with no evidence of wide listenership or downloads that would make it more than just an average podcast.--Isotope23 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. Maybe 40-60 listeners a week isn't noteworthy enough for the Wiki community. But maybe one day it will be. So if this is such a big thorn in everyone's side, then go ahead and delete it. --Cav 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, 40-60 listeners a week would probably not be considered notworthy enough for inclusion. Please don't take it personally. If this article does get deleted and at a future date this podcast gains popularity/has a large listener base, you could always recreate the article.--Isotope23 12:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would only consider a podcast notable if it had thousands of listeners and was covered in notable media somewhere. Aguerriero (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. I have saved my format to notepad, and perhaps someday, if listenership grows, I will addit again. Feel free to Delete, and sorry for my tone yesterday.
Don't sweat it; It's never really easy to see the article you've created be nominated for deletion... besides what you seem to feel was a negative tone was about 100x more civil than the way alot of people deal with it. Good luck with your podcast!--Isotope23 17:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I took no offense, you were pretty civil when you consider how grusome this process is. It's hard seeing your baby asphyxiated in the twilight of the night by a bunch of strangers. Yanksox 17:51, 8 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. Non notable company. No evidence of notability in article. 26 ghits for "overwatch protection solutions" so not much evidence findable I do not think. --++Lar: t/c 13:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overwatch Protection Solutions International[edit]

Completing a nomination by DickClarkMises. Rationale and some discussion in the talk page. Was prod'ed because of a doubt it meets WP:CORP. Rationale for AfD was that it appears to be based on personal information and therefore violates WP:V and WP:NOR. - Liberatore(T) 15:05, 6 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. Neologism. No evidence of notability beyond the book. Unsourced article (see also links are promo sites not references). Major contributors to the article have worked on little else. Major defenders of the article also have worked on little else so discounting their comments somewhat, leaving a consensus to delete. --++Lar: t/c 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperthinker[edit]

Prod tag removed. Given the user name of the creator, I think vanity applies. As far as the concept, most of the links I find point to blogs, so I'm not sure there is a notability claim either. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete from google it looks almost like this might be an attempt at advertising Ydam 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neo, ad. From links and google, it appears it's a title for seminars (You, too, can get rich by learning to be a hyperthinker). Fan1967 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Ben Houston 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection to deletion: This is an entry to define a new word. Is the fact that the word was invented by a business professional enough reason to block it? It does exist, doesn't it? More and more people are using it in their daily language. It does not advertise a product or a service. Can only not-professionals define & invent new words? Joost van de Loo, 10 June 2006
  • It is because it is a new word that it is being deleted. This is not a dictionary and it is wikipedia policy to avoid neogolisms per WP:NEO Ydam 09:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The style guide WP:NEO discourages the use of neogolisms IN articles, but says that articles ABOUT neogolisms are ok - if they can be verified via secundary sources. This article describes a neogolism that is the subject of a book, HyperThinker, written by a professional, Philip Weiss, in his field of expertise. So the secundary source rule is applicable here. Joost van de Loo 15:59 June 13 2006
  • We only do articles about neologisms that significant numbers of people use. If a word is invented by a business, and is used only by that business, for commercial purposes, it's an ad. Since you and Mr. Weiss are the people marketing this word, I can understand why you might have reason to disagree. Fan1967 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since I do not see hyperthinker as vanity. There is a thin line between dictionary and encyclopedia, I do not see that either as a valid reason to delete this post. B Wendel 10:40. June 12 2006


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian Fleet[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable Star Trek fancruft. Per User:GassyGuy's comment in AfD for Bravo Fleet. — WCityMike (T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gaming groups/clans/guilds are not suitible material for wikipedia articles.--Isotope23 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Isotope23 - Motor (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- GWO
  • Delete per GWO— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Isotope23. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope GassyGuy 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who created this article? Why? Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see any notability to this. One of many gaming organizations. Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear to be notable. - Hayter 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Sizeable fleet, page just needs more info. www.obsidianfleet.net; origins of IFS template used by many other fleets. User:Lord_Hawk 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC-8) (creator of article up for nomination — M.)
  • Keep per above comment by User:Lord_Hawk and per my comments in the 2nd BF AfD.--Azathar 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Falls below the low standard that notability ought to be. Who would ever come here to look this up? Vadder 05:09, 11 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 – Gurch 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The drips[edit]

This article was speedy deleted as an A7-band. The speedy deletion was overturned at DRV and referred here in light of new evidence. Please see the DRV before expressing an opinion here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand if notable and verifiable sources can be cited for the UK tour as it would count as a "national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country", also a reference to or a citation of the review in The Guardian Music section would help.--blue520 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I read the DRV, this is unusual and very fascinating. Google test results[89] are pretty strong. They have five albums out, they have done some big gigs (live XM radio, BBC Radio), I think this article is a Keep. Per WP:MUSIC, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." But this article needs to be cleaned up. Yanksox 16:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think it just about qualifies under WP:BAND. But obvious clean-up required. Trebor 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC ---badlydrawnjeff talk 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, however this article needs a serious cleaning. Whispering 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new info establishes notability via. WP:MUSIC -MrFizyx 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so everyone is agreed it is a keep?--81.131.34.16 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General H. H. "Hap" Arnold Achievement[edit]

The one-row entry for this award in the Civil Air Patrol article is just as informative as this. I don't see much more to be added to warrant a full article, and I don't see this as a stand-alone search term, so there's no point making this a redirect to the CAP article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This artcle had had it's tags removed, I've re-instated them so people know there's a discussion Inner Earth 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you for re-adding the tags. That's twice they've been removed now, by the same IP address. I put up a warning template on the address, which while it might not dissuade them from vandalizing again, at least lets us start tracking it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (meant to add this when I saw tags were gone, then forgot) Inner Earth 17:25, 7 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 – Gurch 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk/Spock[edit]

An article about Kirk/Spock fan slash fiction. Written with reference to more fan articles on fan websites, and even has a graph of fan posting frequency (original research?) to alt.startrek.creative... but is unencylopedic, unreliable, unverifiable fan gossip and cruft gathered from across the web and usenet. - Motor (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep But Cleanup It's a timeline of an actual fiction movement and doesn't seem to be an advertisement, but it's completely unsourced except for external links. If the timeline were sourced and verified, I'd say keep it. -Markeer 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge etymology and genre-important info back to slash fiction, and delete the rest. -- GWO
  • Keep. If any sort of slash fiction deserves a separate article — I'm more into Gimli/Treebeard myself — this would be it; it seems to be the original. Fan articles and websites are good enough references for matters dealing with fan fiction. Smerdis of Tlön 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per GWO. Creeping cruftitude challenged ! Checked ! Confounded ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge -- no opinion which. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tidy up. Notable throughout science fiction fannish community - even a non-trekkie like me has heard of K/S slash. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It is indeed notable and should not be deleted; but it belongs in the slash fiction article. Mike Christie 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would normally look to kill an article like this but it is a notable phenomenon that I have heard of, despite having no interest in sci-fi or 'slash'. Keresaspa 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into slash fiction. This doesn't need its own article. Eluchil404 02:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sourced statements from Gene Roddenberry himself, how is this all fan speculation? It's a noteworthy phenomenon - like Keresapsa, I've heard of this outside of the Trek fandom. Thatcrazycommie 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think of this article as a more detailed historical look into the origins of slash fiction. The Roddenberry quote is really interesting and shouldn't be deleted, but it doesn't fit into the more general slash fiction page. Lots of topics have corresponding "history of" articles and rightfully so. A cleanup would be nice though.
  • Keep This phenomenon is important to fandom. Fandom is important to Wikipedia. Vadder 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into slash fiction. JRP 16:37, 11 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. I was going to relist this one, but it seems Kylu removed the AFD tag and put oldafdfull on the talk page as no consensus, and that result seems valid to me.. so just proceedural closing. Kotepho 00:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Berlin[edit]

Non-notable, Boston area singer-songwriter Thfgcmst 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline keep. I remember Orchestra Luna, which had one album in the 70's on a real label. Berlin's got a couple recent ones on small labels. This one's right on the edge, so I don't feel strongly on it. Fan1967 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough, per above. Mrmctorso 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC but if more background info is added (that is verifiable) it may. Dbertman 17:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has now been substantially expanded. Mrmctorso 08:59, 13 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 – Gurch 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman: Dead End[edit]

  • Delete. more fancruft. — Milkandwookiees (T | C) 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the most notable fanfilms out there - 79,000 Google hits, meets every qualification of WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Speedy Keep Per this [90] and this[91]. Certainly seems notable. Perhaps a bad faith nom. Yanksox 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 79,000 hits for "Batman: Dead End" on google Markeer 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Kafziel 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable fan film. Vadder 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Koenig's appearance (by analogy with WP:MUSIC, but definitely not a speedy keep). WP:WEB is irrelevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is WEB irrelevant? That's where this is. By law, fan fiction can't be sold; google hits, website rankings, etc. are how their popularity is measured. Kafziel 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article isn't about the web site or the "internet phenomenon", but instead about the film. WEB doesn't speak to films. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying - the film itself is the Internet phenomenon. That's where you watch it. You can't buy it anywhere. It's only on the Internet. You can't measure its notability through ticket or DVD sales, because there aren't any. Kafziel 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably one of the most notable of recent fanfilms. Voice of Treason 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is this even being considered for deletion? --Cataphract_40 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable fanfilm.--み使い Mitsukai 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and agree with Cataphract - WTF? DillPickle 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:POINT, anyone? (but perhaps not too much so) It *is* really hard to know the fine line to draw between what is encyclopedic and not when it comes to fandom articles. JRP 16:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand why this entry would not be considered relevant. "Numa Numa" has an entry as an "internet phenomenon", and the term does not even describe a tangible piece of media, etc.
  • Strong Keep - This is a perfect example of a fan film and should stay as an entry to reference as one. Parody or imitation is standard practice in entertainment, and as such, fan films are in tribute to what is being imitated or parodied. If someone wears a sports jersey, sweatshirt, decorate their car or truck with flags or stickers of their favorite sports team and/or player is that any different than someone dressing up as Batman or a Empire Stormtrooper or a Starfleet officer at a fan convention? Why shouldn't a fan create something they enjoy not for profit, as many sports fan play baseball, basketball, hockey, flag football the same way?--D2K 19:54, 13 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. Kotepho 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fanimatrix[edit]

  • Delete. more fancruft. — Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure how this is fan cruft. This seems like a notable enough film. The article is good as well. This film is listed in the IMDb joshbuddytalk 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The film exists and is popular. It is listed in the IMDB. It Googles well. Why would anyone want to delete it? wikipediatrix 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per this[92]. I am worried about this user, it appears s/he is placing alot of bad faith noms on anything that is internet related. Yanksox 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I highly recomend that everyone looks over this user's contribs[93]. Yanksox 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is asserted and sourced. Kafziel 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. The Wookieepedian 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Brand new user Milkandwookiees has suddenly nominated an awful lot of articles for deletion with very flimsy reasoning. Possible WP:POINT? TheRealFennShysa 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per original nomination. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems quite notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why delete one entry regarding a notable fan film that was a legitimate phenomenon (so claims the article with evidence presented) and not delete several other so-called fancruft articles regarding numerous Star Wars fan films on here such as Broken Allegiance and Darth Vader's Psychic Hotline and Troops? Keep them all or remove them all, rather than give preferential treatment to articles that may have personal user interest (judging by user's moniker) — Zardoz | 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Voice of Treason 14:22, 7 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 – Gurch 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The worst towns in the U.S.A.[edit]

Non-notable book (and apparently, based on reviews, a poorly constructed one). Google hits of about 20. Little information on Amazon about it. Metros232 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Real book published by non-vanity press. The reviews are bad (especially citing poor spelling/copyediting) but that itself doesn't make the topic unworthy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a move to fix capitalisation, and a good cleanup. I'm sure it is an awful book, but a perfectly acceptable topic for a Wikipedia article. --Guinnog 17:46, 6 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. Holy smokes peoples. Emotions have run a bit hot in this one, (could we not get quite so hot in future? Could we not use pejorative "cruft" terms in noms of articles that clearly have had a fair number of contributors? Could we not cast aspersions on the nominators and fellow commentators?) but on balance I think the keeps (which numerically far outnumber the deletes) have the stronger argument here. Some admin has to make the call on this, it's way overdue for a close. I think Keep carries the day here. Disagree? Heck I have one WP:DRV going already, why not two? But really, this one is pretty clearcut to me. --++Lar: t/c 04:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (Fan made productions)[edit]

  • Delete large directory of nn-trekcruft, link pharm, cruft pharm— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has quite a bit of information that the average user can find useful. This is one of the few places on the net where a fair and unbiased presentation of all Trek Fan Films can be found. JusticeCEO 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly extensive and unbiased. Fan films can be notable, and lists of them like this one (or the Star Wars fan fiction page) don't need to be deleted. Kafziel 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. wikipediatrix 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JusticeCEO. Vadder 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Given my other votes, you'd think I'd be in favor of this removing this article. I'm not. I think there's far too much Trek fancruft on Wikipedia, and by my AfD votes noms am attempting to prune it down considerably (to the great outrage of the Trek fan community), but that doesn't mean every single trace of Trek fan films has to be stamped out, especially a useful article like this that can absorb some of the contents of the articles that do pass AfD. The phenomenon is definitely worthy of coverage in an article, even if every single item is not worth its own. — WCityMike (T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thank you for your enlighted view of this. I'm glad to see that there is no malice in your AfD's. JusticeCEO 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'd agree, however, there are more than one of those there that likely should be kept, despite your noms.--Mhking 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have said. Fanfilms are a relevent phenomena, and should be listed in some form or another.
  • Strong keep. What an amazing coincidence that this should happen right now! ... or is humour being uncivil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirok (talk • contribs)
    • comment Kirok didn't sign his allegation, but I might as well address this: no, I'm not User:Milkandcookies User:Milkandwookies (dammit why can't i get this link right?!?!?!) User:Milkandwookiees. I even actively suggested [94] to TheRealFennShysa that if he needs proof of this, he might want to try WP:RCU, which he is [95]. If they choose to accept the request, you guys have proof. If not, you'll have to take my word for it, but let me counterpropose this: if I was attempting to create a second identity for nefarious purposes, would I (a) point a complainant towards Checkuser; (b) copy verbatim my talk page header into the new account's talk page header, and (c) reproduce my signature exactly (minus the highlighted part)? — WCityMike (T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓ 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where on Earth do you get from the two sentences above that I am insinuating that you are milkandwookiees???!!! I was suggesting nothing of the sort! Are we reading the same thing? Could you explain the logic behind it? Because I'll be jiggered if i can! You're right i didn't sign that last post but i don't have any fancy techie hoogywhatsits to do all the donkey work for me and i am fallible. Mea Culpa. I would go back and fix it but i can see that you have. You're not perhaps assuming bad faith that I was trying to hide my identity are you? I have it on good authority that this is frowned upon. --Kirok of L'Stok 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We've come to a peace, hopefully, and this is an old comment, so I'll just very calmly point out the reasoning behind my assumption was the phrase "what an amazing coincidence," which referred to my AfD deletions the same day, as well as the reference to civility, a charge I had been bringing up in our disagreement at the time. As for signing your post for you, it's common practice for others to sign unsigned comments and votes by using the {{unsigned}} template so that we have a clear record of who said what ... and, no, I wasn't assuming you were trying to hide your identity, as that's intensely difficult to do here given Wikipedia's tracking of page histories. — Mike •  21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree, insofar as I do not believe you to be milkandwookies. Personally I think this has happened indrectly because of the other AfDs. Nick Cook 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject of fan made Star Trek productions is certainly notable, and gets enough reliable press coverage, to justify a general article on the subject... even if most of their individual articles should be fired out of Wikipedia in a cannon. - Motor (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Brand new user Milkandwookiees has suddenly nominated an awful lot of articles for deletion with very flimsy reasoning. Possible WP:POINT? TheRealFennShysa 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, or an editor who has just discovered how much rubbish there is on Wikipedia that is defended by small groups of editors who collectively vote keep when their articles are AFDed, and then start trying to get him blocked or banned? However... I don't know his reasons... but even I think he's going too fast and have asked him to give the fancruft nominations a rest for a few days to let the current ones go through the process. - Motor (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoever he is he knows enough about the system to be able to revert the admin vandal warnings about himself. Here and here.--Kirok of L'Stok 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, MDD4696 removed the first complaint and wrote an edit description, "Most of Milkandwookiees contributions seem fine, look to be in good faith." [96]. Milkandwookiees removed the second one, which was not kosher, as he's not an admin. However, in that particular board you posted on, the admins remove concerns once they are removed — due to its extremely high traffic, it serves not as a permanent record, but as a "to-do" list — with items removed instead of crossed off once they are accomplished. — Mike •  21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and merge all the crufty individual articles back here. --- GWO
  • Keep --Fan films are certainly a notable phenomenon in and of themselves; I would not be opposed to the other Trek fan films being merged here if they absolutely have to be deleted. --Mhking 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An index of major Trek fan-produced films seems of general interest. Some/all of the individual films should probably be merged here. Espresso Addict 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Motor & GWO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't understand any reason for the nomination. (I've nominated a number of articles for deletion which turned out to be notable, although I couldn't see it at the time. I was often willing to withdraw the nomination if I could see I was wrong.). I also question why a new user would use "nn-trekcruft, link pharm, cruft pharm", where cruft seems to be a wiki-ism. He could have been reading for a long time, and joined to submit the AfDs, I suppose, so it's not conclusive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep me up, Scotty BigDT 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a place for Star Wars fans, it's an encyclopedia OTAKU 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiight. Not Star Wars fans; just anime fans. ;) Kafziel 02:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a sad indictment on your opinions and how much attention you've paid to the articles you are recommending for deletion - this an article about Star Trek! [Shakes head sadly] How many more people are voting because of their personal distaste for fandom in any form?--Kirok of L'Stok 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that's one thing we've been dealing with constantly with this article, and which I think may be behind this mass AfD, as one person in particular was absolutely incensed that we cut his unverifiable film from the list. The timing is interesting... TheRealFennShysa 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I haven't voted in the other mass AfDs but I feel at least this overview of Star Trek fan films (or any fan films like the equally large - if not extremely larger - Star Wars fan films out there) should stay. Today's amateur film maker/actor is tomorrow's Steven Spielberg/Harrison Ford (or insert your own famous Hollywood types). PirateGent 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia, which is well-known for its excellent coverage of fandoms in general, obviously needs this article. Gildir 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are very many fan made Star Trek productions, some notable, some not, and we should have an article describing the concept and listing the more notable productions. JIP | Talk 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My POV on this entry is probably no surprise to some here. From the begining, I wanted to contribute to this entry and was blocked. I want to be inclusionary, but others here have stopped that. This entry is greatly biased and gives an incorrect, wrong, and hugely misinformed impression on this fan film subject. It is clearly exclusionary and is selectively biased. This entry negates the huge amount of pre-Internet fan films that were available just because of a lack of Google hits. Many well known fan film producers know of this Wiki biase problem and just do not care to contribute here. Fan film listings are handled more fairly and even handledly on other Internet sites. This faux fan film Wiki entry has been very selectively written to keep some already produced fan films out of this entry by the selectively and unsophisticly enforcement of wikipedia policies to accomplish a censureship objective on this fan films subject. How can any unfinished fan film have an entry here? They do. While many finished fan films entries are treated to a gauntlet of a draconian enforcement of the Wiki rules heaped on them by other Wiki members here that keeps their information out of this fan film entry? This is the state of this fan film entry and this causes a biased fan film entry. When one unpopular fan film producer adds an entry about his film, he is told by other psuedo non-Wiki staff members here that his entry is dissallowed because his entry is not a 'neutral POV', all the while other 'favored' fan film producers are allowed to write their fan film entry with no such interferance or pre-requisites. This results in a biased misinformed entry. Tracing the affiliation of many of this Wikipedia fan film entry's contributors with the many competing fan film factions and fans(who have contributed here) would certainly enlighten prudent people as to the likelihood of their biase motivations they choose to exhibit here by their wholesale elimination some other competing fan films listings. It would also be informative to illustrate the biased motivations of many of the Wiki entry authors who repetative delete opposing other fan films information to be openly shared here. My contention is the entries authors have colaboratively published an misinformed 'elitist' fan films entry based on an antagonistic agenda to other fan films trying to be listed here. This group of authors or 'clique' keeps other fan films information out of this entry by unfair and improper means. Please check the LONG discussion page for who is doing unfairly what to whom here. It could be seen that this much flawed fan film entry is monopolized by a few fan film maker factions very much like a prejusticed Good Olde Boy Club of very questionable parental ancestory. Netwriter 17:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wow. Nearly half of a 1,000-word essay. — Mike •  17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG YES! Whilst we have attention on this article, could someone please look at the manner in which it has been conducted and give this man a fair and unbiassed opinion on whether he has been unfairly done by! Perhaps we can get some closure on his interminable allegations this way. God alone knows I've made every attempt to engage in dialogue but he deletes what he doesn't like, ignores the questions and suggestions that might solve his problem and rants on about the same thing again and again. This was the subject of a recent disgusting flame on the talk page of this article.--Kirok of L'Stok 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the essay above an admission that the sole motivation for deletion is that his contributions have been rejected? From long experience with this person, I doubt that even having a properly constituted authority look over his work and rendering a judgement will work. He has a habit on the IMDB, TrekBBS, and IntrepidBBS of claiming that those authorities who find against him are also biased, or have somehow been "subverted" by the "other side". He made similar accusations against the Variety writer of a positive article on Hidden Frontier. But by all means, let's get his contributions looked at by someone who isn't involved. Whether he's been treated unfairly or not, he deserves his day in court.JohnWhiting 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You are wrong, John Whiting non-neutral point of view and self promotional motivations of Hidden Frontier fan film commenting here. Trouble with your reading ? YOu are wrong, just like the many times that you try to put words in my mouth in other public places. The entry is clearly biased because it only includes certain elite cliquish video projects over others have similar or more worth. Even unfinished videos are listed here over finshed ones. Consistant requirements, I don't think so. The listing requirements are slanted and change according to the most recent Wiki member's whim and based on the unethical collaborative efforts to censure this entry against other valid fan film producers and me. Netwriter 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentJust what exactly does all that have to do with the discussion of the article's deletion? Are you saying that because you can't get your film listed the article must be deleted? The whole subject of Trek fan films must be exsponged from the field of human knowledge because this article does not recognise your film? The subject in question here is whether Trek fan films as a subject should be included as an article on Wikipedia. NOT the quality of the writing OR the content OR any other problems. I am supporting the call for some sort of closure on your interminable and repetative rants. It is a waste of time and effort - time and effort that could be put to better use writing a article which is what we are supposed to be here for!--Kirok of L'Stok 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a no-brainer! DillPickle 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE No brainer is right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.50.72.84 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please note that the preceeding comment came from an IP that has had a comment removed from Talk:Star Trek (Fan made productions) for violating WP policy. The comment was characterized as a "Long-winded rant and personal abuse" by the removing editor. Vadder 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
      • Be further advised that the same IP pasted the identical comment on my discussion page, garnering this person their second warning. JohnWhiting 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • comment In the middle of Conflux III, the major SciFi Con in Canberra, Aus, where I have arranged the screening of Borg War and Star Wreck. They would have been overjoyed to have had more such as New Voyages, Exeter or Hidden Frontier but we could not get a waver from CBS Legal. If this can be resolved, Star Trek fan films could and would be shown as exhibition films in film festivals, comparing favourably with other fan films and Indies. The artistic merit and social impact of fan films is at least comparable to low budget Indies, to deliniate between the two smacks of elitist discrimination.--Kirok of L'Stok 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Got no legal copyright waiver from Paramount, Viacom, CBS ? Imagine that! Netwriter 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment<ahem> If I might ask the indulgence of the group to address Netwriter's off-topic comment? That's right. Stoney silence, so we did the right thing and didn't show them. Luckily Star Wreck has its own creative commons license as a parody and Borg War isn't a fan film at all technically - it's "new game material", check his website.
  • Keep — Nathan (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Here's my arguement: Just because something isn't 'noteworthy' in someone else's opinion, doesn't make it so for everyone else. There are people who go to the Wikipedia to find general information about fan films, or more to the point, about Star Trek/Star Wars/etc fan films specifically. If these links are just sites that just go to only paysites, then I would have to agree that pages like that have to be deleted. But fan films aren't generally made for profit, what little money is made goes to production costs. Plus, if someone wanted to see more fan films abou the subject, Wikipedia is a very reliable source to find links to other fan films. Art for Art's sake. That's what being a fan is all about. --D2K 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you hit it right on the head D2K. I know I've asked my parents about "noteworthy" events in history that they lived through and they didn't consider the events noteworthy. (quote by my mom "Cuban Missile Crisis? Didn't pay attention to it. I was just worried if I had a date on Saturday night.") as they say "one man's trash is another man's treasure" and I think that sums up all these fan films. PirateGent 19:46, 14 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. Chaser T 09:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theforce.net[edit]

  • delete repository of fancruft— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this probably notable enough to keep, although I don't have time to check its visitor numbers. If someone can check that and provide stats to the contrary, I'd be willing to change my vote. If kept, though, all of the external links need to be removed except for the one to the main page. Kafziel 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- current Alexa rank of 8,813, and aside from StarWars.com, the main Star Wars site on the web. Milkandwookiees has suddenly nominated an awful lot of articles for deletion with very flimsy reasoning. Possible WP:POINT? TheRealFennShysa 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. The Wookieepedian 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I'm not a big Star Wars fan and even I've heard of this site, it's large, popular and notable. And yes, Milkandwookiees seems to be rather indiscriminately putting up Star Wars/Star Trek items regardless of value today -Markeer 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Milkandwookiees I think you should lay off the fancruft AFDs for a few days (and this is coming from someone who has enthusiatically voted delete in many of them). Let this lot go through the process and see what happens before submitting more. - Motor (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Strewth, there's another 9 year old lose on AfD. -- GWO
  • Keep - Very notable site. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable website. Trimming excessive fancruft on Wikipedia and attempting to massacre every single fancruft article on Wikipedia are two entirely different concepts, and although some of what MW is AfDing I'd vote for, I do think he's being a tad bit indiscriminate — no offense there, guy. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mets WEB. --maru (talk) contribs 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very notable collection of Star Wars fancruft. Come on. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom is weak with this one. Strongly meets WP:WEB. Voice of Treason 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong/Speedy Keep clearly meets WP:WEB. Eluchil404 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eluchi404. -LtNOWIS 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per everyone else. DillPickle 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't just a fansite for Star Wars, it's the main fansite. Vadder 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - how exactly does this meet WP:WEB? None of the criteria are met. Barrylb 02:34, 12 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 – Gurch 14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knightquest[edit]

  • delete nn-fancruft— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Article asserts notability (shot on film, won awards at an independent film festival). Kafziel 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per above. wikipediatrix 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per above. Milkandwookiees has suddenly nominated an awful lot of articles for deletion with very flimsy reasoning. Possible {{WP:POINT]]? TheRealFennShysa 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. The Wookieepedian 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : can't buy this non-notable production on Amazon. Or anywhere else apparently. And it won awards at a fanfilm festival, not at "an independent film festival". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the festival was operated by the film company, it's independent. I'm not sure where you're getting your criteria, but not being able to buy something doesn't mean it isn't notable. Kafziel 16:58, 6 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.

Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable as per 21,000 Google entries and various awards. The thing was up for deletion just 10 days ago--There should be an AfD Double jeopardy grace period. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Richardcavell 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Five[edit]

  • delete nn-fanfilm-cruft, doesn't meet WP:WEB— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per Google Test[97]. Meets WP:WEB. Possible bad faith nom. Yanksox 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per above. Milkandwookiees seems to be suddenly nominating an awful lot of articles for deletion on very flimsy reasoning. wikipediatrix 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We may be dealing with this. Yanksox 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - and agree with Yanksox on WP:POINT. TheRealFennShysa 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep definatly notable, very funny too Ydam 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - any fanfilm which gets the sort of award it has is definitely notable Tyhopho 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As much as it pains me how much fancruft there is on WP, this is not part of the problem. Wickethewok 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Lucasfilm, the creators of the sextology, gave this film an award, it passes the notability test. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:WEB. If it really played at Cannes, it's notable. If it won the "George" (Lucasfilm award), it's acknowledged as notable by the creators of the sextology. If this article goes, it's time to nominate any movie which didn't win any awards, even if it made millions of dollars. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, if anyone else brings up the Cannes connection - it quite definitely played there... references here, here, and a listing from Variety here. TheRealFennShysa 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I mean, we have porn "actor" articles, right? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and award-winning. -LtNOWIS 02:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per everyone else. Why was this even listed? DillPickle 21:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widely known fan film series. Vadder 18:49, 11 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. --Ezeu 23:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Pfeiffer[edit]

It is not clear that "Denise M. Pfeiffer", the actress and model, is the same person as the Denise Pfeiffer who is an ultra-Christian celibacy advocate. Further, almost all the Google-search results for this person or persons are from spam-mirrors of Wikipedia articles, making me question whether this person is even notable in the first place. wikipediatrix 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn. Google doesn't turn up much without wikipedia (85 total, 45 unique), and a number of the entries that do show up seem to be directory listings for others of the same name. Fan1967 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my own nomination. wikipediatrix 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:40, 7 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. --Ezeu 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Otakudom[edit]

  • delete anime-cruft— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It passes the notariety test with 3,080 hits, but the article itself doesn't make a strong argument for it's notariety, influence or importance. Perhaps simply needs a cleanup. Markeer 16:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article makes absolutely no case for itself and "fandub" and "using footage" are powerful words to aid it in its trip to the Wikipedia exit, IMO. - Motor (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Motor. Wickethewok 19:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Markeer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep OTAKU 00:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) named after me thank you[reply]
  • Delete Cruft. Nertz 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep, but needs improvement. I don't see any reason to just toss the whole thing. People coming across the name will want to at least know what it is. I'm ending my day now, but I was planning to work on this entry in the next couple of days. What in particular is needed? CFLeon 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikia:c:Anime or something unless sourced from secondary, reputable sources. Kotepho 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a copy of the thing and the makers have a website. What else is needed? CFLeon 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve/expand. It's a stub right now, but that doesn't qualify it to be deleted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'm an anime editor. I usually like to keep (or merge) stuff. This, however is totally non-notable. Show a source? (not ANN sites, blog, forum, or primary.) I don't think it passes the google test. When torrent, blog, wikipedia, and forum were removed from the search it only gets around 1,000 hits. Most of those are fansites, forums, or blogs with one or two showings at a local anime club or con. If keep, it should be merged into Otaku or Anime convention --Kunzite 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I just caught a screening of S.T.E.A.M. at A-kon 17 in Dallas, TX (June 9-11 2006) and went looking for it online. This article helped me immensely in my search, I may not have found out what I had been watching otherwise. I've actually heard about Otakudom many times before but did not realize what this sequel was. I just updated the article as best I could (still trying to track down the correct running times). These guys have made two very long (nearly an hour), very high quality videos now, with all original voice acting. The movies rank up there with Troops and other high quality fan works in my opinion. They are well-known enough to be included in conventions that have no relationship with the creators (A-kon), and many con-goers like me (200+ in the room I was in) are going to be searching for information about this. I've seen articles survive with much less merit. --wickning1 14:03, 13 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. – Robert 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Revelations[edit]

  • delete nn-cruft, doesn't meet WP:WEB— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely notable, possibly one of the most notable fan films ever created. Are you just going around putting everything you can find that has to do with fan fiction up for deletion? Kafziel 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Kafziel. Milkandwookiees seems to be suddenly nominating an awful lot of articles for deletion on very flimsy reasoning. wikipediatrix 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable fan film. Vadder 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- per above. Possible WP:POINT going on here? TheRealFennShysa 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Is there a pattern today? The Wookieepedian 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly not notable. Made on a porn budget, starring NN actors as for porn, and if it were porn we'd delete it with no second thoughts. We may not have a specific guidelines for films, but if this were music it would fail WP:MUSIC and be validly deleted, and nor would it be notable as a book. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of actors is not a criterion for notability of a film. By the way - it passes the music test just fine. Kafziel 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the porn test. And we wouldn't apply different criteria to naked and non-naked acting, right? -- GWO
Wrong, actually. What's with you and the porn test? Did somebody delete some porn articles you posted or something? When did that become the standard for all films? There's a whole lot more amateur porn out there than amateur Star Wars films. Kafziel 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and just what is this porn test? if you're referring to WP:PORN BIO, let's just deconstruct this a little, huh?
  • 1. Over 100 films - shouldn't apply, as even major actors would fail this.
  • 2. Awards - look here.
  • 3. Playmate of the Year - obviously not relevant.
  • 4. Noteworthy contributions - this is one people can argue all day, but I'll say they pass, for pulling off a remarkable looking film for very little money.
  • 5. Performer crossover - refers to individuals, not a film, so not relevant to this entry.
  • 6. Noteworthy News piece - here's where you get slammed - The film has had news coverage from CNN, CBS, BBC, MSNBC, G4, CBC, the Hollywood Reporter, USA Today, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, Access Hollywood, New Zealand Herald, Baltimore Sun, and wire stories from KnightRidder, among others.
  • 7. applies to individual performers - again, not relevant.
I'd say that this quite definitely passes your "porn test". And that was with just a quick basic Google search. Just for the record. TheRealFennShysa 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Applies to fan films for exactly the same reason it applies to porn. You can knock fan films out in a week. -- GWO
2. Best Star Wars fan film? What's the field, 20?
6. News coverage != Noteworthy News Piece. Being mentioned in a newspaper is note the same as being the subject of a news article. -- GWO
1. Fanfilms are much harder than porn films
2. This list is profoundly incomplete, and it has 36. -LtNOWIS 02:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say WP:FILM doesn't apply here at all, and yet maintain that it is the only applicable guideline by which to judge Batman: Dead End? Both are fan-made, web-based films. Either WP:FILM applies, or WP:WEB applies. Which is it? Kafziel 11:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - tons of media references BigDT 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fan cruft. Nertz 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough to meet WP:WEB and as a fan-film. Voice of Treason 14:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable given the media coverage. BryanG(talk) 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it's a "fan" entry doesn't mean it shouldn't also be covered. --IceflamePhoenix 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheRealFennShysa -LtNOWIS 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per massive media coverage. Grandmasterka 06:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mauro Bieg 09:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I haven't heard of this before, but it looks like it's a very good quality fan film, and almost as famous as Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. And I don't see what it has to do with porn. JIP | Talk 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because it would bring an entirely new meaning to "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?" AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep, for reasons stated above. --Koveras 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I may be relatively new, and not say much here on Wikipedia, but I consider this film to be highly notable. Just because it's made by fans doesn't mean it is not worthy of notice. --Village Idiot 03:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This is a perfect example of a fan film. I don't know who this guy is trying to eliminate all these fan films, but this and many of the articles he's nominated for deletion are certainly very notable to keep. --D2K 19:41, 13 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. Good arguments from both sides, but even though AfD is not a vote, the numbers to keep tipped the balance their way – even with the sock votes discounted. --Ezeu 22:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber combat[edit]

  • delete nn-not-real-sport-cruft— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per this[98]. Definite bad faith nom. Yanksox 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree w/ Yanksox. This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion. Kafziel 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for. Also, per Yanksox. --Tim (talk), (contribs) 17:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad faith or otherwise, this is pure fancruft. Delete and good riddance. Take it to Wookieepedia. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom.--Brownlee 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft" doesn't fit with me as a valid reason to delete such an article.--Andeh 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment user currently has 5 edits and may have afded this in bad faith, per Tim.--Andeh 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'. Trebor 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, textbook definition of non-notable fancruft... or to be more specific: very large obsessively and scarily detailed fancruft. It's not remotely suitable for Wikipedia. As GWO noted, take it wookieepedia. Or possible turn it into a Wikibook so all the wannabe Jedi Knights can learn their stuff... and you won't have the same extreme problems of trying to justify its existence in an encylopedia. - Motor (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote - Just wanted to say that the cruft level of this article is an embarrassment. While I'm not sure whether or not this should be here, it should certainly be trimmed to something readable at least... Wickethewok 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've removed the "speedy" from my "keep" since it certainly doesn't apply anymore, but since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it, I think it deserves a chance to be cut down (by a lot) rather than being completely erased out of hand. Real-life content is possible; I assume the actors (if there were any real actors in the prequels) performing the stunts did have to learn all that stuff. If the fan fiction stuff can be reduced to a minimum and replaced with reality, it could have a place here. The rest can move to Wookieepedia. Kafziel 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly as well. This is utterly terrifying in its degree of absorption in its subject, and I find myself hoping that somehow a compromise can be found in which I, when reading it, am reminded at least every few pages that the whole thing's fictional. Cruft-smanship doesnt even begin to cover this. Hornplease 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This entire article seems to be one absolutely huge case of original research — at least, I don't see a cite anywhere. Am I missing something? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters. --maru (talk) contribs 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WCityMike. Or transwookiewiki. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarify comment. What's good is WP:OR, even if the primary sources are properly referenced. (Which they are not.) If there are notable fan publications (this is not an oxymoron) cited which perform this fighting style analysis, then my "vote" would be "Weak Keep". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because this subject is covered extensively elsewhere doesn't mean that it shouldn't be covered here. So what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae? The form info is not fan fiction but actually taken from sources at Starwars.com and rpg sources. Obviously, clean up and more citing is needed. Coridan | (talk) 6 June 2006
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the basic information already exists in the article for lightsaber. You know it's bad when an inclusionist like me wants to get rid of it. Rob 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but only if sufficient information cites are added. Delete per nom if not. Voice of Treason 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for reasons already stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arikane (talk • contribs)
  • Strong keep for reasons already stated. It's interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nell (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep and cleanup. While I'm a big fan of linking to Wookieepedia, I think a good Wikipedia article exists somewhere in here. Obviously needs citing and probably some trimming, but I'd like to give the editors a chance to address those concerns first. BryanG(talk) 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget the "weak" part. There's almost no discussion on the talk page about the need for improvements. This really should have been discussed first before taking it to AfD. BryanG(talk) 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places. -LtNOWIS 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwookie this is too much unverifiable fancruft. Eluchil404 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page contains very interesting information about the Star Wars saga and absolutely should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.246.2.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether. EVula 18:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Cruft and orginal research. Justinpwilsonadvocate 18:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More editing and cleanup can help. Bibliomaniac15 20:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely of interest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.66.150 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per Yanksox. Rmfitzgerald50 19:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere. Master Mor El Kesav 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, user's only edits are to this AFD discussion. - Motor (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- Why are the articles on lightsaber combat in Wookieepedia and Wikipedia so different? They have different types of information. Bibliomaniac15
    • Wookieepedia and Wikipedia are different wikis, not copies of each other. Different editors wrote the article here and the article there. Also, since Wookieepedia is devoted to Star Wars, they obviously can go into more detail than is usually accepted here. BryanG(talk) 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or merge to light saber. Star Wars is a very notable phenomenon, and it's great that Wikipedia has articles about it, but the level of detail in this article is too deep to be of interest to anyone except hard-core fans. It is approaching fancruft. JIP | Talk 09:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more I read the article, the less hope I see for all those fancrufty detailed explanations. They're not even verifiable. I'm therefore strenghtening my vote. JIP | Talk 10:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's enough info at lightsaber to suffice. All of this is unencyclopedic overkill. GassyGuy 13:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN fancruft. LotLE×talk 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.6.17 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This, and "it doesn't do any harm", are useless arguments. With this logic, we would speedily keep articles about lint found in people's pockets. JIP | Talk 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup as per Voice of Treason and BryanG (Though I must agree with user JIP | Talk in the above comment...)
  • Keep and cleanup In my opinion, it's one of the best Star Wars articles on wikipedia. Siyavash 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is interesting. I didn't know lightsaber combat had great depth. --Dark Tichondrias
  • Keep and Cite This is an informative and in-depth article about a very specific, and quite possibly nerdy, area of a fictional universe. So are Klingon language and Morgoth. This is the beauty of Wikipedia. I remember being amazed that in one place I could find a list of politicians on The West Wing 'and' a detailed explanation of aortic dissection. This article just needs citations, and it would be a loss to delete it.Nscheffey(T/C) 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cite as per Nscheffey. This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan, it's no worse than some other sci-fi entries, it just needs citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.85.149 (talk • contribs) 20:26, June 14, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- This is a great article on the Star Wars extpanded universe. As for all the lack of citations, I guess people just missed all those "according to the MMRPG..." and "____ novel clearly states..." The sources of some statements could be clarified, but it's really a wonderful article! Also, what happened to Form III??? Did someone already try to take that part down?????? -interested reader, wcdeich 14, June 2006 Wcdeich 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- This article does have citations as stated above and most of the information available here is not available elsewhere, It would be a shame to lose such an informative article that is used regularily. Metroidragon Wednesday, 2006-06-14 23:00 UTC
  • Keep and Cite as per Nscheffey. Barnas 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cite also. There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article. -- Solberg 07:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly this article is well written and articulate enough to be included in Wiki. Citation is possibily needed for some areas. The main point is it is a extremely reliable and valid source that only need a "bibliography" so to speak. The fact that it revolves a fan-based media and also offical statements is evidence enough to further preserve and uphold this article's existence. Thank You and God Bless. 15 June 2006 "OneiroPhobia"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.245.88 (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 withdrawn by nom and speedy keep. -lethe talk + 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme physical information[edit]

Note to closing Admin: as valid references have now shown up, I am withdrawing my charge of OR and ask that this AfD be closed at the earliest opportunity as "Keep" --DV8 2XL 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - can you expand on your premise that this is original research? I'm not a physicist, but there's a reference, and it seems to be a valid theory. Writing about something you read in a scientific journal is not original research. Kafziel 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference is a web page with the note: "This essay is continually revised in the light of ongoing research." Hardly a peer reviewed source. --DV8 2XL 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only external link is a worthless web page. The reference is a published work. Not all references need to be verifiable through the Internet. Kafziel 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Science from Fisher Information is a book, not a peer-reviewed source. That's just not good enough. --DV8 2XL 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting your criteria? WP:NOR clearly states that "books published by a known academic publishing house" are also accepted. I'd say Cambridge University qualifies. Kafziel 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the science topics we tend to want to see peer-reviewed material. This would mean that the book could be cited if other refereed sources were mentioned. --DV8 2XL 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can understand wanting that, but that's not a requirement. If you want better sources, you're welcome to go find some, but it's certainly not a valid reason to delete the entire article. Changing my vote to "keep". Kafziel 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are books not peer-reviewed?? Self-published books may not be, but books published by houses like Cambridge University Press certainly are. Michael Hardy 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well do as you see fit, but note that another general convention is that the onus for providing proof rests on the defenders, not the critics. --DV8 2XL 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is published, peer reviewed research. However, it is also very speculative, fringe science. It seems almost no one but Freiden believes in this approach. I have added a link to a critical review as a first effort in bringing some balance and perspective to the article. Nonsuch 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the peer-reviewed reference? --DV8 2XL 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Books published by Cambridge University Press are (of course) peer-reviewed. Michael Hardy 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't make heads or tails of the theory, but I did find two more peer-reviewed articles in Phys Rev E which I added to the article, so whatever it is, its not NOR. 71.132.138.16 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as stated above, this is not Original Research based on the listed citations. I have no idea how valid his ideas are, but they have been published what appears to be a periodical dedicated to physics. From a content point I'd like to see some discussion of criticism if this is indeed controversial, and perhaps even a NPOV tag... but right now I see nothing that would warrent a deletion.--Isotope23 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Passes Google test too. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard of it. Are there verifiable citionations? Yes. So it's not original research. --Iantresman 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't make heads or tails of the theory, either, and I should be able to, if it's correct. However, we're not here to judge correctness, and the Phys Rev E articles would seem good enough to me, if they're serious. (OTOH, I recall a note in Phys Rev Lett which thanked the authors of another article for their work on Tachyon research — dated 10 years in the future of the publication date.) Theoretical physicists are weird. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Nertz 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm just not seeing the notability here. IMDB is not enough in and of itself...--++Lar: t/c 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Newton[edit]

  • delete nn-fanfilm-maker— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per this[99]. Yanksox 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per above. wikipediatrix 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO; if he made NN skinflicks instead of NN skiffyporn, there'd be no debate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Brand new user Milkandwookiees has suddenly nominated an awful lot of articles for deletion with very flimsy reasoning. Possible WP:POINT? TheRealFennShysa 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about considering the nomination on its merits, rather than the nominator? -- GWO
  • Delete per Angus McLellan. - Motor (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angus McLellan. He'd find a bigger audience for porn, too. -- GWO
  • Delete OK, off the top, having an IMDb listing is not grounds for a speedy keep, just like not having an IMDb listing is not grounds for a speedy deletion. With that said, this guy is a completely non-notable filmmaker. The IMDb listing means NOTHING- first of all, we've deleted people and films listed on IMDb before (see, as only one example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Morton), and secondly, his IMDb listing mentions just one movie, and nobody's ever seen it (only 12 votes on said site). He's done nothing that's significant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If his films were notable, I would suggest making this a redirect. But they're not, so I don't. Kafziel 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Angus McLellan and WP:BIO. As Kicking222 stated, IMDb listing is not valid criteria for inclusion in and of itself.--Isotope23 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per original nomination. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above arguments. Wickethewok 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whether or not the nomination is in good faith, the comments by Yanksox and wikipediatrix are not. This is not the article you're looking for. There's nothing notable here. Move along. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by Fang Aili under A7. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Zukunft[edit]

  • childish irrelevant article, delete asap! Dbertman 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Attack page. Tagged as such. Fan1967 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy delete CSD A6 clear cut attack page.--blue520 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Puerile attack. --Kwekubo 17:12, 6 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 – Gurch 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. A. Mehler[edit]

Vanity author Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) No-vote per new info. Any keep on this article requires a discussion of the scientology connection, a topic far far too emotionally charged for me to even consider getting involved with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Hipocrite - Adolphus79 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In current form it is a vanity article. Dbertman 17:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per evidence provided by article's creator. Mehler is mentioned in at de.wp as the co-author of a book ([100]), and he has numerous books listed at Amazon.de ([101]). --Fang Aili talk 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe notable enough for the German wiki, but not here. Kafziel 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an author notable in only one language? Is there a policy or guideline on that? --Fang Aili talk 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable. If he has written something notable in English, then he could be notable enough for the English Wikipedia. He doesn't seem to be all that notable even on the German wiki; he was mentioned in an article (but doesn't have his own) and has some listings on Amazon.de (not a criteria for notability). Kafziel 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your points. But I don't think that we should delete this article because he's a German author, but rather that he (might be) a non-notable author (of any particular language). I've created articles on notable Russian and Chinese people who don't have articles on ru.wp or zh.wp (respentively); I don't think that can be used as an argument for non-notability. The de.amazon link is fairly persuasive to me, though I agree that is debateable. And I have no idea what scientology has to do with it. --Fang Aili talk 18:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha, I have no idea what that Scientology bit is about, either. I was wondering myself. :)
"Ha. A. Mehler alias Horst Mehler, Scientologist author and publisher. Several of his books presented Scientology or Scientologists in "stealth" form, i.e. they didn't have the word Scientology in the title, but were full of it (e.g. the books "Manager Geheimnisse", "Selfmademen und Millionäre", "Psychiatrie - der sanfte Schrei"). " [102],[103], [104]. I am not getting involved in the morass that is any article connected to scientology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly stands to reason that we will have more articles here than on any other wiki. I'm by no means saying that just because his native language doesn't have an article for him that we can't; I'm just saying that it doesn't really qualify as supporting evidence for his notability that he was mentioned somewhere on the .de site. Always nice to see you, by the way - it's good to find level-headed people on AfD, even if we agree to disagree. Kafziel 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not good enough for Germans, that should settle it! Nertz 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, US Government decides that the guy made EXTRAORDINARY input into literature and you say here he is not notable. Please refer to cited file #200216251 "Evaluation of the Credentials of Mr. Hosrt Mehler, File #200216251, Prepared by Thomas Trzyna, Ph.D. Professor of English, Seatle Pacific University".

So, those professors are plain stupid and nuts, aren't they?
And what do you mean he doesnt' have his own page? This is exactly his own article is being discussed here!
Cimmerian 09:09, 7 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 15:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music free download and Music site[edit]

Non-notable lyrics database site. Google says it's unlinked to by any other website.Kwekubo 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Self promotion article. Dbertman 17:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pathetic advertisement for a website (alexa rank 643,222) that fails WP:WEB. --Hetar 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - fails WP:WEB, non-notable website. Google returns 722 30 results. Kalani [talk] 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -nn --Mhking 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments - Adolphus79 17:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, no salavageable content --Cedderstk 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G7, per author's talk page: "k, I will leave you alone guys... Unblock me please, i want to delete my account, my posts.... everything" Salahx 18:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 14:30, 7 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 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Taxis[edit]

Non-notable cab firm. -- RHaworth 17:25, 6 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. reads like a pastejob from some PR of theirs, no evidence of notability sufficient to satisfy WP:CORP seen. Oh, and 69.249.18.71 please do not remove AfD notices, it's just not nice. If you think I erred in deleting this please take it to WP:DRV. --++Lar: t/c 03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Consulting Group[edit]

Nonnotable company/self-promotion; prodded twice NawlinWiki 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the definition of a "notable company" according to the Criteria for companies and corporations found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP per WP:CORP. Unless proof is given that this article does not comply with the definition, the deletion tag will, once again, be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.18.71 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can remove a prod tag, but you can't remove an AfD tag until the discussion here is finished. Doing that will get you blocked. Kafziel 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable evidence can be provided of the mentions in the notable newspapers cited in the article. --Pak21 08:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing as you demand Citations are being added.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 10:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yau particle[edit]

Original Research / Vandalism Briguyd 18:08, 6 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 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animazoo[edit]

Spam/non-notability JennyRad 18:18, 6 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 under criterion 4 (WP:POINT)

1992[edit]

this is ridiciulous, if this kept that we should create articles for every year between now and the dawn of time, merge with 20th century please--Repomec 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not sure if it can be speedied if assuming good faith, but there's no basis for deletion here. Repomec, if you want to create a separate article for years back to the dawn of time, feel free. If not, that doesn't mean we delete the ones that already exist. Kafziel 18:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There are articles for every year between now and, if not the dawn of time, a long time ago. For other examples, see 873, 1219, 1992 and indeed any other number between 0 and 2006. Trebor 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is strong precedent for articles on specific years being included in Wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why do you want to delete 1992, but not 1993 or 1991? As said above, there are articles for every year, or virtually so. At first this seems odd, but events don't happen in a vacuum, and if you were researching, say, the Iraq Disarmament Crisis, it might be useful to see what else was happening at the time.
  • Speedy Keep my guess is this is vandalism, the nominator has no other contribs except to have this year deleted. Markeer 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep wikilinking to years (to give era-dependent context) is an important part of many Wikipedia articles. It's often overused, but can be very interesting and useful. -- Scientizzle 18:44, 6 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 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GYPSY Motion Capture system[edit]

spam/non-notability JennyRad 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan under CSD A7 (unremarkable groups or vanity pages). Zetawoof(ζ) 08:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead weight[edit]

Delete per nom. This article should be deleted, it is suited for MySpace and not for a trusted online resource such as Wikipedia. There is no verifiable information, the article is poorly written and uses the first person: "Dead Weight is here to have fun, enjoy ourselves, and get people into hardcore for the same reasons we're into it." This article also shows excessive vanity. Writers of the article have deleted AfD and db templates, which adds to the reasons this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaniac (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete nn-band. -- Scientizzle 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already speedy deleted; just completing this for nominator. -- Scientizzle 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:35, 7 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 CANCELLED. This debate was created by and is being run by a set of sockpuppets from a prolific master. They are all either blocke or just about to be. -Splash - tk 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gardner[edit]

Delete Not notable person, just because you are on TV somewhere doesn't mean you are notable! Also merge back with WPVI-TV Personalities as that is where the info came from orignally if you look at edit history! Nigel Wick 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this seemed to be part of a bit of an ongoing edit war/attacks involving Morgan Wick (no relation), UncleFloyd, Bwithh, Ngsantia, Capsgm2002, WWACArtistand sockpuppets see deletion arguments for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWAC-TV and Image:James_Goldman_WABC_2005.jpg on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 31. Be watchful for sockpuppets! Nigel Wick 18:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What edit war? What attacks? How does it involve this article or WWAC-TV? It's the first time I've heard of it or seen it. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWAC-TV afd discussion ended several days ago with a full confession and retraction from the hoaxers (including Ngsantia and WWACArtist and maybe UncleFloyd). Anyway, I don't think Gardner was ever mentioned in that discussion. I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete this article. Gardner does seem to be a real reporter though. Bwithh 19:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gardner has been quite well-known throughout southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and southern New Jersey for decades. I cleaned up and corrected the information presented by the aforementioned troublesome editors, as well as expanded the biography with the external links. The information now in the article is greater than the summarized stub descriptions at WPVI-TV Personalities. Olessi 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He is not widely known, I have never heard of him in Ohio. He is still not notable, but merging the new info back into the WPVI-TV Personalities article would work. Nigel Wick 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dozens of local news personalities in other cities have articles (Sue Simmons, Jerry Dunphy, Natalie Jacobson, Irv Weinstein). Jim Gardner has the lead anchor for decades at one of the highest-rated major-market stations in the country. If national notability was a requirement for inclusion here, we'd have to delete half the bio articles on Wikipedia. Kirjtc2 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He passes the google test. --South Philly 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per nomination. Non-notable local tv person. Sue Simmons he is not, as she has been on some national shows, appears to be one of the first African American woman televison news anchors and is on a channel with national and international distribution (according to the WNBC article). Comparing her to yet another white guy anchor who who has just been on local TV is comparing apples and oranges. Jerry Dunphy, Natalie Jacobson, Irv Weinstein (same name as my dentist), et. al along with Jim Gardner and Dave Roberts (reporter) all need to be deleted and merged into pages about their respective stations. They all may be well known in their local area but I have never heard of them, except Jerry Dunphy, but I live in the Southland. If you look at the edit history of WPVI-TV Personalities you will see that the relevant section was edited, and a good chunk of text was transfered in to the "new" article. It should be merged back. FunkyChicken! 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with pages of local newscasters in major cities. Jim Gardner is certainly one of the biggest such figures in Philadelphia, which is one of the largest US markets.--Caliga10 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per nomination. Not notable outside of Philadelpha television viewers. UncleFloyd 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as per above. If anyone wants to know about this not notable person they can see the WPVI-TV Personalities article. Nertz 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Not notable outside of a very limited area. I grew up in New Jersey as did my girlfriend and we never heard of this guy or his TV station. I'll get her to register and vote too. It isn't like this guy is Bill Beutel or anything close. The Matt Feldman Experience! 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's just as popular in Philly as Bill Beutel was in New York. You could make the exact same case for deleting Bill Beutel as the "delete" voters are proposing here. Kirjtc2 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No you could not make the same argument for Bill Beutel, as Bill Beutel anchored AM America, was an ABC News correspondent where he worked with Peter Jennings, and is partly responsible for the development of the Eyewitness News format. If you are going to make comparisons make accurate ones, as this Jim Gardner never did anything of national stature. The Matt Feldman Experience! 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with The Matt Feldman Experience that Kirjtc2 is making a dubious comparison. It looks as if Bill Beutel has had considerable national and international reporting duties as well as hosting ABC's morning show whilst Jim Gardner seems to be a minor local reporter and newsreader. I would venture a guess that more people know of Beutel than Gardner and those who know Beutel would not just be in a highly localized area. And by the way, Philadelphia will never be on the same par as New York, it is another dubious comparison. It is like comparing a 1973 Buick Skylark to a 2006 Bentley. FunkyChicken! 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you all the same person? This reminds me of User:Spotteddogsdotorg who used sockpuppets to get his way with his pro-NYC anti-Philly news bias in afd last year. There was a page set up here about his actions. I have this feeling that this is all the same person, and quite possibly the user I brought up. ErikNY 05:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No we are all clones. *Joke* Seriously, this whole Wikipedia thing I thought was supposed to be fun, but apparently if someone agrees with me they are a sockpuppet and I am some sort of puppetmaster? Sounds more like there are Joseph McCarthy clones running about seeing sockpuppets under every rock. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you should attack and accuse just to keep people out of your cabal. I think I may quit Wikipedia if this is the level of debate seems to be tar all those you disagree with as sockpuppets if they don't agree with you. Very mature! The Matt Feldman Experience! 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. You have a message on your page saying you want to quit. I received a message from FunkyChicken! saying he quit. TVXPert, who voted, said he quit on his userpage. Coincidence? ErikNY 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the confusion caused when making my attacks on User:Spotteddogsdotorg which I was, but the person with that website was insulting me on tvnewstalk.net because he would not give me a WCAU tape and got me banned more than once. Then I remembered the Wikipedia as a way to get revenge on him by taking things from his website and putting them on to look like he did it but I Scott Brown did do it to make a mockery of him. I am not going to kill myself because I want to relive the time that WCAU was CBS, boy those were the days! I am not crazy and going to kill myself and do not need help. I don't like Jim Gardner and his story should be deleted. I now have a sattilte dish and can't watch Philladelphia, but get WCBS and WNYW and WCBS has The People's Court which is the best show on the televison today. Not as good as when WCAU was CBS, but good still. I hope that my destroying of the good name of the person was mean enough to get them in trouble with all of you and didn't mean any problems with the Wikipedia with making revenge on people who do not give me the tapes that they promised. Thank you, Scott Brown. MrPhillyTV 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's buying the 'Scott Brown' story. 70.108.82.120 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got into his account because he is one who has a password which is password and I know that is stupid and you can try it too by using login as FunkyChicken and password as password! Stupid moron has made his password password and does not expect people to try to fake being him? That is just being a stupid moron. And I was making it look like I was not alone in my love for WCAU and the People's COurt. He said he was going to leave and I make the account an active one, but this time for Scott Brown and will make all sorts of delting votes for things I do not like, like WPVI which was not as good as WCAU when it was CBS and I can't get either on my sattilite and that is a shame. I, Scott Brown and am sorry and will not kill myself and try to be a better user from now on and not lie or use other users who are stupid enough to use password as their password then quit the great wikipedia and will not use wikipedia as a revenge on people who do not give me my WCAU tapes that they say they were going to give me but do not give. THat is mean and they need to be given ppunishment of being blacklisted on the wikipedia and accused of bad things. I am sorry for not properly making wikipedia editing but I have been feeling bad ever since my mother left and I miss those good days since then WCAU was CBS and I did not have to watch WCBS as CBS on my sattilite. No I am not going to kill myself as the tvnewstalk.net people have made fun of me for and now the radio-info.com people are making fun of me too. This is wrong and I am sorry but they can't be mean to Scott Brown and mock my love for WCAU as CBS. I am sorry if I hurt anyone and if you could fix or delete any wrong things or passwords I would be happy and will not bother you again and maybe later I can make better editings to the wikipeida, but please delete the Jim Gardner article as he was never on WCAU when it was CBS. Thank you and I hope to be a better person when it comes to making wikipedia changes. Please accept my appology. Scott Brown MrPhillyTV 22:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being ridiculous, Jason. 70.108.126.68 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merge back, but do not delete the redirect which contains the page history of Olessi's cleanup. "Delete and merge" makes no sense. Kusma (討論) 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To make it more clear, the vote "merge and delete" violates policy. Kusma (討論) 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete not notable minor market TV cruft not worthy of his own page. TVXPert 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. ShigeruNomi 06:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kramden4700, a user with 10 contributions (all of them about various Philly news personalities and made on June 9), has replaced the entire content of the page with a link to WPVI-TV Personalities (not even a real redirect), where the content of the former article has been moved. This comes across to me as WP:POINT disruption while the AFD is still ongoing. It may be a possible sockpuppet of the above delete voters, all but one of whom apparently seem to be linked. Kirjtc2 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverted. I was going to vote speedy delete until I read this comment. Morgan Wick 05:44, 11 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 CANCELLED. This debate was started by, is populated by and is being driven by a large family of socks. (Not all editors here are socks, but most of them are.) They are all blocked, and their AfD engagement is so misleading as to be useless. I'm going to revert to before the AfD tag, and editors can do what editors do. -Splash - tk 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Roberts (reporter)[edit]

Delete Not notable person, just because you are on TV somewhere doesn't mean you are notable! Also merge back with WPVI-TV Personalities as that is where the info came from orignally if you look at edit history! Nigel Wick 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this seemed to be part of a bit of an ongoing edit war/attacks involving Morgan Wick (no relation), UncleFloyd, Bwithh, Ngsantia, Capsgm2002, WWACArtistand sockpuppets see deletion arguments for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWAC-TV and Image:James_Goldman_WABC_2005.jpg on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 31. Be watchful for sockpuppets! Nigel Wick 18:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What edit war? What attacks? How does it involve this article or WWAC-TV? It's the first time I've heard of it or seen it. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWAC-TV afd discussion ended several days ago with a full confession and retraction from the hoaxers (including Ngsantia and WWACArtist and maybe UncleFloyd). Anyway, I don't think Dave Roberts was ever mentioned in that discussion. I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete this article. Roberts does seem to be a real reporter though. Bwithh 19:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Roberts has been quite well-known throughout southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and southern New Jersey for decades. I cleaned up and corrected the information presented by the aforementioned troublesome editors, as well as expanded the biography with the external links. The information now in the article is greater than the summarized stub descriptions at WPVI-TV Personalities. Olessi 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He is not widely known, I have never heard of him in Ohio. He is still not notable, but merging the new info back into the WPVI-TV Personalities article would work. Nigel Wick 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He passes the google test. --South Philly 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per nomination. Non-notable local tv person. Sue Simmons he is not, as she has been on some national shows, appears to be one of the first African American woman televison news anchors and is on a channel with national and international distribution (according to the WNBC article). Comparing her to yet another white guy anchor who who has just been on local TV is comparing apples and oranges. Jerry Dunphy, Natalie Jacobson, Irv Weinstein (same name as my dentist), et. al along with Jim Gardner and Dave Roberts (reporter) all need to be deleted and merged into pages about their respective stations. They all may be well known in their local area but I have never heard of them, except Jerry Dunphy, but I live in the Southland. If you look at the edit history of WPVI-TV Personalities you will see that the relevant section was edited, and a good chunk of text was transfered in to the "new" article. It should be merged back. FunkyChicken! 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is very well-known in Philadelphia, and also his son (David Boreanaz) is a fairly well-known actor now.--Caliga10 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per nomination. Not notable outside of Philadelpha television viewers. UncleFloyd 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Philadelphia is one of the largest media markets in the U.S., anyone who appears regularly on TV is the sources of much curiousity to people. Also, rename to Dave Roberts (weatherman), since he's not a reporter. -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as per above. If anyone wants to know about this not notable person they can see the WPVI-TV Personalities article. Nertz 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Voice of Treason 14:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Not notable outside of a very limited area. I grew up in New Jersey as did my girlfriend and we never heard of this guy or his TV station. I'll get her to register and vote too. It isn't like this guy is Sam Champion or anything close. The Matt Feldman Experience! 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete not notable minor market TV cruft not worthy of his own page. Just because his son is famous doesn't make this guy famous. TVXPert 03:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. ShigeruNomi 06:36, 8 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 and Redirect to Pavement (band). article text has been copied and redirect formed. --++Lar: t/c 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger Cut Plus Two[edit]

Delete and merge to Pavement or Slanted and Enchanted - non notable single. Strothra 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge as per Strothra - article isn't even accurate....Ac@osr 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as per above. Nertz 00:31, 7 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 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Jhin[edit]

NN actor. According to the IMDB listing on this actor (here), the information here is completely incorrect. This article fails WP:BIO and there is not enough biographical information on the subject. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:38, 6 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 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mulattos[edit]

Duplicate of List of multiracial people, with an apparently unwieldy notability criteria (as the author states, "Due to the extensive list, this list only manages A-M"). The title uses debatably offensive language. Was prodded twice, removed by creator without explanation. I'll let the consensus decide if a redirect would be offensive, in my mind it's like redirecting "negro" to African American. hateless 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, duplicate article, using extremely questionable terminology in article title besides. --Deville (Talk) 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of multiracial people, although I'm not certain that it's a common enough to term for someone to search. ScottW 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Metamagician3000 09:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Punkmorten 11:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the term "mulatto" is considered derogatory. Additionally, "mulatto" means someone who is part caucasian and part African, so the article is plain misinformation. Aguerriero (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. It's an unlikely search term, besides being unnecessarily offensive to some. I can't see this being useful. List of multiracial people is potentially debatable too, but there's plenty of precedent for keeping that. Grandmasterka 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and check List of Black/White people. CG 17:59, 8 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. -- Longhair 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cojum Dip[edit]

Doesn't appear to be an established band or meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Dbertman 18:55, 6 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 – Gurch 14:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly games[edit]

Delete. ad, WP:CORP. Prod removed by User:fireflygames. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unfair deletion. Article is no different from 90 percent of articles in its category, featuring companies of similar size, with articles created by the company itself, of similar size and detail. Why is it being singled out? Fireflygames 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google test result for "Firefly games"[106], "Firefly game" + "Patrick Sweeney"[107]. Yanksox 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And clearly a campaign of promotion: should it surprize anyone to get 113 hits from bulletin boards, rpg sites, etc. etc.? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Circular logic. An article about a game publisher should be deleted because Google returns 100+ gaming-related links? This seems to me to be evidence that the company is reasonably well-known in its field. Granted, it's not GM or American Express, but criteria for deletion should be more than one or two people unfamiliar with the topic not having heard of the company before.Fireflygames 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. Doesn't matter whether other articles in that category are similar; this is the one in question. The creator's username doesn't help his case much either. You shouldn't create articles about yourself. I'd support its inclusion in a list or some such thing, just not its own article. Kafziel 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Next time I'll be sure to create a fake username. Thanks for the tip.Fireflygames 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad to help. See, next time it can be deleted without a vote, as re-creation of previously deleted material. So it won't matter then. Kafziel 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The history log shows I deleted my sarcastic comment within seconds of posting it, but I see you went to the trouble of restoring it to score more points off me. I do still find it bizarre that the primary objection to the article is that I didn't post it under a pseudonym. Regardless of who posted it, it's a factual article free of boastful or unverifiable claims. If you'd like to do further research & make non-vandalizing revisions or expansions as a third party, please do so - isn't that the point of Wikipedia?Fireflygames 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was no trouble to put your comment back in. In the future, I would suggest you take those few seconds it took you to re-read and decide to delete it, and spend a little extra time thinking twice before you post it. There's no hiding on Wikipedia, and certainly not AfD.
As for the rest: the primary objection to the article is that it is not a notable company, not that you weren't sneaky enough about adding it. It would still have a delete tag on it if your user name was Kafziel. And, no, the point of Wikipedia is not to make other editors scramble around to try to make something worthwhile out of vanity and advertising. It's simply not allowed, and nothing anyone here can write will make it a more famous or significant company.
I know it's hard not to take a deletion of one of your articles personally, especially when it has to do with you, but I hope it won't discourage you from contributing in more constructive ways elsewhere on Wikipedia. Kafziel 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no. I've been through junior high school before - no need to repeat the experience. Very disappointing ... on the other hand, now I have some firsthand experience to share when folks ask about Wikipedia's lack of credibility. Fireflygames 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, Wikipedia instantly loses credibility since it doesn't function the way you wish it to? Yanksox 18:30, 7 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 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John David Bennett[edit]

NN actor. Fails WP:BIO. Actor who has appeared in one straight to video film and a minor role on TV. Besides his acting credits, there are no biographical details available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:11, 6 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 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Crowley[edit]

NN actor. Appeared in a straight to video film and may have a few other credits. Five credits are listed here, but IMDB only lists two. Fails WP:BIO and besides his acting credits, there are few biographical details available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:15, 6 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 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Gentry[edit]

NN actor. Appeared in a Barney stage show. Fails WP:BIO and besides this one un-verified credit, there is no biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:22, 6 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. Andeh, stuff as bad as this can be deleted using {{d}} without the need for AfD. -- RHaworth 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhfjdhsfkjzkdfjjj[edit]

appears to be a test page by a newbie Andeh 19:21, 6 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 – Gurch 14:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signs 2[edit]

This article is a hoax there will be no such movie. I have looked at IMDB, CommingSoon.net, the Touchstone Pictures website, and googled the writer and director and found nothing. There is no such movie. LCpl 15:53, 6 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 15:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Greenbauer[edit]

NN actress. Performed in a Barney & Friends stage show. Fails WP:BIO and besides this one unverified credit, there is no biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:27, 6 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 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Hood[edit]

NN actor. Had a minor role on a TV show and a possible role (he's not credited with it on IMDB) in a straight to video film. Fails WP:BIO and besides his acting credits, there is no biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:36, 6 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 – Gurch 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian computer scientists[edit]

Lists non-notable people and should be replaced by category Billlion 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to fashion. – Robert 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion icon[edit]

This article is a dictionary defintion and an ode to Naomi Campbell in one. If nothing else, an icon article should be created and the definition stuff go in there, since a person can be called an icon. However, the POV, fancruftic Namoi stuff is ridiculous. Antares33712 19:43, 6 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 – Gurch 15:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer[edit]

  • Delete. Per Fan1967's comment in AfD for Signs 2, suspect editor appears to be creating nonsense sequel articles. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, no verification, and ridiculous shooting schedule. Fan1967 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a filmmaker I can say it's nearly impossible to make a movie (around 2 hours) from spring to summer, especially under Hollywood standards. Yanksox 22:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax —Mets501talk 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete burninate this garbage. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Nertz 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Otherwise Dreamworks seems to be taking the Shrek films in an odd new direction. Voice of Treason 14:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and burninate. Track down the author and staple his knees together. ---Charles 03:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that possible? Yanksox 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need really big staples. Fan1967 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth the effort. --Charles 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT crystalball clause.--Isotope23 19:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with the other film sequel articles, these are unjustified crystal ball cruft with no value or worth. doktorb | words 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aggressive mass crystalballism. Kevin_b_er 08:28, 10 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. notable enough to be written up in Time and passes the google test. --++Lar: t/c 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Hukku[edit]

This is a non-notable person. This is a vanity article. Dcflyer 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Antares33712 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the case this is deleted, I-flex Solutions, Flexcube, I-flex, and similar articles should also be considered for deletion. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. A company may be notable without the officers necessarily being notable. If the company is one of India's biggest and Oracle is buying it, that is notable. the CEO (unless a founding CEO) is just an employee. He has done nothing to gain notability and that is the line. Antares33712 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Nertz 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - He is notable because he is the founder-CEO. He heads the company that is the largest in banking s/w. it has been acquired by Oracle with management control still retained by him. How is it that American Idol particpants are notable, Individual episodes of TV serials are notable ;) but not people who build and head companies?? --Gurubrahma 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is a known person in Corporate India... A Google search can confirm that. He even features in Time magazine - Lost 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable businessperson, globally. Vanity article? How so? Doesn't the subject of the article have to be the author in order for it to be a vanity article? Aguerriero (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - He is quite notable, easily passes the google test. --Girish 12:01, 13 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. Notability is not established. --Ezeu 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houkocon[edit]

A page about an Anime convention that has not only not happened yet, but provides no indication that it's really popular enough to deserve an article (ex: "Pre-Registration Numbers: 72"). We can't know if it will become popular in the future (and guessing violates WP:NOT), but it doesn't seem to be yet. It's an advertisement. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, based on my nomination. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we can live with it at least the 10 days until it happens and then decide. The fact they actually received non-profit status is a lot more than other new anime cons can say. The article needs to be fleshed out A LOT more though. I wouldn't call this an "advertisement" any more than most other anime con pages. (FYI: I am not associated with this event in any way.) --PatrickD 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, remarkably non-notable --Deville (Talk) 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Nertz 00:25, 7 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 – Gurch 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-lo-ing[edit]

Delete Looks like a neologism to me, correct me if i'm wrong. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:15, 6 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 (No consensus). I think we have an editor willing to take this one on and make it a better article, if somewhat smaller... --++Lar: t/c 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failbetter[edit]

Appears to be advertising, per WP:NOT, also look at the creator's username. Delete Yanksox 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because this one is like an ad, but the magazine may be worthy of a well-written article. —Mets501talk 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Keep. It does read like an ad, but it seems to have gained some notability -- mentions in lit blogs, interviews with well-known authors (Anne Tyler, Pam Houston, Michael Chabon, E.L. Doctorow, etc.) BuckRose 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Nertz 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Keep - This is one of the editors of this magazine. Our sincere apologies for not undertstanding the guidelines concerning self-submiting (we had recived bad advice to do so, not knowing the rules). Nevertheless, we hope that someone and/or a Wikipedia editor may deem the magazine worthy of an article since the magazine is widely read and discusses many subjects (authors) covered by Wikipedia. Thus, we hope someone will either re-write this entry and/or enter a new one in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacTranslator OSX[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [110]. Haakon 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This text is a variation of what is on Excel Software's site with full permission. Here is a partial list of articles that follow the same format. Are you proposing that all of these articles be deleted? SoftwareDeveloper 00:53, 7 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. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacA&D OSX[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [111]. Haakon 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This text is a variation of what is on Excel Software's site with full permission. Here is a partial list of articles that follow the same format. Are you proposing that all of these articles be deleted? SoftwareDeveloper 00:52, 7 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. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RbApp[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [112]. Haakon 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This text is a variation of what is on Excel Software's site with full permission. Here is a partial list of articles that follow the same format. Are you proposing that all of these articles be deleted? SoftwareDeveloper 00:49, 7 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. – Robert 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Foxtrot stories[edit]

  • Delete. Fails to meet notability guidelines. — Mike 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Nertz 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it doesn't even link to the right Foxtrot article. BuckRose 01:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Eluchil404 02:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable --Starionwolf 02:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by Staxringold as "nn program; some speedy votes already on AFD". Nom: You may want to take a look at the protocol for mass AFD nominations. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuickBugs[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [113]. Haakon 20:28, 6 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. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuickUML[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [114]. Haakon 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareDeveloper 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)This text is a non-promotional variation of what is on Excel Software's site with full permission. Below is a partial list of articles that follow the same format.[reply]

Are you proposing that all of these articles be deleted?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinA&D[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [115]. Haakon 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article follows the same format as over two dozen other articles for UML tools referenced from page List of UML Tools. Many of those tools are shareware tools with a shorter lifespan and smaller user base. By comparison, WinA&D has been around for 10 years with thousands of users in 40 countries at companies like GM, Lockheed Martin, IBM, etc.

Are you proposing that all UML tool articles be deleted?

SoftwareDeveloper 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) The text for this article comes from Excel Software with full permission.[reply]

  • Comment Actually, a lot of these articles get left alone because nobody notices them. Activity like yours, suddenly showing up and creating multiple articles obviously to advertise your products, draws notice. Thanks for the advice, though. I think these other products need a good look. Fan1967 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareDeveloper 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Although I'm new to Wikipedia authoring, I did spend many hours first reviewing other such articles to ensure my postings were consistent with others and as non promotional as possible. If your goal is to remove all product/tool references then there are many such articles and plenty of lists that references those pages. Don't you think that removing this information will reduce the value of Wikipedia? For example, of what value is the Unified Modeling Notation (UML) without a tool that supports it?[reply]

  • There's a difference between documenting and advertising. In many cases it takes a lot of work to ensure that all articles are encyclopedic, not promotional. Fan1967 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have an article Unified Modeling Language. People kept adding tools there. So we started the separate List of UML tools with a definition what an UML tool is at UML tool. From time to time, someone drops in there and screams "adspam!" and starts a deletion campaign. I know that Wikipedia is not meant for advertising, but the question yet to be answered is: why do you want to censor these lists? Do you really want to have only tools from the two or threee biggest companies on that list? Or do you want to have no tool listed nowhere on Wikipedia? Then please put Unified Modeling Language on your watchlist and clean that once a week at least. See: If we are talking about things like UML, doesn't it make sense to also have some tools listed? After all UML is meant to be used for software development and the industry is using tools to support UML. Wikipedia is not censorship. Please note: I do not have a special interest in WinA&D (far from that). But please note that WinA&D is a well known UML tool which has been around for years now. Claiming that this tool is not noteworthy in the UML area is simply not correct. Please consider stopping this deletion campaign of UML tools. This campaign may be noble but it isn't thought thoroughly to its end. And please don't think there isn't anybody watching lists like List of UML tools. Thank you for your consideration. --Ligulem 07:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is *not* a Wiki about UML tools. To answer a specific question above, I only want to have the major tools used in that field on wikipedia, the rest is list cruft with no purpose. There are better places on Internet for an exhaustive overview of all UML related software. Equendil Talk 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well. How do you define major UML tools? And do you put Unified Modeling Language on your watchlist and delete every addition of an UML tool there then? (that's what we had in the past, nearly on daily basis). --Ligulem 07:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes something "major" is of course subjective and will depends of the area of knowledge covered. As far as software is concerned, I'm usually quite partial to the Google test. In my book, hits in the hundreds of thousands or better yet in the millions make a software application major, whereas a search on a product that fails to reach the 1000 results limit of Google makes that product very minor. Rational Rose scores 1,680,000 hits on google [116], WinA&D a mere 955 hits [117] (~300 different hits). Ultimately, I try to set a scale based on the amount of results returned by products in a given category of software, I would raise the bar if we were talking about main stream products such as a word processor or a video game (97,000,000 hits for "microsoft word", 60,000,000 for "world of warcraft") or lower it for more obscure fields. As for watching the Unified Modeling Language page, no I don't do that, though I have no idea what's your point. Equendil Talk 09:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These requirements you are imposing here have no consensus on Wikipedia. "As for watching the Unified Modeling Language page, no I don't do that, though I have no idea what's your point": Yes, that's part of the problem. --Ligulem 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "imposing" anything on anyone, AfD pages are used to reach a concensus. You will find that the community at large is not in favour of including unnotable subjects in Wikipedia (there are exceptions such as schools or geographical locations), and that in the absence of hard rules, one has to use common sense and good judgement. You are of course free to disagree, maybe point out why my arguments/criteria have no weight, which may convince others and possibly make me change my mind. I'm still eager to know why you think I should be watching the UML page by the way. Equendil Talk 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this post here would matter anything—as you obviously do not care about the field these articles are about and you've made your decision anyway. But you might want to "impose" your "common sense" here too. I'm sure you will find some other "non-notable" software there too. At least, this would make your actions here look a little less random. Contributing to wikipedia by random voting for mass deletes of articles created by newbies hours after their creation isn't exactly so interesting. But if it makes you feel happy: well then! Happy deleting! --Ligulem 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm a software engineer, so I might just have a little interest in that field. As for other non notable entries, feel free to point out individual entries, I might just propose them for deletion indeed. My actions are not "random", I'm patrolling new pages, fixing those entries that can be salvaged, helping their author improve the content where possible, or at least making sure they are listed for cleanup for later edits by other wikipedians, also participating in the various deletion procedures for entries that I or others think are not suitable (which also sometimes involves arguing in favour of said entries). Equendil Talk 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a software engineer too (since 14 years). What bothers me is that you vote here but you do not care about articles like Unified Modeling Language. You didn't respond to the problem I pointed out above here (editors constantly adding tools to articles like Unified Modeling Language). How do you "explain" your "non-notable" criteria to them? We have a lot of anons adding these tools every day. You can remove things like MonoUML from List of UML tools. It will be readded by an anon in less than 4 weeks. You can also delete List of UML tools: anons-will then add tools to Unified Modeling Language (do you prefer that? Are you going to revert-war with them over that? This is a wiki!). I don't think I need to point you to articles, do I? You sure know how to navigate through a hierarchy of categories, do you? We have all sorts of "collections" on this wiki — some random deletes of knee-jerk "non-notables" won't solve that problem. And don't you think it is a problem to explain to newbies why there are articles like MonoUML and articles like WinA&D are nominated for AfD within hours? Doesn't look that a bit arbitrary (even) to you? This deletion campaign is a random shot like all the previous ones I've seen on the lists of softwares. Don't try to make you looking important here by wrongfully citing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Your random shot delete votes are pointless. I'm sure you will walk away like all these other "AfD"ners I've seen before on the software lists. --Ligulem 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's stop this, the UML article is not the center of Wikipedia, there are *hundred* of articles deleted every day, I'm sorry that's still not enough and some articles make it through, can't be everywhere. You think it's pointless ? Without deletion, wikipedia would be a collection of unknown high school rock "bands", bio stubs of random people, ads for web sites and various products, hoaxes and crackpot theories, copyrighted material copy/pasted from websites, manuals, HOW-TOs, etc ad nauseum, sitting there polluting the database, making categories unusable, wasting the time of other wikipedians who work on cleanup tasks, and turning Wikipedia into a generic free hosting wiki as opposed to an encyclopedia. Equendil Talk 06:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Now we are getting to the point: You are comparing WinA&D with "unknown high school rock "bands"". "the UML article is not the center of Wikipedia"—indeed (So why do you want to make a point here?). But it's the center of this delete debate, which you persistently refute to acknowledge. As I said: you are on a random campaign here. And you can't concede the errors in your reasoning. This is humand (persisting to what one has said, being unable to accept own errors), but not actually what's needed to be a good editor for wikipedia. --Ligulem 07:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, The UML article is not the center of this debate either, the WinA&D one is. I've already explained why I'm participating in this procedure, I didn't end here for random reasons. That you seemingly refuse to acknowledge this on the ground that I'm not involved in the UML article is another story. Equendil Talk 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're action here is random because you actually do not even care about things like MonoUML. You are on a "patrol" here. This is ok for vandalism. But the creation of WinA&D is not vandalism. Your "patrolling" would be fine if you would have a consistent strategy. But you don't. Excusing yourself with "I can't be verywhere" is a bit ridiculous. It rather shows that you've exhausted your arguments. You could at least comment about what to do with MonoUML. Do you want to delete that too? Your refusal to comment on a broader view is exactly the problem here. This would actually reveal the errors in your resoning. Well, nothing but a random shot. And WinA&D is your random victim. This makes it look like you possibly do have an interest in the removal of said product/company from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censorship and you have to treat all these products the same. That's the point. --Ligulem 08:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Equendil: Aha, you've prodded MonoUML. Well, what about Gaphor? Is this notable? --Ligulem 08:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareDeveloper 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) I looked at each of the articles (RbApp, WinA&D, MacA&D OSX, MacTranslator OSX, QuickUML, QuickHelp, QuickCRC) that I've posted on Wikipedia using a format similar to dozens of existing articles and discovered some interesting facts. Every article was suggested for deletion, by the same 4 user names, in the same order, with the same comments, in approximately the same time period. Does something smell fishy to you?[reply]

  • All were suggested for deletion by me, not four users. I used the same comment because I had the same reason for all the articles. I have later been told I should have grouped them together into one nomination, which is how it should be for mass-AfDs. I apologise for the hassle of all the nominations. Haakon 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with nominating them separately. My question: could we find a compromise and keep WinA&D, de-POV and de-advertise that in wording as much as possible (as needed) and merge the others into WinA&D? (I've already added merge suggest tags to the other articles). --Ligulem 21:33, 9 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.Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinTranslator[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [118]. Haakon 20:33, 6 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. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuickHelp[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [119]. Haakon 20:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareDeveloper 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)This text is a non-promotional variation of what is on Excel Software's site with full permission. Below is a partial list of articles that follow the same format.[reply]

Are you proposing that all of these articles be deleted?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 – Gurch 15:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo_Squad[edit]

Vanity Page. The only source cited for the Kilo Squad page is a fan-forum for an RPG and Star Wars: Battlefield II clan. This suggests that "Kilo Squad" is a fan creation, rather than something actually in the Star Wars canon, making it similar to fanfiction. Therefore, it's marked for deletion following the vanity page guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChiPsiUpsilon (talk • contribs) 20:34, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment AfD is user's first action, and may not have been properly completed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a non-notable fan forum is the only reference.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm something of an expert on shiny boys and the GAR, and this is entirely non-canon. This sort of thing doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -LtNOWIS 02:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 9 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. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuickCRC[edit]

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [120]. Haakon 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareDeveloper 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)This text is a non-promotional variation of what is on Excel Software's site with full permission. Below is a partial list of articles that follow the same format.[reply]

Are you proposing that all of these articles be deleted?

  • Is there any way I get can you to stop posting that list? Aguerriero (talk) 21:01, 7 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 (No consensus). Nose counting says delete. But we don't nose count. The one keep is pretty strong here. I'd keep a clip show before a random episode, if I were commenting. Keep, no consensus. Disagree? WP:DRV but I think I did the right thing. --++Lar: t/c 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey[edit]

  • Delete. I'm a fan of Lost, but this is an article about a friggin' clip show. — Mike 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it'd be nicer if I was formal about it. ahem Fails to meet notability standards. — Mike 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Lostpedia —Mets501talk 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lostpedia is not a transwiki-able wiki. — Mike •  16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into the main Lost article ... otherwise Delete if there is nothing that editors of that article consider to be useful BigDT 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as nom. -- GWO
  • Delete. I'm all for articles about actual episodes, but articles about clip shows go too far. BryanG(talk) 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whoever wrote this did a good job putting together the information from the narration of the episode. This shouldnt even be listed under AFD, mediators are currently discussing whether or not to remove all of the individual episode summaries or to remove a list of the summaries. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, didn't see anything to merge (but I'm not a Lost fan), nor do I see a reason to wait. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless. Deleuze 14:05, 14 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. Sango123 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DHARMA Initiative stations[edit]

Delete — non-notable fancruft. Delete or transwiki to Lostpedia. (Lostpedia is not a MediaWiki wiki and thus transwiki-ing is not available. ‐ M.) — Mike 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm suprised this wasn't nominated earlier. Since you did not provide a reason to delete this article, abstain for me. I don't think their is a way to transwiki articles to non Media-Wiki owned wikis, though. -Whomp 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, correct on that reasoning. Sorry. Edited that. — Mike 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to weak delete per nom. -Whomp 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Change back to abstain, because I can't make up my mind. -Whomp 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Query It'd be a shame (I think) to just delete, but I'm not sure what precedent there is for this sort of thing -- could it perhaps be Merged into the Lost article (or is that too big already?) Zero sharp 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Note: I am one of the principal editors on this article.) Nominator has provided no rationale for deletion in keeping with Deletion policy or Guide to deletion. "Fancruft" is not in and of itself a valid reasoning. Further, the nom appears to be on a mass AfD campaign against fiction articles, contrary to WP:POINT.--LeflymanTalk 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Note the adjective "non-notable" (also, notability essay). Further, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Finally — unfortunately not exactly new to me by this point in the day — incivil assumption of bad faith on the part of the respondent, who attempted to delete the AfD header from the page and appears to have come here after discovering that didn't really work. — Mike 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this page can and should be maintained so that everyone, not just fans, can read it, the current content is not fancruft. And per Leflyman. -- Wikipedical 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep There was A LOT of discussion before this article was created. Please see Talk: The DHARMA Initiative. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I know fancruft when I see one, I have put many fancruft articles where they belong, this contains important info about a strong theme in LOST and it must stay. The stations play an important role in the series. Fancruft would be making an article for each station, then I say it went too far. Keeping all the stations in one page is perfect and that's the way to do it. --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep' as per above! Nertz 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muhaidib and Leflyman -Whomp 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful, informative, relevant. Anand 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Leflyman. A relevant set of information about Lost. Wolfsbane Kane 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no reason in nom, not fancruft. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning given. Voice of Treason 13:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per mo and jtrost. ArgentiumOutlaw 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't contain any theories, all information offered appears on the show. There has been a whole lot of effort in producing this page, it would be an act of vandalism to delete it. --Factorylad 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is way above the average standard of TV show article. DJ Clayworth 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A good article on a subject of reasonable notability. -Litefantastic 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-This is something someone might want to know about. I don't think it's fancruft. --Kahlfin 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. A well-written article which may appeal to many readers. --[User:doubleplusungood|doubleplusungood]] 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep, because it is a vital aspect of the show. SergeantBolt 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I see the nomination as a hint that the article needs some rewriting to appeal to a broader audience. Arru 12:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but gosh it needs editing. I kept reading because I was interested, but it was so long and repetitive, that it was making me yawn. Please de-Zork-ify the obsessive and exhausting list of prop items.--24.18.254.237 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • note this is this author's first contribution. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:39, 11 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. Sango123 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured on Lost[edit]

  • Delete. Or, probably better, transwiki to Lostpedia. (Lostpedia not being a MediaWiki Wikimedia project, it can't be transwikied, evidently.) Fancruft. — Mike 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Lostpedia (it's not a MediaWiki Wikimedia project), useless on WP —Mets501talk 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's point it towards the Lost Wiki Demon Hog 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; this was improperly nominated. Further, there is no such "transwiki to Lostpedia" option. Lostpedia is not a WikiMedia project; it is a private fan site.--LeflymanTalk 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Improperly nominated"? Uh, which rules did the nomination violate? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion policy; in particular, when an article is listed without a specific rationale provided, based on WP requirements. (Note: A claim of "fancruft" is not a specific, nor deletion-worthy "violation.") A potential nominator should try to resolve the problems that might keep an article from meeting WP standards, prior to putting it up for AfD (as per Guide to deletion). Only articles which are unredeemable within the requirements of Wikipedia's policies should be listed for deletion. Making nominations just because one doesn't like the content, or to make a WP:POINT that (as in this case) fictional subjects shouldn't be on Wikipedia is contrary to community standards. No such specific reasons were provided by the nominator, nor any attempts at improving the content (here or in the number of similar AfD noms this editor has made).--LeflymanTalk 05:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article features a list of soundtracks and music featured on Lost in a neat and orderly fashion and should not be transwikied to Lostpedia. The article is useful since the official site does not contain listings of the songs they include in the episode. Sfufan2005 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This article is necessary to keep the main Lost article free of long tables. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete fancruft. Transwiki to Lostpedia if the creators want to. Bwithh 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Wikipedical 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Jtrost above. This is real information pertaining to the series, much like lists of actors. -- PKtm 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki the content point the original editors toward Lostpedia. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good use of list format to cover music on Lost. --JJay 02:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of other soundtrack pages exist, why is this one singled out for AfD? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 13:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-What isn't useful about it? How is it fancruft if it has nothing to do with the plot of the show? This is valuable if someone wants to know whether or not a song was featured and/or which song was featured. Where could we possibly merge it to? --Kahlfin 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be kept, may be helpful for those follwoing the shows mythology, and keeps other lost pages clear of clutter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybridchild (talk • contribs) 20:11, June 8, 2006
  • Keep ArgentiumOutlaw 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; not, in my opinion, fancruft, rather a somewhat comprehensive guide to music to a popular TV show. TheDrinkNinja 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per above. SergeantBolt 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a collection of information about a show, not fancruft. Pumpkingrrl 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That one's going on my wall. — Mike • 20:15, 10 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 – Gurch 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Week[edit]

Original prod'd as "notability/reads like an advert". I concur. Wickethewok 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the proder, I should agree with myself. Yanksox 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT (soapbox #3). --Slgrandson 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could be made acceptable through some edits.Kazari 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (I have now edited the article extensively (although I forgot to log on first). I have addressed the notability aspect -- which I think is wrong -- by posting the 2006 participant list. I have addressed the advert issue by reducing the advocacy material to the barebones of the matter. I would strenuously argue against deletion at this point. Kazari 18:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Google returns 44 400 hits for "Sunshine Week" "Open Government", I'm not sure if it's NN. --Zoz (t) 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kazari's edits and the list of participants seem to clearly assert notability. Deleuze 14:13, 14 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. Sango123 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Airlines[edit]

  • Delete. As Oceanic Flight 815 is covered, really, this is fancruft. Delete or transwiki to Lostpedia. (Lostpedia is not a MediaWiki wiki and thus transwiki-ing is not available. ‐ M.) — Mike 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((NON-personal attack removed))--205.188.116.10 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oceanic Flight 815 only covers "Oceanic Airlines" as it relates to Lost, not as a general inside joke. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except I'm not seeing any evidence that this is an "inside joke". --Calton | Talk 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's listed under fictional companies, many of which only appear in one show. This one appears across several, and as Crustacean said, people may not know it's a inside joke across several TV shows and other movies. Also, we can't just "transfer it to another wiki," Lostpedia is its own site, and not a direct part of the original wiki. - A.J. 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:AJHalliwell. -Whomp 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Wikipedical 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per above --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of these Lost related AFDs are ridiculous. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable fictional company! Nertz 00:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? So this notable fictional company is the same in each -- or even most -- of its references? --Calton | Talk 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the same way that "555" is a notable dialling code, and "Alan Smithee" is a notable fictional film director. It's a handy film/TV convention, to avoid upsetting actual airlines. -- GWO
  • Delete. It's a convenient fictional name of no significance other than using it -- since it's fake -- won't get TV/movie producers sued. I'm seeing no evidence whatsoever that the uses have anything in common. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up, finding additional sources. The article should probably be untied from Lost, as it's not solely used in connection to that series. (Oceanic Flight 815 serves that purpose).--LeflymanTalk 06:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A relevant set of information about Lost, as well as being shown in quite a few other shows/films. Wolfsbane Kane 12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oceanic is used in multiple fictional works, ans is not Lost fancruft - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up and expand. SergeantBolt 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO's comment and Calton; indiscriminate cruftitude per WP:NOT, collecting the said unrelated cruft together is WP:OR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Jtrost that this is getting ridiculous. Sfufan2005 19:04, 10 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 and Redirect to Charlie Pace. That this is a substantial article is not reason to not delete it, you know... It just means more work for the mergeing person. I'll watch this one and if it hasn't been merged by someone, speedy it in a few weeks. Note that I almost went with delete here... you could argue consensus is for that. --++Lar: t/c 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Shaft[edit]

  • Delete. Delete or transwiki to Lostpedia. (Lostpedia is not a MediaWiki wiki and thus transwiki-ing is not available. ‐ M.) As it is, not sufficiently notable. It's not even a recurring plot point in the series any longer (i.e., I'd not be nominating "Others (Lost)"). — Mike 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment non-personal attack removed--205.188.116.11 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or tw per Mike. Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki as painfully useless fancruft. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki per above —Mets501talk 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its content is notable. We could merge it into Charlie Pace, but the information definitely does not deserve to be deleted. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I would recommend a merge, but this is a fairly substantial article. - SimonP 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No opinion on keeping or deleting this content, but if consensus is to delete, I'd recommend redirecting to Driveshaft instead of deleting outright. --Allen 01:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content. redirect name to Driveshaft, and transwiki the content point the original editors toward Lostpedia. --Calton | Talk 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonP. --JJay 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Charlie Pace -- I have to go with the nom on this one. This article isn't listed within the Lost navigation; much of the content is unverifiable/based on an "unofficial" (i.e. "fake") fan site. A short mention about "Driveshaft" would be appropriate under the character, as noted by Jtrost above.--LeflymanTalk 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI agree with Leflyman, and it should be re-written as well --Scorpiusdiamond 10:43, 11 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 – Gurch 15:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of live webcams in the world[edit]

A list of webcams, almost none of which have articles, all of which are weblinks, so this article seems to fail WP:NOT a collection of external links. OK, so it doesn't explicitly say that WP:NOT a webcam search engine, but I don't really think that need saying in as many words. Even Java and Software are presented as external links. I'd be tempted to speedy it as A3, in fact, since there is essentially no content other than external links. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't find an actual deletion tag on the page itself. GassyGuy 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's there now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Cheers, mate! GassyGuy 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I couldn't save it because some of the sites are in the spam blacklist (which probably tells us all we need to know about the merit of this article). Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hard to see how this could become an encyclopedic article. Its at best an unmaintainable list better suited to other sites - who is going to ensure that no porn sites are excluded and that every other live webcam is there? Gwernol 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. GassyGuy 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a link directory. Ziggurat 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know that list to be laughably incomplete. El Ingles 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and add to WP:BAI --Deville (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Nertz 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't for where to have a good time on the computer OTAKU 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a list of every live webcam in the world would be enormous, to say the least. So this is listcruft. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nom. Next up: List of mail boxes. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good basis for an article on Live Webcams, which we don't seem to have (please correct me if I'm wrong). --JJay 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's already some content on the "live webcam" phenomenon in the webcam article. In any case, the article being nominated for deletion doesn't have any encyclopedic content - it's just a list of links - so there's really nothing to build on. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some content? There is one line: This led to the birth of the 'live streaming webcam', which is still available in various forms today. That is an incredibly poor coverage of the phenomenon. I would rather see a short intro added to this list (adding one or two lines would immediately make it the most comprehensive coverage of the phenomenon at wikipedia). --JJay 00:14, 8 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 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Kangas[edit]

NN actress. Has a single TV role to her credit. Besides this single credit and her year of birth, there is no other biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:20, 6 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 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Kuers[edit]

NN actress. Is credited with a single role on a TV show. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:24, 6 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. Seems notable enough to me... I saw nothing in the article about Taco Bell. --++Lar: t/c 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gottlieb[edit]

Looks like a vanity article to me. I don't think being a former columnist for a website is sufficient for notability. Wmahan. 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't really find notability outside of that site, and I don't know if his notability in it is that big. Yanksox 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, extremely non-notable or joke vanity. The fact that his magnum opus is a photoshop and that he left this job to work at Taco Bell is telling. --Deville (Talk) 22:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mark is one of the more well-known and rising designers of Magic: The Gathering and is fairly well-known within the community of players. Rob 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some cleanup here to remove the jokiness. Mark's a comedy-styled writer and it looks like the original author let that slip into his own sense of style. Rob 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mark is not just a former columnist, he's a designer and rules manager for Magic: The Gathering. He's well known between the players of the game. Davide 12:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please he is famous to magic communities Yuckfoo 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be notable enough among Magic fans Deleuze 14:07, 14 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 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato[edit]

NN actress. She is credited with a single role in a TV show. Fail WP:BIO and besides her acting credit and years of birth, there is no biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:29, 6 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 – Gurch 15:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madden Wii[edit]

There is very little to no verifiable information on this article. There is no proof that the Wii will use its controller to make the game "feel more like you're playing football." Saying that many claim that this game will be the best version is not something that can be proved yet and is a completely invalid argument. This page should be remade when there is at least a little bit of information on Madden Wii (that title has not been confirmed anyway), such as a confirmation of its release at all. Vaniac 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I looked around in Google on this and only found articles about how this is in the plans to be created by EA Sports, but I could not find any specific article about its release date nor anything else. I think it is likely to appear on the market shortly. Once it is out, a viable article can be written. Kukini 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal ball --Deville (Talk) 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ProfessorPlumNY 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball KleenupKrew 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already voted (Delete) I listed this page for deletion, but I would just like to add that the article speaks as if the information in it is fact, but none of it is. If the writer will at least state that this is speculation, maybe this article would be able to last until more information is released. Vaniac 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Stumps 09:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: speculation-only --02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Zpb52
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable game that gets about 50,300 hits on google. Deathawk 21:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google and crystal ball don't count so much for me as the fact that it's unencylopedic. I know Madden games are huge, and deserve an article on the whole (which they have), but not one that hasn't even been anything yet (so there's the crystal ball I suppose). Teke 06:19, 11 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 – Gurch 15:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past cricket tournament winners[edit]

Contested prod. Unencylopedic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Whomp 22:03, 6 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 - Non notable. Google searches do not turn up much evidence that this site is known. --++Lar: t/c 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moture[edit]

Contested WP:PROD, my original reason was "ad for non-notable website, 38 forum members, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB". Article was also created by the website's owner (or at least somebody whose username is the name of the site's owner). Delete. Kusma (討論) 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT (Ads + promotion) and possible WP:AUTO. Yanksox 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sox --Deville (Talk) 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I created the page, but not as an advertisment.
So your view on this situation is that if a website has few members, than it is advertising, but if it is a well known site, then it's not advertising? That is extremely unfair, and if you look at the statistics you will clearly see that in less than a month we've had nearly 15,000 visitors. http://www.moture.co.uk/moture/modules.php?name=Statistics Remember, don't just base moture's notability on the amount of members, the forum is just an add on to moture, an optional registration option is available, but the majority of moture can be accessed and used without registration, you can even comment on news. etc without an email address, only 0.24% of visitors to moture actually register.
Moture is a notable site. Matt 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence that the site meets Wikipedia:Notability (web). Has the site been written about in other publications? Kusma (討論) 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the well known bit that means it's not advertising. For the most part, Wikipedia doesn't allow any sort of pages regarding websites that have not had a signifigant effect on the culture of the internet. This would allow sites such as Newgrounds, 4chan to be on here, but forbid something like [123] among others, because they are "Followers" in the trend game. However, small(er) websites that are not as "Notable" regarding the internet, even if their fanbase is enormous, are not permitted. There has been gigantic fights regarding HaloGen (game mod), even though it is rated in the top 5 of all Command and Conquer Generals mods, because it is not a causitive effect of any "notable" phenomenon. Logical2u 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Completely rewrite from a NPOV, and a POV that follows all wikipedia guideline, especially regarding those concerning site advertisement, article creation criteria, mainly due to the fact that...
  1. The article is written pretty poorly right now, even though it has a nice little table and images.
  2. The creator of the website and of the article are the same person, drawing signifigant flak regarding advertisement policies.
  3. Insert pokemon offence here.
  4. The site, at the moment, doesn't appear to have influence internet culture.
Comment What do you mean by the pokemon offence? I am happy to re-write the entire article, and/or get others to write it for me, I know plenty of people that would be happy to. Instead of posting irrelevant pokemon nonsense here, why not contribute to the article? Matt 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Pokemon defence is stating that a given subject to be deleted to more notable than one of the millions of pokemon. The pokemon offence is something random I made up. It was meant to be an injoke. I don't have the time (and I'm assuming others don't either) to completely rewrite the article while researching your site. Especially since it is apt to be deleted anyways. Logical2u 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moture hasn't been mentioned in any other major articles, but I know many people will want to read this, for example many parents will have heard in the news that illegal music downloading is on the rise, and now all they have to do is point their children to moture, where they can get free legal music from unsigned artists. Another example is the musician community, who can upload and receive comments on their work, as well as creating a small page within moture with photos etc. of thier band. This site may not have a significant effect on the culture of the internet YET, but it may well do in the future, I'm sure very few sites have a significant effect on the culture of the internet, and yet you have hundreds of sites listed. Matt 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertisement. Fails WP:WEB. No penetration on Google or Alexa. Author still hasn't demonstrated notability. SubSeven 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no assertion of notability at all, and the site has less than fifty members. Samf-nz 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it can be found in google http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Amoture.co.uk&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Matt 07:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said before, it may have less than 50 members, but only 0.24% of visitors to moture actually register. Please read the other comments in this discussion before deciding to delete, Samf-nz. Matt 07:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DO NOT BASE MOTURE'S NOTABILITY ON IT'S LACK OF MEMBERS. 0.24% OF VISITORS TO MOTURE TAKE THE TIME TO REGISTER. Matt 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt.Hoy (talk • contribs) .[reply]
Page's primary editor's (User:Matt.Hoy) second vote. First is seen above with similar comments and this was apparently unsigned in order to mask it? Logical2u 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't realise I hadn't signed it. I voted "keep" again because my original one didn't count in the list, as it said 100% delete. But hey, believe what you want to believe, I see no point in voting twice. Matt 21:51, 7 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. – Robert 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwina Sandys[edit]

An article about a nonnotable sculptor. Has only one real work located in a college. —Mets501talk 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, assuming that this refers to the same person, as she has prints featured in the Tate. (If I'm reading this right, that is.) Although it looks like she might not be notable for her sculpture after all. --Deville (Talk) 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know nothing about sculpture, and I've heard of her. Fan1967 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Someone didn't do enough research! Nertz 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, you're probably right. The article did not assert notability, however, in my opinion. —Mets501talk 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite, as its more about the surroundings of one piece. Oh, the Huge Manatee. -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 15:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small dog[edit]

This is a single non-notable poem by an unknown author. (See WP:N.) --SomeStranger (T | C) 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Article is self-confessed hoax: [124] — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides WP:N, see WP:V. No references, and I can't gleam anything from Google. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the dressed-up crab --Deville (Talk) 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-I don't trust this "consumed crustacean". I happen to live in Cambridgeshire and have heard of this "Dodd" fellow. I'll keep checking, but in the meantime don't destroy unknown poetry. he could be the next Homer. Crabulon
    • NOTE: Author of article, only edits to this discussion and article that is being discussed. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Google isn't the answer to everything. Some things need to be given time to surface. Lupo
    • NOTE: This comment was not posted by Lupo. The author impersonated him. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP should not be a tool to solicit research from others. hateless 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm so sorry everyone, i was being an immature ass. I'll find a real article to write about. Peace out. crabulon
    • NOTE: This is the author of the article.--SomeStranger (T | C) 00:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I believe this counts as an author request. May be a speedy candidate now. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable poetry. It is not Wikipoetry! Nertz 00:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and a pox on the author for his lame attempts at manipulating the outcome here. -- Captain Disdain 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator; interesting. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a FACT that Captain Disdain is NONE of those things! Playboy indeed!-Crabulon

But it must be true, you read it on the internet. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 7 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 Democratic Party (United States). OK, this was a tough one. There is a lot to read here and consensus is not clear cut. A careful review of the material in the article itself suggests that there might be SOME value in some of it. By leaving it as a redirect, that material is accessible to people that want to move it to the target article. I have half an expectation that this will go to DRV, which is fine, I may be reading the sense wrong, but that's what it feels like to me. I welcome review by others. --++Lar: t/c 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat Party (United States)[edit]

This is a polemic and not an encyclopedia article. One also notes that there are two links in the references, and the second of these links contradicts the thesis of this article. But that doesn't matter; this article has a thesis, and is thereby encyclopedic unencyclopedic. Deville (Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I guess everyone read my comments as carefully as I did  :-) --Deville (Talk) 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment Note the history of this article, which started out as a redirect to Democratic Party (United States) which Rjenson turned into something else [125] whereas the current version acts as if it's about the Democratic Party and Democratic Party (United States) is for historical context. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom ... biased opinion piece. After deletion, it should be changed back to a redirect to Democratic Party (United States) BigDT 22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a massive, massive cleanup and NPOVing. The use of the term "Democrat Party" as a possibly pejorative term has been advanced by such popular scholarly hacks like George Lakoff [126] around the idea of political "framing" of issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the article itself states, another 'hack' includes William Safire (in a 1984 column):
      • "Who started this and when? Acting on a tip, I wrote to the man who was campaign director of Wendell Willkie's race against Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "In the Willkie campaign of 1940," responded Harold Stassen, "I emphasized that the party {...} should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat party.' . . ." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cleanup as above. It looks to me like there are grounds for having an article about this phrase (as opposed to simply redirecting to Democratic Party (United States)), but this one needs a substantial amount of improvement to be brought up to standard. Terraxos 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect. Including this article in an encyclopedia dignifies a perjorative talk-radio term that is always used disparagingly. I appreciate the cleanup and NPOV sentiment, but the topic is too controversal to be cleaned up or NPOVed. I believe it should be deleted for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity. Griot 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or revert to redirect. Obvious POV fork. There should be one article about the party. Fan1967 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect I thought it was really called the Democrat party and Democratic was just an improper common useage. Nertz 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Cleanup, Merge & Redirect per Badlydrawnjeff and Nertz. -- FRCP11 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and edit for POV While I understand the concerns about including pejorative terms, I don't think they're necessarily valid, if the article does not display an overt bias. There are dozens of examples of pejorative terms that probably should be kept in WP, for documentation and to enhance understanding (see: nigger, kike).
Because this is documented, verifiable, and includes references to scholarly material, I think it is hard to argue that this article is, in itself, POV, though some of the material included in it should be reviewed to ensure NPOV stance (it is difficult to maintain such a stance in an inherently POV discussion, but we're not going to remove nigger, even if it takes a negative POV toward the use of the word--edit, perhaps, but not remove).
I think part of the perceived problem with this article is that it's also very close in name to another article. This is only a problem of perception--if the concepts are distinct (which in this case they are), the articles should be distinct. Merging should not be a course of action, nor is it a good compromise, since the terms are definitely distinct. Fearwig 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be as documented, verifiable, referenced, and scholarly as it wants, but if it's on a subject that isn't noteworthy, it shouldn't be included in this project. The material is already covered quite adequately on the real article on the party. Before material is even considered on grounds of NPOV and Verifiability, it must first pass the test of notability. This does not. Kasreyn 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? My google check for "Democrat party" and "pejorative" (which in itself is a very limiting term, with many possible synonyms) pulls up 999 links. That's not a small number at all, especially (as I said) considering the limiting factor of a term like "pejorative". I'd like to know from what objective basis you derived your claim that this does not pass the notability test. "Democrat party" with "offensive" pulls up 187,000 links. Note that a few of these links (especially the latter) also pull up sites that are actively using the term in a pejorative or negative light (saying, coincidentally, that the "democrat party" is doing something offensive, racist, whatever). That's as strong of proof as references to the term. [127]Fearwig 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persuaded by Fearwig. Cleanup and Keep, but add disambiguation to top of article. -- FRCP11 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This discussion may need a ballot-stuffing tag, judging by the recruiting going on for deletion. -- FRCP11 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't want to escalate any perception the commenter may have of 'vote stacking', but I'd be glad to refer the article to the editors I know of both right- and left-wing persuasion. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed openly with folks of all sorts of points-of-view (and hopefully folks with an interest in history and civics). I won't do so without approval/discussion though, in order to avoid any additional heat being added to the issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Take a look at my talk page if you have any doubt. Fearwig 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's a little, but hardly mass spamming like I've seen elsewere. Derex 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand your response. Shall we take the discussion to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the VfD? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I think it's significant. I was "recruited" to vote against this article on my talk page, which is how my attention was brought to it. I think the results of this vote will be less than representative of WP as a result. See User talk: Fearwig Fearwig 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am completely lost. What are you talking about? If editors are vote stacking, that's bad. If they are informing a broad base of editors with varying POV, I don't see the conflict. I don't think 'votes for deletion' are the exclusive purview of folks who watch the page. The difference is intent - to slant the results or just to broaden the base of the vote. I don't claim to know the political views of the folks who were contacted, so I can't say it's 'stacking'... but we definitely agree that stacking is certainly bad and not in the interests of WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I was told "Our old friend Rjensen is up to his tricks again," or somesuch, presumedly because I had a drawn-out talk discussion on American History with Rjensen at some point. I feel that's a very biased way to advertise an AfD, though I don't know for sure it is vote stacking since he did suggest I "weigh in" and not "vote to delete". I wonder if he did a talk page search for Rjensen and contacted everyone who's argued with him? Sorry, I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist. Fearwig 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hehe. We just edit conflicted on this very phrase. I had the same response to the message on your talk page from Griot that (while clearly indicating his desire to delete) says he 'hope(s) you will weigh in on the topic'. That seems less than an outright attempt to instruct you on how to vote. Just my observation, you're welcome to your opinion (whether theory or fact), Fearwig. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The most important thing is whether this article has merits on its own. It is simply an attempt to create another "Democratic Party" article using the perjorative. I would not approve of a Republicrat Party article for the same reason. Neither term is more than dictionary definition that merits inclusion in the main article namely Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States) - See my other reasons below. I understand your objections to being recruited - but I wouldn't let that get in the way of looking out for Wikipedia and the project to provide the best information to the public at large we can. Misdirection articles like this one are not helpful. --Northmeister 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that if it is notable enough for scholarly research to have been performed specifically on the subject, it is notable enough for WP. If I am mistaken in my understanding that it has, then I am perhaps mistaken on my vote. Fearwig 01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's the problem. It is a term of reference for the Democratic Party - should be included in a brief synopsis on the Democratic Party (United States) page - and a redirect from Democrat Party (United States) should be restored as it was there originally. --Northmeister 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Slight correction - it's a term of reference for a phrase used to describe both the Democratic Party and past iterations. Why make it brief if there's enough information to support a detailed article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect The use of this phrase as a perjorative is notable and historical fact. An enlightening and historically-based commentary on this topic can be found here [128], [129]. The perjorative nature of the phrase is not, however, appropriate as a basis for maintaining a separate article. A redirect and mention of the use of the phrase as a perjorative is a perfectly acceptable topic for the main article, 'Democratic Party'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know that rantings on a blog count as "enlightening and historically-based commentary" BigDT 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A commentary on a blog (the Washington Monthly, in this case, or a UPenn 'language log') does not diminish the words of William Safire, President Hoover, etc. to 'rantings'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't know that just because information is gleaned from a blog it is automatically discounted. --kizzle 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect per Ryan. --kizzle 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect. Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. An article Democratic Party (United States) already exists on Wikipedia and treats the subject in the NPOV manner that it should be treated. Mention of that perjorative "Democrat Party" is okay in a criticism section of the Democratic Party article but does not warrant an article itself. The way the article reads now, it is as if it is about the Democratic Party in the United States and thus is a repeat of that topic. Since there is no Democrat Party and the term directly applies to the Democratic Party in the United States, it should be mentioned in that article and does not warrant an article of its own. Further, users of Wikipedia, especially children may be directed to the wrong article as a result of this article and not typing in the correct spelling. At best there should be a redirect to Democratic Party (United States)--Northmeister 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That depends on the quantity of information available. I think it is a lacking article, but there is a great deal of information to be related, judging from the quantity of work that has apparently been done on the topic. I think the article should remove any similarity between itself and Democratic Party (United States) to focus on its distinction, however. Since your argument was not at all the rationale behind the nomination, I could not think it appropriate to vote "delete" on its basis, but it is your prerogative, of course. I agree that there should be a prominent redirect link, but not a redirect. Fearwig 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect No need to merge. The material is already adequately covered at the article on the Democratic Party. Refer to WP:NOTABILITY. This material does not deserve an offshoot article. Kasreyn 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as per Kasreyn. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect as per numerous mentions above, deserve at most a mention in the Democratic Party article if even that, not an entire offshoot. Its used as a denigrating term also which is sad that some should feel the need to dedicate and maintain an entire article on a term republicans use to remove the association of democratic from Democratic Party. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect Do we really need a separate article on the mispronuciation of something that already has its own article? --JW1805 (Talk) 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Democratic party. The phrase isn't particularly notable. At the very least it ought to be renamed. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party", so the title is highly deceptive. If kept, "Democrat Party (phrase)" would be better, per the recent Israeli apartheid (phrase). Derex 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk 02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the name is not significant (I am a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, and I have never seen or heard that name, except as a grammatical mistake) and I doubt that its use is widespread, even as an insult. Even if it was worthwhile, the page is way too long for a slogan. --Tjss(Talk) 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. KleenupKrew 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. --InShaneee 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fearwig--RWR8189 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is pointless. If this stays I might as well start my Neocons are Nazis page--8bitJake 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I (jokingly) propose a speedy, based on a clear and flagrant violation of Godwin's Law. This isn't exactly Goebbels and goosesteppers, here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Isn't the party suppose to be the Democratic Party? Because the official name of the party is the Democratic Party of the United States. This article is just an act of vandalism against the article on the Democratic Party. Or maybe if we can't delete it, we can just merge it with the History of the Democratic Party, since the article tackles the party's old name during the 1930s to 50s. --Glenncando 08:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I think that you misunderstand the article. The article is citing examinations of "Democrat Party" as a pejorative term for the "Democratic Party". Calling it insufficiently notable would be understandable, but vandalism it is not. It does have an excessive focus on the party itself, though, which is not conducive to its usefulness (and seems to reinforce the mistaken notion that it is supposed to be about the party itself, like Democratic Party (United States). Fearwig 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Democratic Party. This term alone isn't notable enough for an entire entry, it can be explained succinctly in the Democratic Party article. Other parties that used the name "Independent Democrat Party" or whatever should get an article to that effect and not fall under this catch-all. Bjsiders 13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. NPOV and rambling fork. -- GWO
  • Delete - The reference is archaic, inappropriate and obfuscating in modern usage and serves no encyclopedic purpose.62.77.181.16 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What he or she said! Kasreyn 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wouldn't that make it a political history article? Hmm... Fearwig 20:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & edit per Fearwig; interesting as semantic history. And F and I haven't been seeing eye to eye so far, so this is not vote-stacking. <g> ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect POV-fork; biased opinion piece. No need to merge. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, fork. BryanG(talk) 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Kasreyn. - Maximusveritas 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article isn't an attack on the Democratic Party; it's a report of an attack on the Democratic Party. We do have articles on other pejorative political terms, such as Chickenhawk (politics). I don't favor merger because this particular petty nastiness by the Republicans isn't important enough in the overall history of the Democratic Party to deserve this much detail in the Democratic Party article. A separate article preserves the information without cluttering the main article. JamesMLane t c 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, we disagree. Let the games begin. I agree with your characterization that this section is or should be a report on the Democratic Party rather than an attack itself, however my reasons for merge are because it would fit much better within the main Democratic Party article as a subsection, unless there is a large amount of significant and salient information that would justify a daughter article. Eat it, bitch. --kizzle 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there's good evidence that there is such information. Additionally, this much information does not need to be placed under the header of the Democratic Party (United States), as it is not so directly related to the party itself that it should be "required reading" for anyone researching the party itself. It is significant as a term, and for the history and secondary analysis of its use, not for its direct relation to the party itself. Fearwig 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see that the article makes the case it's a significant term. Historically, it seems some have used it as a synonym, some have used it casually. George W Bush has used it, but let's face it, he's not exactly known for being a precise and careful speaker ;-). The Republican party seems to like it, but even they can't really say why, or what, if anything, it means. Fan1967 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, as it stands, James, your Chickenhawk example says right up front that it's a perjorative term, whereas this page starts going over the history of the Democratic party. If you're voting keep, you're also voting for substantial changes within the text, I assume? --kizzle 04:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know I am, and I think most others are. This is a badly written article, and a good plan for an article, with substantial information or potential sources of information to include. As for Fan1967: I think there's a good argument that it does mean something, specifically that the Democratic Party is not necessarily democratic. Additionally there is the uh, pun debate (if you can call it a pun)--googling the term brings up a lot of talk of the "DemocRAT Party", a further matter of possible discussion, though I'm not sure that there's as much established material on that specific aspect (there does seem to be on the original point). Fearwig 05:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree that this article is badly written, but I think the topic lends itself to bad writing. It strains to have anything to say about this term, as it must, because there isn't really that much to say. The term is used by a handful of Republicans to complain about perceived faults in the Democratic Party. It's really a code word. It is very hard to write an objective article about a code word without using POV. A better place for "Democrat Party" is List of political epithets, where indeed it already is. Griot 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, kizzle, I agree with you that the article must report the attack as opposed to furthering it. The point you're making is that, as was so brilliantly stated on the article's talk page, an alternative term like this one "should be identified as a colloquialism or a political attack or whatever else distinguishes it from the correct name." JamesMLane t c 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I try not to read previous discussions. It tends to provide for interesting and heated future discussions. As long as this article blatantly states, as the Chickenhawk article does, that "Democrat Party" is a perjorative term, than I'm ok with that.--kizzle 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JamesMLane and cleanup as a number of others have said. I oppose the idea of a merger with the Democratic Party article, since this article is clearly talking about the use of Democrat Party as an oppositional term. The article is heavily referenced, and there is plenty of evidence gathered for the notability and importance (even if obscure) of the phrase and its use. It is badly in need of cleanup, though. ---Charles 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or substantially change and shorten If kept, the article should be much shortened to eliminate redundant examples and should elaborate much more clearly the context of this variant name: (1) that it has a long history as an occasionally used name for the party, even by Democrats, (2) that its current usage is largely driven by Republican Party politicians, officials and partisans (aka "talk radio"), who have fastened on promoting this as their preferred name for their opponents, and (3) that almost universally in major reference sources and news media the name "Democratic Party" is standard usage, as it is by the party itself. A non-tendentious article along these lines may be possible, but the present article isn't it. I see (surprisingly) it has been done elsewhere, e.g. "Queer" and "Faggot (epithet}." RickDC 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All or most of us agree that the current material is deficient. A vote for deletion is an indication that the article, as a concept, has no possible salvation. When an article is simply poorly written or lacks focus/neutrality, we rewrite it. This is a wiki, after all. Fearwig 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about concept vs. execution. I'll change my fence-sitting then to Delete, since the justification for a separate article seems weak. As simply a variant name, it can be dealt with briefly in the main article for the Democratic Party, with a redirect, as has been done for the variant name "GOP." RickDC 21:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make a counterintuitive argument now--GOP, being a semi-official name for the party, is more significant and more related to the actual Republican Party article. Thus it makes sense that it's included. While I think this article is sufficiently significant to host on Wikipedia (despite my usual tendency towoard uh, deletionism), it is not closely related to the topic of the party itself due to its use only as a pejorative euphamism. It is historically and politically significant as a reference, but not because it is a major issue relating to the Democratic Party (United States). It is a concept in its own right, one that references the party but which should not be included in an overview article of the party's history, platform, etc. As such, while I do not think it should be deleted, I think it is far better that it be deleted than merged. Fearwig 02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it has been cleaned up and expanded. Jonathunder 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the cleanup, it is still insufficiently notable to merit its own article, or this level of detail. Kasreyn 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you objectively justify that assessment somehow? With notability tests perhaps? Fearwig 15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NOTABILITY: A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. The pointed use of, and controversy over, the term "Democrat Party" is not known outside a narrow interest group (devoted political partisans of either side), and has no particular importance or impact. It is about as notable as the term "jigaboo", which you will find redirects, quite appropriately, to List of ethnic slurs. Wikipedia has no need to have a separate article for every nasty term and slur someone has ever thought to call someone else. Likewise, there is no need to detail every attack against the Democratic Party which has ever been made with its own article. They have no relevance beyond a discussion of the Democratic Party itself (or possibly within a discussion of the Republican Party's actions regarding their opponents), and therefore the information should be found under the article on the Democratic Party. If it is appropriate to create an article for "Democrat Party", then it is also appropriate to create articles for "spendocrat" and "tax-and-spend liberal" and other pejoratives for Democratic Party members. Since such articles clearly would not be appropriate, we can by analogy safely presume that "Democrat Party" is not either.
    Wait. Okay, this means that were the human population to suddenly become stupider and more ill-informed, everything on Wikipedia would lose its notability! Okay, that's a joke--I'm not saying anyone that hasn't heard the term is an idiot, because that is pretty silly. But there is a whole lot of stuff on WP that you (and I) don't know yet. Might not have even heard of it. That doesn't make it worthless... in fact that's what makes it useful to begin with. I think the notability tests prove that this is significant, in that 1,850,000 sites on the Internet were created by people who knew the term, as well as 999 people who specifically stated that it is "pejorative". That far surpasses the notability of a great deal of the material on Wikipedia. I find it damn near impossible to claim this is not notable, as a result. Fearwig 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, I have nothing against the information or its sourcing, or its being included in Wikipedia. My vote for deletion is a matter of categorization of information, nothing more. This should be merged & redirected to Democratic Party. Kasreyn 02:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. you have changed my mind in one way - this article is now so informative and well-sourced that I no longer feel it should be deleted outright without merging. The main article on the Party could do with some of this material being added. The effort that went into creating this article should not all be thrown away. Kasreyn 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Jigaboo" very well possibly shouldn't reirect to the list. Considering the amount of sourcing available for this term specifically, it seems like it isn't a "narrow interest group" and has some significant impact. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. On List of ethnic slurs, I only see one endnote providing sourcing for "jigaboo". In any case, I have no particular interest or opinion on the term. I only grabbed it for use in analogy. If it doesn't fit my case, I'd be happy to retract my usage of it. I will attempt to pick my analogies with more care in the future, but I don't feel my argument is in any way disproved. There are many examples available of details which lack notability beyond a narrow interest group. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is just because you can point to example x, y, and z doesn't mean they should be that way, especially on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you haven't demonstrated how this is a narrow term, especially in the face of overwhelming historical significance and real-world evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How which is a narrow term? I want to make sure we're on the same page here. Kasreyn 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the purposes of this discussion, "Democrat Party." --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the standard term used by the White House for the last 5 years. It has been the subject of scholarly articles and discussions for over 50 years. Will people hear this term on talk radio--or when President Bush gives an address? Yes. If they turn to Wiki they might learn a good deal of history that goes back 75 years. Rjensen 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The White House uses a pejorative term for the opposition party? That's just stupid. --kizzle 05:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the White House website gives over 2000 hits for "Democrat" (mostly to Democrat as adjective); it usually saves "democratic" for foreign visitors. Note the adjective is NOT pejorative to all Democreats. Google shows 56,500 hits for "Democrat Club" --the great majority sponsored by Democrats. Rjensen 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know the term "Democrat" is used to describe someone in the Democratic Party, which is the official name of that party and should be honored here at Wikipedia. Further as you should know, any hits for "Democrat" must include description of members. But, the term "Democrat Party" is not widely accepted and when used is used a perjorative by the Republican Party or more so right-wing Republican's on talk radio. The honest thing to do here is redirect to the Democratic Party page and be done with it. As far as "Democrat Clubs" that makes perfect sense because people in the Democratic Party are called Democrats; but the PARTY is called the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and has been OFFICIALLY since JACKSON. This article needs to be redirected to the PROPER PAGE. --Northmeister 12:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The proper thing is that, when there's substantial evidence of a certain occurance such as this, that we have an article on it. A redirect will not do it justice, and, if you're concerned about an "honest" assessment of the Democratic party, a redirect will only serve to "accept" the pejorative as a normal, unintentional rephrasing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good point that I had not thought to investigate. Especially with Fleischer, it seems the White House used the term repeatedly. The point that should be noted is that it's not pejorative enough to draw attention to itself... it sounds like a mistake. But it's used every time. It seems clear (and research indicates) that the purpose is to produce dissociation between "democratic" and "Democratic" in the listener. E.g. "And I think, frankly, that that's a view -- Senator Miller, for example, was -- noted yesterday that he warned his own party, the Democrat Party, to stay away from that type of argument because he thought it would not work and it would hurt the Democrats." (Ari Fleischer in randomly selected snippet)
KEEP Keep this article which is highly informative about the rhetoric and flavor of actual political speech. Jozil 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rename as Democrat Party (phrase). Based on arguments above, I think the phrase has (barely) enough historic context to have its own article. The article still needs some cleanup like organization and a reduction in the amount of weasel words, though. -Big Smooth 23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the best idea I've heard yet. --kizzle 23:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I stole it from User:Derex above. :) -Big Smooth 23:44, 12 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 - Richardcavell 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond Records[edit]

Two non-notable people on Myspace and another Internet site, basically. No further assertions of notability are made.Crystallina 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the DJ Hyrule article for deletion under the same grounds.

  • Delete Not notable. Nertz 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google gets just about 10,800,000 for "Black Diamond Records". So they seem notable enough.--Jusjih 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no idea if that was supposed to be a keep vote or a delete vote. Also, I'm not sure where that 10,800,000 number came from. -- 17:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this page to be deleted. We are notable in our town of Midlothian, Virginia. What is the real reason we should be deleted?.--User:ktorp18 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Notability in WP:MUSIC is asserted (in one way) by being a defining act of a major music scene, not just any suburb of 35,000 people. And considering "Midlothian"+"Black Diamond Records" gives ZERO Google results, I doubt you're even notable in your town. -- Kicking222 17:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable record label. Vanity. Only 92 Google hits. The label only releases music by one artist and has no homepage of its own. -- Kicking222 17:59, 8 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 – Gurch 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promulent[edit]

My prod was deleted several days ago and I didn't notice it...this an unreferenced Simpsons neologism. If someone can find a reference to any specific episode(s) that featured this word, this is a clear case of Merge & Redirect to List of neologisms on The Simpsons. If not, and "Cromulent" is actually correct (already listed), delete this page. -- Scientizzle 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks as though this may have been covered already: see Talk:List_of_neologisms_on_The_Simpsons/Archive_1#Cromulent. No merge, but maybe a redirect? -- Scientizzle 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect as per nomination. Nertz 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If ever there was a perfect use of the Google test, it's for anything once uttered on the Simpsons. The only hits seem to be from people who heard Cromulent as Promulent [130]. May be worth redirecting as a misspelling. ScottW 00:48, 7 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 non notable as it stands, and copyvio. --++Lar: t/c 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eklectik Genes Clothing Company[edit]

Article is unencylopedic and is an advertising page, full of POV problems Wisden17 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Qualified delete I was about to prod2 this for the same reasons when I realized it had been AFDed (for noncontroversial deletions, {{prod}} is preferred) —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Qualification: The company's website, under the media section, provides some possibility of being seen as notable. If someone writes up an original article (the current form is a cv of their website) I wouldn't have a problem with it being kept. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:52, 6 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 - although there are not many opinions expressed, this one really seems non notable as it stands... --++Lar: t/c 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RDP_Antena_1[edit]

No information, no Google recognition, no real purpose. Matt 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I only found a few credible hits using Google. Most of the info is in português. Cheers. --Starionwolf 02:08, 11 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 No evidence of notability. --++Lar: t/c 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etrio.net[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_6&oldid=1081096422"