Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

Purge server cache

March 14

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-Z "Biting" Accusations

[edit]

Obviously original research. No sources in site (other than sources for lyrics), and the author(s) would be hard-pressed to actually find some. FuriousFreddy 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC) We need to keep it because it simply is all to true...if people want examples they need to be available and that would be the most LOGICAL Decision[reply]

⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but make different article - How about we rename the artcle to "Swagger Jacker" (which would only concern the biting accusations from the Cam vs. Jay-Z beef. Everything else would be mention in the biting section of the main Jay-Z article.--chub 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Mohammed

[edit]

This article needs to go,it hasnt had much expansion for awhile,it is just a litte stub,which it may remain.

Finishing this AfD nomination for User:Rodrigue. bikeable (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Pretty Bang Bang

[edit]

Delete. not noteworthy. Luvcraft 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Mills

[edit]

Someone tried to AFD this as someone notnotable. Not mine just listing it properly, so No Vote kotepho 07:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:JimMorrisonFever has a total of four edits, two of which are voting on AFDs. Kuzaar 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geeks Paradox

[edit]

Contested prod. User:(aeropagitica) said "non-notable website, as per WP:WEB and no Alexa rank." NickelShoe 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Australian Defence Force. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Forces

[edit]

This is a sub-stub about a mod that will never reach article status, it's better just to have their website link in the Battlefield 2 article than an entire article.--Zxcvbnm 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El burrito loco

[edit]

Non-notable, with only 134 Googles. It also sounds like an advertisment, so delete. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Cosmology

[edit]

Obvious original research, the only Google hits are when people happen to use the words generic and cosmology in sequence. Joke 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmology based on observations only as opposed to cosmoogy with a point of view. What would it say? This is no encyclopedia, it is a compilation of perspectives by powers to be

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Bible Chapel

[edit]

Spam, advert, probable copyvio for nn church Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 01:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thanks to our friends at GDFL and GNU it's not a copyvio but it can also be found here, at "BrethrenPedia". If you want a hoot, this one's for you... In any case, this is AdSpam. Deizio 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all. I submitted the page in question. Obviously I'm a newbie - not a hard core Wiki person. I guess I am clueless about the rules here. They seem to be pretty clear to all of you. Not quite so clear to me. Yes, the article is self-serving. And informative. Is that the problem? Help me outhere. Feel free to edit. Or tell me what the specific problem is. I don't understand your shorthand notes. S DuPlessie E: [email protected]

I apologize if I have inadvertently offended anyone with this submission. I have edited the page that I orginally submitted to remove the self-serving and "advertising" text. I have added some links to existing Wiki pages. I understand if this page does not merit inclusion due to "not notable." If that is the case, so be it. Sduplessie 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabatha Jordan

[edit]

Hardly notable. She does not have any accomplishments that bring her above the big-bust, breast-flashing mediocrity that pervades the internet. No awards or citations in her "profession" to make her notable. Has only done 30 movies in less than 8 years, and has very little in the way of magazine appearances. Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete & redirected to Starfury.  (aeropagitica)  21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star-Fury

[edit]

Delete NN game website, violates WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting this. the.crazy.russian vent here 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nomination - this is a promo/advert *delete. VirtualSteve 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete if other articles like this are allowed ( StarKingdoms ) ?

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

The result was delete. The first two keep arguments are not grounded in policy or guidelines; another one is invalid because the previous AFD was properly referenced by another user. Aside from those there appears to be a clear consensus to delete. --Coredesat 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback Mountain parodies

[edit]
Brokeback Mountain parodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (previous deletion proposal) – (View AfD)

unsourced, one of the only links makes no mention of Brokeback Mountain, sounds like OR, not a directory. Will (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting treasure troves belong on Geocities; this is an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was a media trend, has some references (although lack of references is no reason for deletion). --Qyd 05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... yes it is. Will (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think there is yet a workable definition of "trivia" that has community consensus. Without such a consensus, I think calling an article "trivial" is not a reason to delete. Even the page at WP:TRIVIA mainly focuses on trivia sections, and recommends that they be integrated into articles whenever possible. I am not opposed to deleting things, I am a deletionist at CfD discussion. But at AfD, I only believe an article should be deleted if it is clear that there is no way to create a reasonable document. To my way of thinking, that means, pure drivel, a POV rant, a subject that is inherently impossible to cite, etc... This page is none of these. In order for Wikipedia to succeed, we need to be tolerant of content that does not fit into our own image of what constitutes an encyclopedia. One person's view of trivia will be another person's dissertation topic. As Wikipedia is not paper, we can make a home for virtually any topic that can be cited and presented in an NPOV way. The alternative, deletionist approach will just create rancor and bad feelings while diverting all of our attention from more important tasks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of films and TV shows are parodied all the time, without their own parody lists. As mentioned above, just about everything in here can be merged into different articles or the main Brokeback Mountain article - if completely necessary, which most of it isn't. •97198 talk 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep due to the nominator's failure to properly reference the original AfD discussion. Andy Saunders 11:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ugh again! Its a well known phenom and here are a few sources I found after one, yes one minuet of searching google news let alone anything else! The history of viral video and Film review: Cowabungle! both are from This month (July 6th and 25th 2007 respectively). Hell just google "Brokeback Mountain" parodies and you will see what one means.
p.s. why was my comment removed??-- UKPhoenix79 09:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was removed - looks like you first left a comment on the previous debate's page [4]. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—there are articles on viral videos, but this particular topic does not seem to be the subject of any non-trivial coverage, at least not any referenced. As such, this is irredeemable OR. Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The parodies are old news, as is the case with the film. It's been, what, two years since "Brokeback Mountain"? Nobody says "I'm Batman!" anymore either. Mandsford 01:27, 30 July 2007 (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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary fiscal policy

[edit]

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (wikt:Transwiki:discretionary fiscal policy) James084 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distributive tropism

[edit]

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (wikt:Transwiki:distributive tropism) James084 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Management by perkele

[edit]
According to the guideline, if it has a decent amount of google hits, there is realistic evidence of usage. Further, there are far more google hits for the original-language version of the term. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've changed my vote to keep. --Terence Ong 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a good point - to delete this would be an affront to Scandinavian wikipedians. It would be offensive, and would discourage people from contributing articles about Scandinavian cultures. Why not just delete the Finland page while we're at it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And another good point is that it is English Wikipedia. The expression has no prominence in English usage. We cannot cover all possible idioms in all lagnuages of the world. mikka (t) 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O RLY? Night Gyr 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close to Home (band)

[edit]

Does not meet WP:Music criteria. TKE 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coding by Comrade Reguspatoff

[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 keep as nomination was withdrawn. Ezeu 09:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Construction Company

[edit]

I tried to clean this up. Creator seems content to continue adding corporate addresses and phone numbers, essentially commercial spam. I tried to help them but want to keep the spam up so Delete Montco 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK per the early returns, I withdraw my request to delete.Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I sympathize with the nominator, but if this company did indeed build some important buildings, it is probable wp-worthy. Delete the spam, warn the spammers, but keep the article. Bucketsofg 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are notable and I would under other circumstances have no problem. If they are going to keep going in and adding spam to the article and erase the work I tried to do in terms of agetting rid of the all caps entries and the addresses what can you do? I'll leave it to someone else to cleanup if the decision is to keep.

Nominator has withdrawn, no other delete votes. Can we get a speedy keep and early close, please? -- Saberwyn 07:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Dope Records

[edit]

nn record company that was only created this month Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair News Music Package

[edit]

Article about a music package for TV news programs. Non-notable; entirely too arcane for an encyclopedia. tregoweth 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Golbez 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expedito Briceño

[edit]

Non-notable. -- RHaworth 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Capitalistroadster 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REALbasic

[edit]

Delete. Any article which pertains to provide a fair overview of a subject needs to include both pro and con attributes of the subject matter. This article has been repeatedly edited so as to remove information pertaining to the cons of this product so as to portray only supposedly good things about this product. This product was was originally designed for the Macintosh platform only, and for many years it ran on the Macintosh platform only, and then with the introduction of RB2005 this product was extensively modified. The cons the modifications need to be reflected within this article as they are both part of this product's history and portray an accurate portrait of the reliability of the product. The original Macintosh interface and numerous features have been removed since the introduction of RB2005, which has upset numerous users of this product, who are not being allowed a voice in pointing out their displeasure with the product as easily verfied by examining copy of the last major release of this product (5.5.5) prior to the revamping of this product within RB2005. In addition there are issues with an extensive increase in the amout of bugs experienced with this product since RB2005 was intoduced, as verfied by this product's own feedback pages upon the publicsher's own web site. There have also been concerns about changes made to terms under which the demo of product can be used, differences between pro and standard version, and modifications made to the pricing of this product (i.e., a move away from simply purchasing a update to having to buy a update and subscription instead. Wiki is not suppose to be a free advertising site for Real Software. Unless sections are added to cover Missing Features, Non Functional Features, and Other Modifications, and the like this article should be removed as it it nothing more than propaganda to sell a commercial product. TruthInAdvertising 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Vertical leap.  (aeropagitica)  22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring Vertical Leap

[edit]

WP:NOT an instruction manual.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vertical Project

[edit]

nn "program" for some nn business.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baja Arizona

[edit]

Delete nonnotable political screed. While "Baja Arizona" may have some currency as a term for the southern region of the state, this unfortunately is an article about an insignificant political group of some sort wanting to form another state. Relevant google links appear few.[5] If someone can rewrite this into something substantial and verifiable about the region, please do so, but I think we're just better off deleting this mess and starting over. Postdlf 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Exit (ska)

[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/merge I don't think there's a consensus to delete this. Personally I think it might be better suited for a userspace given its intention, but that merging/possibly moving seems to be what consensus is, not deletion. --W.marsh 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs/old

[edit]

""keep it"" strongly vote to keep

  • del or move to user space. It nochalantly sits in the main article space, linked to and categorized along with decent, peer-reviewed and truly encyclopedic obscenities, not to mention the second-generation List of sexual slurs. mikka (t) 06:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless I'm missing something... how come people are editing it so much, even after it was moved to a subpage? --Allen 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral per debate below. --Allen 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing special, just remove it. --Terence Ong 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sexual slang. -Oscar Arias 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There are 643 slurs here. Compare that to the 39 slurs on "List of sexual slurs" page (34 of which were created by me) and the zero listed entries on "Sexual slang". Further, they won't allow the two to be merged because these ones don't have sources.[6] Many of the entries they refuse to allow are obviously real (e.g., dike).[7] The reason they moved these to the "old" subpage was to exclude unsourced entries. But deleting these slurs will create an increadible amount of vandalism as well as alienate many legitimate users editing anonymously on the page. Perhaps we could add a tag to the "old" subpage specifying that it is a page specifically for unsourced entries? Making it almost impossible to find the terms by moving them to a user page would be wrong. I have three slang dictionaries at my house, so trust me when I say that the vast majority of the words here are true. If an editor thinks an entry sounds suspicious, they can add a {{fact}} tag to it and give the author some time to find a source. The vast majority of these entries were written before the recent push for citations, so the authors didn't know that they were doing something wrong by adding the unsourced material.--Primetime 09:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The nom is completely off base here. It doesn't sit anywhere, it is the old article that we made into a subpage in order to reformulate the main article. See talk page discussion in which this nom did not participate. It is the basis for the article we have and hence the edits are essential. Finally, it is useful for keeping vandals away from the main article. -- JJay 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Put it into your user page, then. mikka (t) 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nom and then we can discuss it. A message on the article talk page, stating your concerns, would have been a far better approach than AfD, which is a waste of everyone's time. -- JJay 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense. mikka (t) 10:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blurp

[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a real word. Bordering on CSD G1 (nonsense). I've already removed one piece of nonsense from the page. TheParanoidOne 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty White

[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO nor assert any notablity. It has been tagged for a few weeks as lacking any reason for wiki inclusion. He has four works: one is a four page article self-published, one you cannot even find a search for the ISBN, and the other two are published by unknown publishers who do not currently press/sell/ make the books available. Arbusto 04:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user Arbusto 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, all four of White's books were found in either allbookstores.com or half.com. --Yuk Yuk Yec 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for joining wikipedia six days ago and expressing your thoughts, but judging from those links he's not notable. Other than a few books available used and from independent sellers it is clear his books aren't anything "notable." Nor has his notablitity been established. Also he only has four "books" if you included his 4 page self published article on dating, which he has no credentials in. Arbusto 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought there were guidelines about being civil and not biting newbies...... hey ho. Jcuk 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user's advanced knowledge of wikipedia demonstrates she/he is not a "newbie." Arbusto 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JetSetCD

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Organizational Chart

[edit]

Just one image, and a bit of POV musing. This image belongs on an Air Force page, not on an article of its own. PROD removed without comment. Sandstein 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juggling Jollies

[edit]

About 28 unique Google hits for this juggling act out of Bellingham, Washington. I'm afraid that's not notable enough. Oh, and the author is one of the Jollies, apparently. Delete, per WP:Vanity. GTBacchus(talk) 07:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matczynski

[edit]

Originally nominated for CSD, but then contested, so we'll put this up for a vote. An article on a non-notable IT guy, who claims to have started an internet phenomenom. But I doubt he'd have to write his own hype if that were the case. Harro5 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiggish

[edit]

Contested {{prod}}. Silly neologism. Example: "Tiggish; adjective. To have tig-like qualities." Non-encyclopedic. Vslashg (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept due to community concensus and withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Coggins

[edit]

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." - Eagletalk 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Eagletalk 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems notable for the awards he received, but the article needs to be de-hagiographized. Sandstein 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. An extremely frivolous and boorish nomination. The nominatior didn't even bother to check the notability of the person. Time to read wikipedia artice about google before proceeding to editing wikipedia. mikka (t) 10:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the originator of the article on Jack Coggins Jack Coggins was a very well known artist and writer - checking Google will show the number of references to his works. Someone who has produced so many books, paintings & illustrations surely deserves a place in an encyclopedia. The information given is all factual and supported by documentation. A quick scan of Coggins's work on the referenced web site may indicate the breadth and effect of his works. Dcoggins.
  • Comment Sounds notable for awards and galleries where he is represented. However, author is user:Dcoggins and article is too subjective in present form. Is there any non-relative who could de-memoralise the article?--Porturology 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep He obviously has a list of achievements, and shows up more on the web then just here. This page is definatly worth keeping.
  • Weak keep, his awards looks notable. --Terence Ong 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - you can't toss an article about an obviously notable person (16,000 google hits, awards in his field) just because it was created for unencyclopedic reasons. Some people just have friends or relatives who are notable...the fact that they also know how to use wikipedia doesn't make said friends or relatives non-notable all of a sudden. NPOV it, of course, though. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nomination does not cite valid claim for deletion; subject of article is conspicuously notable as published author/artist. Monicasdude 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Funky Monkey 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mikka and others. Vslashg (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though in need of a cleanup.--Isotope23 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though it would be nice if the External Links contained legitimate references instead of his family's memorial website for him. That sort of thing is what tends to trigger AfD notices like this. Fan1967 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. He has an entry on Galenet's Contemporary Authors Online so is notable enough. I have added a cleanup tag to this - key issues to be addressed are NPOV (article refers to Jack throughout) and verifiable third party sources as per WP:V. Capitalistroadster 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Dcoggins Obviously I am a novice at Wiki - I have tried to "de-personalise" the article. Jack Coggins was an associate of Fletcher Pratt, Chesley Bonestell, L. Sprague de Camp and other sci-fi notables of the 50s, many of whom have entries here, so there is a precedent.
  • Keep Article seems to focus on subject's career, not his death... so the "memorial" reasoning isn't justified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Dcoggins I have now added some independent external website references and a bibliography of some of his work. Dcoggins 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You've obviously put in a lot of work and significantly improved the article. Good work. A warning: don't be surprised if other people do some copy editing. That's Wikipedia. Fan1967 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the comments. I have added more references and internal links, plus some print sources (if this is appropriate?). I am learning fast and refining the article as I go along. Yes, I expect that there will be editing by others. Dcoggins 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseWizard

[edit]

EnterpriseWizard gets around 500 ghits, and the top hit is another EnterpriseWizard entirely. I tried to find out if it is listed, and the size, to see if it meets WP:CORP, but the website was down, at which point I gave up. Spam links now removed, this did include the no. 1 vanispamcruftisement indicator, starting with the company name correctly intercapped as a weblink. I call spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lean mean fighting machine

[edit]

It reads like an advertisement. Blueiris 11:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert. What an appalling advert for an advertising company, I doubt their aspirations to greatness will succeed if that pathetic attempt is indicative. MLA 11:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National anarchism

[edit]

Non notable political ideology - only 559 unique google hits. This article has survived one previous AfD discussions and failed one: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National anarchism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National anarchism (2nd nomination).

Not particularly, how do you imagine that my proposal is POV. Do we have a page on libertarian fascism? Hell, maybe I should get a page :) I would not necessarily be opposed to a general page on Anarchism and nationalism. - FrancisTyers 13:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. Have you checked out Georges Valois? Just because you do not know much about something does not mean that it is non notable, or even a hoax. Also see A number of the demonstrators wore clothing bearing slogans such as "We Grew Here, You Flew Here", "Wog Free Zone", "Aussie Pride", "Fuck Allah - save 'Nulla", and "Ethnic Cleansing Unit". Chants of "Lebs out", "Lebs go home" and other expressions were continuously shouted out by many of the demonstrators, including some families with young children. A banner saying "LOCALS ONLY" with a symbol for anarchism in place of the "A" was displayed (Daily Telegraph, December 12). from 2005 Sydney race riots. Do you want libertarian fascism as an alternative to National Anarchism, or what? I have noticed that a number of people ndo not want any mention of this very real movement on wikipedia on what I feel may well be ostrich style POV reasons.Harrypotter 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The (A) symbol is used in many ways, association with the (A) symbol does not necessarily mean anarchist. I don't think libertarian fascism is an ideology, do you disagree? I read the page on George Valois, it doesn't say anything about national anarchism or libertarian fascism. I agree that in some cases people nominate articles for deletion as a result of Ostrich like behaviour and assure you that this is not one of them. As I said above, I would not necessarily have a problem with keeping the content provided it was moved to a general page about Anarchism and nationalism, or even if you like it could be moved to Anarchism, racism and nationalism. - FrancisTyers 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Move - to a more general page on eg. Anarchism and Nationalism .Unfortunately these people do exist - well, just about, maybe a couple of them, or at least they did. Personally I think wikipedia has room to comment on even the stupidest and most offensive ideas, as long as it's made clear just how tiny and marginal this bunch are, and that whatever they call themselves they're fascists not anarchists.Bengalski 13:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) On closer inspection, we've got various scrappy pages or stubs on 'anarcho-nationalism', 'nationalist anarchism' etc., and I'm not sure there is any real difference between all these. So I think the best approach, per ideas above, would be to merge the lot into one decent page on the whole crew.Bengalski 15:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kuzaar 14:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep existing political philosophy - unpopular, and not approved by you or I, but in existence nonetheless. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings for or against it to be honest, can you direct me to a book written by a National anarchist? I realise that books aren't the only indicator of notability but I think I could safely provide citations for most of the other political philosophies that Wikipedia covers. - FrancisTyers 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never read one; I'll have to look into it. I see your point, but this is apparently a rather new ideology, in terms of coalescence. I'll have a look around a little later. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The national-anarchist movement was started by the security services as a honey trap. The trap has been exposed. National-anarchism is dead. The ideas were stolen from the national-bolsheviks (a much larger political force, especially in Russia) and the better insights are being marketed effecively by others who are not tainted by connections with MI5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.225.145 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2006
Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be exposed again here.Bengalski 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepp. Highly objectionable "trojan horse" ideology with little or no real claim to anarchism. Noteworthy nonetheless. - N1h1l 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if something to contain this non-anarchist national front naziness can be found. Take the alleged "faction" with it into a paragraph or small box in contemprary fascism or wherever it can be dfound a hole. Failing that, Delete it not for its irrational loathsomeness but for its pretensions. Midgley 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anarchism has a long tradition of opposition to both nationalism and racism. This so-called ideology was created by marginal neo-fascists in an effort to attract more followers. Wikipedia shouldn't include every crackpot movement that attempts to revert the ideas of a long-standing political tendency with over a century of existence. Having an entry on "national anarchism" is like keeping one on "Satanic Catholicism." Just because a handful of people believe something that is opposite of an existing ideology with millions of proponents doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Chuck0 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should definitely be an article on satanic catholicism.Bengalski 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: I think there should be a page called Anarchism and nationalism like Anarchism and capitalism and Anarchism and Marxism in the side panel. The convention seems to be have the words placed in alphabetical order, or am I wrong here? When that page has been fully developed, we shoudl be able to better see whether national anarchism deserves its own page.Harrypotter 22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I do support the political position of No platform for fascists whatsoever, it's only Anarchist Occultists who want to cloak, censor and delete this p[articu;larly telling manifestation of their so-called politics. Paki.tv 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I can't believe that once again somebody has put this article up for deletion, only six month after the last AfD. The results of the last vote were to keep the article - what's changed since then. Moves to delete this article are blatantly POV - I should remind those who keep brining this article up for deletion that just because you disagree with this ideology or disagree with the fact that they call themselves anarchists is not a valid reason for deletion. I'm reposting from the last AfD why I think this article is important and should be kept: "The argument for deletion is blantly POV and sectarian in nature and smacks of censorship. (Which this move entirely hypocritical coming from so-called anarchists, but I've seen worse similar hypocrisy coming out of that movement before.) It is simply an attempt by Toothebarricades to delete an article based entirely on the fact that he does not like national anarchists calling themselves anarchists. Whether or not "national anarchists" is a valid as an exponent of anarchism (and I happen to agree that it isn't good anarchism) is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be an article on this topic here on Wikipedia. The argument that the argument is too non-notable to warrant a Wikipedia article is entirely false - the long list of links on this page, the large number of websites (both pro- and anti-NA) resulting from a Google search for "national anarchist" or "national anarchism", the obvious influence it has in the neofolk music milieu, plus the very active National Anarchist Yahoo Group are all evidence that this is a topic of interest and criticism for many people and therefore well-deserving of a Wikipedia page to introduce interested people to the topic. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist tendencies that are far more obscure. " Peter G Werner 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comment, I'm disappointed that you suggest that my motivations for posting an AfD for this article are different from what I have described. Is there one of those google hits that you would classify as a scholarly source? As for a very active Yahoo Group, does this mean that we should support keeping articles for all kinds of forums, after all, there are many forums which are pretty active (and probably more active than that one) without articles. Forumcruft is not something that really floats my boat so to speak. I can appreciate that I'm not going to change your mind on this, but it would be nice if keep voters actually attempted to show how this "group" (for want of a better word) is notable instead of crying loud about some kind of perceived censorship. See above for my response to "blatantly POV and sectarian". - FrancisTyers 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An abstract of a journal article on national-anarchism and related tendencies: [8]
I have to ask, though, just what is your motivation for deleting this article, if not POV? Especially in light of the fact that an AfD for this article was up only 6 months ago and it was decided that the article should be kept. Did you even bother to review the previous arguments about the articles relevance? It seems to me that the reason this article keeps coming up for AfD over and over again is because its on the hit list of various left anarchists who really don't like the idea of a far-right and racialist ideology calling itself a kind of anarchism. I'll point out again that whether its good anarchism or not (and I happen to agree with critics who say it isn't) is totally irrelevant to its relevance as a Wikipedia article.
I have serious doubts about your criterion for dropping this article, in any event. The active Yahoo Group, plus the website Rosenoir.org, plus 596 Google hits, are quite sufficient to me to state that this is an ideological tendency with actual adherents and has an active place in the marketplace of ideas, and not just some kind of hoax that somebody made up off the top of their head. This is not to mention the controversies around national anarchism and similar ideas - do a Google search for "Anarchist Heretics Fair" and you'll see that there was a rather large controversy in the anarchist and anti-fascist press about this ideological tendency. I'll also point you to FluxEuropa for an example of the influence that "national anarchist" or "third position" ideas have in the milieu of neofolk, martial music, and other "dark music".
If your criterion is that National Anarchism too small of a tendency to be taken seriously (which I think is a pretty dodgy reason for dropping an article), here's some other groups which you might want to float AfD's for: International Bolshevik Tendency, Socialist Action (Canada), Trotskyist-Posadist IVth International, Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago, Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis, Last Thursdayism. If National Anarchism is too obscure of a subject, why should these other obscure groups get to have Wikipedia pages? For my part, I'd be against dropping any of these pages - one of the best things about Wikipedia is the fact that you can find good information on subjects that are way too obscure for Encyclopedia Britannica. Peter G Werner 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in brief, I don't have long, yes I would vote delete to most of those (probably not CPTT), but I wouldn't AfD them as because you have mentioned them i would be violating WP:POINT. Regarding Peter Werner, you should get a page as with >200,000 hits you're pretty notable :) Note on the journal article, well, you've convinced me, they are notable enough not to delete outright. Good searching. - FrancisTyers 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the Yahoo group is not particularly active -- a handful of individuals post there repeatedly, sometimes using different nyms (nyms are a big thing with these guys -- something to be taken into account when counting the 'keep' votes, as well as their ability to summon up large numbers of meatpuppets). Their Yahoo group is in serious decline -- the original group was attracting over a thousand contributions per month a few years ago. Now their group is struggling to reach 400. The original group was banned for TOS violations and the current one is mostly chitchat.
This is a pretty serious accusation: "a handful of individuals post there repeatedly, sometimes using different nyms (nyms are a big thing with these guys -- something to be taken into account when counting the 'keep' votes, as well as their ability to summon up large numbers of meatpuppets)." Can you demonstrate that any of the above Keep voters are actually sockpuppets? Put up or shut up! So far, this discussion has failed to generate anything approaching a consensus to drop - your accusation that most of the Keep votes are mere sockpuppets is a pretty dodgy attempt to tilt things in your direction. Peter G Werner 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Troy Southgate's organising a meeting between Alexander Dugin and representativs of the BNP makes him and N-A notable. Also there is Leonard Savin's infiltration of Peoples Global Action which came to light last year. There has also been the involvement of anarchists in promoting Neuropa, in the context of Euromayday project. The overtly and conscious fascist elements of national anarchism run alongside - and hopes to influence - an unreflected institutional racism found in a movement which fetishises the state and finds it hard to look at its own failure to live up to its so-called principles.Harrypotter 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "Leonard Savin"? Google doesn't seem to know [9]. - N1h1l 14:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try Leonid Savin


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BEJ

[edit]

Looks like an advertisement, and there is something about it on its talk page, too. Blue۞Iris 12:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Girls and Boys

[edit]

Delete. Does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Ashenai 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article claims the band has been 'approached' by labels, but not signed. The number of bands that are 'approached' by labels is always far higher than the number signed, so that doesn't make them notable. Average Earthman 13:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per av. Earthman

Band had previously been signed to an Irish independent label, which since became defunct due to means beyond the band's control or influence.

Whilst the term "approached" doesn't comment or reflect on the band actually being signed, the negotiation procedures are underway and the page will be updated with the result of said negotiations.

Band has been commented on in favourable terms in music publication "Hot Press" within Ireland. (unsigned comment by 213.94.192.200) --Ashenai 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC). Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments on discussion pages.[reply]

  • Delete As per the comments aruging for deletion, the source will be revisited and the article re-submitted at a later date, accomodating a more refined definition of relevance as per the terms of inclusion. (unsigned comment by 213.94.192.200) --Ashenai 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete for both articles.  (aeropagitica)  22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Turner Jr., Allied Artists of Johnstown Pennsylvania

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Applications Server

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable beta software slated for release in Q3 2006. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article author is repeatedly spamming Blog with this as well. · rodii · 12:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xlogic

[edit]

Page was de-prod-ed, so it gets to come here. The proposed deletion was "No indication that WP:BAND is met. See also WP:BAI" Blue520 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks quite good.

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

The result of the debate was Delete If the website subsequently becomes notable then the article can be rewritten to reflect this.  (aeropagitica)  22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Monkey.com

[edit]

Non-notable website, 280 google hits for "fredthemonkey.com", no Alexa rating. Kuzaar 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can't even find this addition to the vote to do an unsigned template. Take that as you will. Kuzaar 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep it! you can't just get rid of something because you think it's "not-notable." as an encyclopedia you are supposed to be nutral and to label something like that is obviously giving it a bias. this article should be kept, and who do you think you are to decide whether or not something is notable anyway? —This unsigned comment was added by Beatrixcastle (talk • contribs) .

User ComKeen has been registered for less than four days and has approximately fifteen edits. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NON Relevant???? Fred the Monkey is about as relevant as an animation website could possibly be. The characters are completely relevant - some might even say significant. MrD 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User MrD is not registered. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, but MrD is registered. Ardric47 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP MAN WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SEE THIS GREAT WEBSITE GO AWAY MAN U GUYS ARE IDIOTS

TOADFAN5 aka FRED THE MONKEY FANATIC 5 —This unsigned comment was added by Toadfan5 (talk • contribs) .

Keep! Please don't delete! It's my favorite site in the world and I don't know what I'd do without it! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.171.32.231 (talk • contribs) .

User D_X has less than 30 edits, all pertaining to this subject. Not to point the finger, but this is suspicious to me. Kuzaar 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than 40 contributions and is less than 10 days old. Kuzaar 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKeep, pretty popular, especially among afficionados of flash. —This unsigned comment was added by CrazyEyes (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment I just went thru and identified some unsigned posts and commented on users without significant contribution histories. It doesn't mean I don't think new users can contribute, but it points out who might not be familiar with Wikipedia policy and might only have an account for the purpose of "voting" here. (Decisions are made by consensus, not vote.) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three years old, does carry an audience on the net, and I haven't heard any grounds for deletion that appear reasonable other than the per nom which I assume has to do with the policy. The newest post on Newgrounds is a social commentary that I find pretty good, similar to the battle between "Cyanide and Happiness" with "Top Web Comics". Give the artist time and I'm sure he'll battle this deletion to the bitter end. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.195.78.102 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP - Exactly like that guy says ^^ it's a monkey for christ's sakes! - monkeys rule :( —This unsigned comment was added by 83.216.136.62 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete and Comment. To justify my deletion vote I just want to say that even if it will become notable it doesn't mean it is now. Joseph Blanchette aka Legendary Frog had his entry removed despite being several times more famous than "Fred the monkey". My comment is, the creator of Fred the monkey has started a campaign to make sure his entry doesn't get deleted, through a flash movie submitted to newgrounds.com and probably elsewehere as well where he tells people to go to Wikipedia and "tell them to shut their stupid faces" (and a clickable link that leads to the Fred the Monkey entry). This surely explains the many recent unsigned "Keep" votes. I am appaled by the creator of "fred the monkey"'s lack of understanding for what wikipedia stands for (it's an encyclopedia and not a showcase for up and coming artists) and I think this move makes it much harder to hold a fair vote, which I think in the end will only weigh FOR the deletion of this article. Here's the animation on Newgrounds: Fred the notable monkeyMackan 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another Comment: There is not only a single (1) google hit on "fredthemonkey.com", search for any page name and you'll only get one result. From there you click "Find web pages that contain the term "fredthemonkey.com"". This gives 243 hits (note, by looking on the first page of results I get the impression that many of them are created by the maker himself). This does however, in my opionion, doesn't change anything. I'd vote "delete" if it had 10 000 hits. In fact, my own flash game "Shotgun Orc" comes up with 30,000-65,000 hits on google (currently 65,000), but I wouldn't dream of suggesting an entry to be made for it and if somebody did make one I would definately nominate it for deletion myself. Mackan 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - 280 Google hits. -- infinity0 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn --mmeinhart 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you're gonna delete this from The Wiki, then Delete Homestar Runner, too. This site has been around for about as long as them, and they've made tons of laughs amd is enjoyable by many people. And, why does Clydex get his own Wiki Page, but this one is on the edge of deletion? He isn't ver a main character! Anyways, keep the page up. The Pro X

Delete-non-notable cartoon ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, A1. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Saviours, 'Aspinshaw'., The Kingdom of the Four Saviours

[edit]

Nonsense or hoax, there are zero hits on "Marartar Lyon" on Google. Sandstein 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pab123 has less than 50 edits, almost all of which deal with these articles and their votes for deletion. Also, to respond to the issue raised by this voter, I'd like to point out that Google is an accurate gauge of how much people are talking about the subject in question. Failing that, Adherents.com fails to list this "religion". Wikipedia is not made to be used to get word out about or advertise about your religion. It can go in here when it is sufficiently notable on its own to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kuzaar 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete maybe this has no hits on google but why should we rule our lifes by google. I feel that someone's beliefs are surely mor eimportant than some mechinal search engine?-Waterfall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.155.237 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Note that user 213.249.155.237 has attempted to vote twice on this vote for deletion, "signing" them differently. Kuzaar 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) < ever heard of a network?[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Turner (geophysicist)

[edit]

nn, vanity, spam, deproded by author without comment--Porturology 13:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be also speedied. – Blue ҉ Iris 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Reveries

[edit]

Delete I am uncertain if this band meets the criteria for notability. Was deproded without comment--Porturology 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 03:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellesley College Senate Bus

[edit]

The college shuttle bus that runs between Wellesley, MIT and Harvard is not sifficiently notable to merit a wikipedia article. Interestingstuffadder 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I retract these comments and have changed my vote. Interestingstuffadder 04:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless moved back to "Fuck Truck" : renominated because of the move from "fuck truck" to "Wellesley College Senate Bus". I voted againt deletion in the last debate because the term "fuck truck", used at colleges across America, is a genuine piece of American collegiate folklore; I thought this article had potential to grow beyond its discussion of the Wellesley bus and, in so doing, become notable on this cultural basis. However, with this move, the article focuses on this one shuttle bus between a amall liberal arts college outside of Boston and larger nearby colleges...Can you imagine if wikipedia had an article for every specific college shuttle and its campus lore? Simply put, this article in its new, more specic form, simply does not deal with a notable topic. Keep: I am changing my vote for the sake of consistency. I really felt like I was doing the right thing, but I can see how my actions might be perceived as bad faith or at the very least obnoxious. I apologize. Interestingstuffadder 14:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it was a consensus, it was just barely one (9-5, with between 2 and 4 (depending on your standard) of the votes supporting the move providing little or no explanation or rationale for their positions)Interestingstuffadder 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. I do know that this bus has the name (I went to Harvard & heard the phrase) but if this is worth including, it could be included on a page about Wellesley, Harvard, or MIT culture; doesn't deserve its own page. Also delete fuck truck: same article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangojuice (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep. The name change is irrelevant and this nom is in bad faith. The article move followed a discussion and vote on the article talk page. Everything was above board. This nom argued extremely hard in the last AfD, which closed less than a month ago, to save the article based on its encyclopedic content [10], calling it in one of his 12 posts "a quite well written and well researched article". Speaking about the article , he wrote: "the term 'fuck truck' and the sexual connotations of this service needs to be a part of that final form". Well Fuck Truck still redirects to the article and the term is prominently mentioned in the first paragraph. However, it now seems that all this nom was interested in was having some kind of joke based on the lewd nickname for the bus. I say that while wikipedia is not for schoolyard jokes, it is for encyclopedic material and this bus was encyclopedic last month as the nom so passionately argued. That he is now changing his tune out of spite is no reason to slam the door on the bus or participate in a violation of WP:Point-- JJay 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with most of what you're saying here, except that I thought this article was non-notable in the first place, and I still think it is -- even though I've contributed a fair proportion of its content. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Interestingstuffadder may be more interested in seeing whether he can get an article titled "Fuck Truck" into an encyclopedia than in improving the encyclopedia by adding content that's intrinsically interesting. As you say, this seems to be WP:POINT. Catamorphism 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment: Ahh...one more personal attack (to be expected, I guess) that ignores the fact that I have repeatedly identified a specific and reasonable notability-based rationale for the distinction I have drawn between "fuck truck" and "wellesley college senate bus"...Interestingstuffadder 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem to be confusing personal attacks with conclusions drawn from available data (the content of your edits on Wikipedia). What are we supposed to think when you argue in favor of the article's encyclopedic relevance when it has one name, and backpedal when only the name (not the content) is changed to something else? Catamorphism 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::::comment: it is clear that you have not actually read my comments. I have repeatedly said that "fuck truck" should be retained because I believed it would grow to include information about other shuttles. I myself intended to get to work on this project when I became less busy. I have repeatedly said that it is this widespread usage, which, as I said, I hoped would be incorporated into this article, that created notability. A Wellesley-specific name seems to preclude the addition of information relevant to other schools. Thus, based on rationale for notability, the move to "Wellesley College Senate Bus" made this article non-notable. I have repeatedly stated this good faith rationale for nominating for deletion upon the name change and you have been part of the discussions in which I have said this. So, given that you have had this rationale for my behavior in front of you the whole time and have still made these accusations against me, I feel that I am justified in accusing you of making personal attacks. Interestingstuffadder 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, schoolcruft. Friday (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems fine, and it does look like a bad faith nom ("my way or nothing"). As it stands the article has a section on the use of the term at other colleges with a total of one example from a student web publication (as against Rolling Stone and Boston Herald for Wellesley). When there is more evidence of notability at other colleges (especially notabilty that extends beyond the students into the community) then consider moving the page back. Thatcher131 23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article might need some tweaking, but an article about a transportation service is certainly relevant (see Humphrey Go-Bart, Unitrans, or even London Buses route 1), particularly as this seems to have had media coverage. RXUYDC 23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Allow me to defend myself: Please do not accuse me of bad faith. This is an unsubstiantiated personal attack. If you read my arguments throughout this process, you will see that I have consistently argued for inclusion on the basis that "fuck truck" is a general, non Wellesley-Harvard-MIT specific term (along, I admit, with other complementary rationales). I sincerely believe that an article about a general concept in collegiate humor (fuck truck) is notable while an article about a specific shuttle bus connecting three campuses is not. I have come to hold this view more strongly over the last couple of months, which explains my greater focus on this perspective and increased unwillingness (in my mind) to compromise. Please see my numerous good faith edits (including reverting vandalism) and stop hurling unfounded accusations at me. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using the term "bad faith" given that you are sincere in your belief that this service is non-notable. From my point of view, "Fuck Truck" as a college neologism is not interesting unless it is attached to specifically notable examples. At the present time a generic article would be 98% about Wellesley and 2% about Byrn Mawr. Wellesley's transport service attracted considerable undesirable notariety that spilled over into the public eye; Byrn Mawr's use is (so far) only documented in a student web newsletter. If there are more examples, add them to the article, in detail if you like, and when the "other use" section outgrows the rest of the article it can be moved back. Thatcher131 00:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but we also have articles for Greymon, MetalGreymon, and WarGreymon, and they've never been mentioned in Rolling Stone. Thatcher131 17:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a student at MIT with a couple friends at Wellesley, I can testify that the beloved fuck truck is a notable piece of the shared history of our two schools. Regardless, I think this article establishes a context for the discussion of social life at MIT and Wellesley. The focus of this article is partly about the aforementioned shuttle bus and partly about the (perceived) sexuality of students at the two schools. This assertion is backed by cited publications from various student groups, as well as the national magazine Rolling Stone. While it is true that I have edited this article, all I have done is provide a picture and clean up the article after it was nominated for deletion the first time. Isopropyl 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom (that's right), regardless of name. Melchoir 21:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please rename to the most common title Yuckfoo 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idea: It occurs to me, especially after reading Interestingstuffadder's artful arguing of both sides of the question (both sides of which I find myself agreeing with!), that the right place to list the generic term "fuck truck" might just be on Wiktionary. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Only minorly notable, but certainly no worse than Pokecruft. --Alan Au 04:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting...finally someone bothers to acknowledge my argument that the move was inappropriate. You are correct, a 9-5 vote, largely by experienced editors, with well argued opnions on both sides did not amount to a mandate for the move. Interestingstuffadder 20:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above deletes and my reasons last time. As buses go, it's no Furthur. One of the most notable buses, the No. 2857 bus (see Rosa Parks) doesn't even have its own article. Will the "Fuck Truck" be in a museum someday, like those two? I doubt it. Esquizombi 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.eu spain

[edit]

Looks like a list of cities that have (or have not) obtained .eu domain names. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so delete. Sandstein 14:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the public perception on the policy of .EU related to well known names, such as geographical names; in this case citie names. The particular case of the Spanish cities is a mean to illustrate the general case. Hence, the articlse should be kept as it is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. Indeed, this subject is of high public interest.

One could start with a general dicoussion of policy; but this will be too arid. It is more down to earth to start with a particular illustrative case. One can always merge/migrate the article later; now it will be premature.

--Carrasco 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mile Davidović

[edit]

Entire article is an almost direct steal from the subject's own web site. Apart from being a potential copyvio, this also appears to be largely self-promotion - most of the article was written by User:Mile davidovic OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

55Stones

[edit]

The article for this not very remarkable variant of Mancala was written by the inventor of the topic during a discussion for deletion on the German to fake a remarkability. Now that the topic got deleted on the German WP, so should do this on the English I think. The only thing the author did on the German WP to prove the relevance was to show this article on this Wiki and some other articles he submitted to pages on the internet. Tobias Schmidbauer 15:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you should take a look at Tobias (old) user discussion first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Schmidbauer&diff=42869907&oldid=37527254

The article on 55Stones was today removed from the Geman Wikipedia (ONE admin decides) although the vast majority voted for keeping the article.

  • Comment that still doesn't address the basic issues, namely that 55Stones has no independent verification outside of Wikipedia and the Mancala wiki and thus seems to violate WP:NFT, WP:NOR, and WP:V. How people voted on German or Italian Wikipedia is irrelevant. Mancala wiki is the right place for this, not Wikipedia.--Isotope23 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the game exists at BoardGameGeek (USA)... and if the majority of German users voted to keep it, this proves that in Germany the game is seen as relevant (except perhaps by a few who never heard of Mancala before, but have the rather dictatorial power to delete articles) which should be important for the English Wiki as well... also I believe that lots of information is only verified in other special wikis or even only in books, magazines and so on (but not the web). btw, I am one of the contributors of the "Encyclopedia of Community" (Berkshire Publishing Group) and they asked me to write an article on my own research work. So what's the problem?
  • Actually, that just proves that 8 wikipedia users in Germany, who happen to watch the AfD pages, see the game as relevant as opposed to 3 who saw it as not relevant. It can't really be applied to indicate any sort of more general popularity... though with that consensus of opinions, a deletion seems highly irregular. The problem here is that Wikis are not a good form of verification because anyone can add info and, depending on the policies of the specific wiki, sourcing of that info may not be required. BoardGameGeek is the same situation; anyone can register and add a new game. From the profice at BoardGameGeek it doesn't appear to have generated any interest whatsoever (1 comment). Books & Magazines are a good verification source however. Can you cite any sources for 55Stones that come from books/magazines? Also, writing an article based on your own research work is a problem. It violates WP:NOR, which is a Wikipedia policy.--Isotope23 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say "highly irregular"? Well, it's not irregular, it's typical in the German wiki, because it's not consensus based. Hundreds of users were banned, because they are "democrats" (called in German "Demokratietrolle"), that is, they wanted democratic decision-making. Decision-making is only by admins and they don't permit any questioning which could endanger their power. Furthermore, your comment "happen to watch the AfD pages" can be equally made about this very discussion. It's a very destructive argument. 11 votes (and a few neutral ones) are a lot. Can you show me many articles which got more votes??? Whether it's a wiki or not, obviously several different people in many different countries have added 55Stones to their wiki, claiming that this game IS important. Adding to a special wiki about Mancala games, could even mean that the game is considered of bein important by those who have a profound knowledge of Mancala games, not just for the casual gamer. It's true that the BGG article hasn't generated much interest, but that's because it's a new article. BUT it's NOT true that anybody can add a game. Anybody can suggest a game, but the decision is made by several admins and it's made teamwise. I suppose, most unpublished games are rejected by BGG, there are just a few. It's a privelege.
I'm speaking in context of English wiki... If that is how German language AfD is run then it is rather unfortunate... but it's not really relevant here (and on a side note I could show you dozens of en.wiki AfD's that exceed 11 opinions rendered). Indeed, that argument could be made about this discussion, which is why it is so important to provide some WP:V sources on which to base a decision about 55Stones. In my opinion, Wikis don't cut it. I've added information on cross-class skill strategies to the Guild Wars wiki because it is important and interesting to me and possibly anyone who plays GW, but that doesn't mean that information is suitable for Wikipedia. Information added here needs to meet the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. If you can provide independent, 3rd party sources pertaining to this variation of Mancala I will reconsider. Right now though I'm just not seeing anything that makes me reconsider my opinion.--Isotope23 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Archived Discussion

Here the archived discussion: (scroll down if you don't speak German)


Archiv (Löschdiskussion) 55Stones (Gelöscht)

Behandelt eine von Benutzer:Mr. Mancala erfundene, aber sonst unbekannte, Mancala-Variante. Wikipedia ist kein Webspace-Provider. --Schmidbauer 16:51, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

User talk:Tobias Schmidbauer From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

-> That was not a real vandalization; I just added some funny page to the external links in the article Dolphin. --Tobias Schmidbauer 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) ->Most would consider that to be vandalism, FYI.Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Halte das Einbauen in den Artikel Mancala - als Variante des Spiels - für sinnvoller. --SV Leschmann 17:00, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

-Wirklich, ist die Variante so bekannt? Immerhin hat Benutzer:Mr. Mancala ja noch sein Mancala-Wiki. --Schmidbauer 17:03, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Und wenn der Mann noch fünf andere wikis hat, wo ist das Problem? -- andro96 19:12, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
∗∗∗ Mr. Mancala 18:29, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Mancala ist ein Gattungsbegriff, deswegen werden einzelne Spiele (egal von wem) dort nicht eingebaut. Die Wiki-Manqala ist eine eigenständige katalanische Website und hat nichts mit dem Erfinder des Spiels zu tun. Unabhängig von der deutschen Wikipedia gibt es in der italienischen W. einen Eintrag über 55Stones. Der Löschantrag von Tobias Schmidbauer ist nichts anderes als eine Retourkutsche, da ich seine Sperrung beantragt habe. Schmidbauer vandaliert im Lemma Guantanamo-Bucht seit Januar 2006. Übrigens erschien eben beim Aufrufen dieser Seite ein Wichsbild (wurde inzwischen offenbar wieder entfernt), deswegen habe ich den Löschantrag entfernt. Mr. Mancala 18:29, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Man sollte vielleicht noch hinzufügen, dass ich insgesamt 20 Artikel der Kategorie "Mancala" in den letzten Monaten verfasst habe (neben zahlreichen wissenschaftlichen Aufsätzen über diese Spielefamilie in Fachzeitschriften). Von den drei anderen Artikeln, die schon existierten, habe ich zwei komplett überarbeitet, da sie sich in einem miserablen Zustand befanden. Ich habe immer konstruktiv mitgearbeitet und versucht, Artikel objektiv und "neutral" zu gestalten, selbst wenn ich eine emotionale Nähe zum Thema besitze. Moderne Mancala-Spiele sind nicht unbedingt sehr bekannt (außer in bestimmten Kreisen), das gilt jedoch auch für andere Spiele, die in der deutschen Wikipedia beschrieben werden. Wichtig sind jedoch auch noch andere Kriterien, dazu gehören bei modernen Mancala-Spielen innovative Spielmechanismen, die sie von traditionellen Mancala-Spielen deutlich abgrenzen. Dies führt dazu, dass die Definition von Mancala-Spielen heute ständig im Fluss ist. Außerdem wird nur ein Bruchteil von Mancalaspielen, die ich erfunden habe, in der deutschen Wikipedia beschrieben. Betrachtet man den Gesamtzusammenhang innerhalb der deutschen Wikipedia (moderne Mancala-Spiele) stellen sie auch wieder nur einen kleinen Teil dar. Allerdings bin ich der Meinung, dass nun auch mehr traditionelle Spiele hinzugefügt werden sollten. Im übrigen habe ich diese beanstandeten Artikel durchaus mit einem gewissen Unbehagen verfasst. Es wäre mir sehr viel lieber gewesen, wenn jemand anderes dies geschrieben hätte. Ich weiß, dass Spieleautoren ihre Spiele oft überbewerten, denke jedoch, dass eine Übersicht über moderne Mancala-Spiele gänzlich ohne meine Varianten genauso ein unangemessenes Extrem darstellen würde, als hätte ich es gewagt, sämtliche Spiele, die ich je erfunden habe, hier einzubauen. -- Mr. Mancala 19:38, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Das Masturbationsbild befindet sich noch in der History:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/6._M%C3%A4rz_2006&diff=14347118&oldid=14347091 Eingefügt von einem Anonymus: IP 84.130.224.172 --Mr. Mancala

Schon wieder falsch: Besagtes Bild wurde um 18.12 Uhr von 172.176.173.160 eingefügt. Und weiter? --Schmidbauer 21:47, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Möglicherweise sind die beiden IPs identisch. Das Bild wurde eingefügt und wenige Sekunden später noch ein wenig Text. Mr. Mancala 21:56, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

Löschantrag fragwürdig, Unbekannt ist kein Löschgrund. Ausserdem ist jedes Spiel Wikipediafähig. Auf alle Fälle Behalten. -- andro96 19:12, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

  • Wikipedia bildet... oder Löschantrag äußerst fragwürdig behalten --Atamari 19:18, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
  • Löschantragsmotivation ist fragwürdig, die Relevanz dieser Spielvariante allerdings auch (Spiele sind nicht grundsätzlich relevant). --AT 19:43, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

Ausreichende Verbreitung zweifelhaft, bitte löschen (ggf. auch weitere). --Monade 20:41, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

  • Behalten: Ich habe bisher noch keinen Löschgrund nach den Löschregeln hier entdeckt. Der angegebene Löschgrund "Wikipedia ist kein Webspace-Provider" ist haltlos, da es sich hierbei nicht um eine Selbstdarstellung handelt. Auch deutet die vorgebrachte Formulierung des Antragstellers eher auf eine persönliche Aversion gegenüber Mr. Mancala hin und erinnert mich im Ansatz an das Verhalten eines Trolls; besonders, wenn ich sehe, dass er Beiträge von ihm hier löscht: [12] --SGOvD-Webmaster (Diskussion) 23:21, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
  • Es ist schon seltsam, dass anscheinend alle Google-Treffer für "55Stones" auf das mancala-Wiki sowie WP & Mirror verweisen - löschen -- srb ♋ 10:37, 7. Mär 2006 (CET)
Der Mancalaartikel selbst ist bereits umfangreich und teilweise unübersichtlich. Deshalb sind Ausgliederungen wie hier sehr sinnvoll. Demnach kommt nur behalten in Frage. --nfu-peng Diskuss 13:04, 7. Mär 2006 (CET)

Nur weil mich hier Mr. Mancala VERLEUMDET, ist der LA noch lange nicht fragwürdig. Wahr ist: Mr. Mancala ist ein Geschichtsrevisionist, der nicht zugeben kann, dass seine Theorie, die Schließung des Camp X-Ray sei eine „absurde Geschicht[e]“ unhaltbar ist. Verschwörungstheorien von einfachen Wikpedianern haben in Artikeln nichts verloren. Löschen --Schmidbauer 16:30, 8. Mär 2006 (CET)

Löschantrag unzulässig
  • 1. Troll
  • 2. Mobbing
  • 3. Verstos gegen die Wikiquette
  • 4. Neutralität fehlt um die Relevenz beurteilen zukönnen. 89.55.8.34 nachgetragen durch NiTen

behalten - weil dieser Löschantrag nichts anderes als ein persönlicher Rachefeldzug ist. Solche Kindeleien sollte man nicht unterstützen. --Trugbild 08:25, 9. Mär 2006 (CET)

-Besser zwei vernünftige LAs aus Rache stellen als Benutzer unter anonymer IP verleumden (von 89.55.8.34, wahrscheinlich Mr. Mancala) --Schmidbauer 11:03, 9. Mär 2006 (CET)

LAs aus Rache zu stellen ist primitiv. Sowas lässt sich mit nichts rechtfertigen. --Trugbild 11:52, 10. Mär 2006 (CET)
Behalten - da wohl eher Herrn Schmidbauers Argumente erfunden und falsch sind, und ich auch Herrn Trugbild beistimme. --Ολλίμίνατορέ Ω 21:31, 12. Mär 2006 (CET)
Behalten - das Spiel wird auf mindestens vier weiteren Wikis beschrieben (Ital., Engl., dt. Brettspielwiki, katalan. ManqalaWiki) und jetzt auch auf BoardGameGeek. Internationaler Konsens ist also, das Spiel ist relevant. Begründung: ungewöhnliche, innovative Regeln. Mr. Mancala 10:03, 13. Mär 2006 (CET)
Beide Artikel in der engl. und ital. Wikipedia wurden am 8. März, also einen Tag nach der Stellung des Löschantrags, angelegt. Der ital. von Mr. Mancala, der engl. vielleicht auch von unserm Freimaurer. Der Eintrag im Manqalawiki ist ja bekannterweise von Mr. Mancala; der auf Boardgamegeek wurde von einem Benutzer FiveStars angelegt, und der heißt, sein Profil verrät es uns, mit richtigem Namen Ralf Gering (= Mr. Mancala). Zusammenfassend: Fünf Erwähnungen im Internet, davon mind. vier von Mr. Mancala. --Schmidbauer 10:33, 13. Mär 2006 (CET)
Laut History wurde der italienische Artikel am 24. August 2005 vom User Moongateclimber angelegt. Ich kann überhaupt kein Italienisch. Wer ein Spiel für BGG vorschlägt, ist völlig unwichtig. Ob ein Vorschlag angenommen wird, prüfen und entscheiden die BGG Admins (ein Team), ich bin kein Admin. Nicht-kommerzielle Spiele werden meist abgelehnt. Dass 55Stones akzeptiert wurde, ist daher eine Auszeichnung. Noch ein Nachtrag zur WikiManqala: Die Seite wurde von Víktor Bautista i Roca ins Leben gerufen, dem stärksten nicht-indigenen Oware-Meister Europas, der Begründer der katalanischen Aualé-Liga, dem Organisator zahlloser internationaler Oware-Turniere, international renommiert für seine Studien über Mancala in der Dominikanischen Republik. Ich glaube kaum, dass er es schätzen würde, mit jemand anderem verwechselt zu werden. Víktor und ich sind Mitglied eines Mancala-Forums bei Yahoo!, welches von Paul Smith, dem stärksten britischen Oware-Meister 2001 gegründet wurde. In diesem Forum habe ich 55Stones und auch Afrika erstmals veröffentlicht. Víktor hat dann, ohne mich zu fragen, diese Beiträge genommen und in die WikiManqala gestellt. Er hat es also für "relevant" gehalten. Im übrigen bin ich erst durch ihn auf die Wikipedia gestoßen. --Mr. Mancala 10:57, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)
Was sind das denn jetzt für Verschwörungstheorien? Warum sollte ich mir die Mühe machen und ein Spiel übersetzen? Für meine Person ist so ein Spiel wie ein Großteil von Wikipedia nicht relevant. Ich würde mir aber nicht anmaßen, dass ein Spiel deswegen nicht für ein Lexikon relevant wäre. Etwas mehr Sachlichkeit könnte nicht schaden. Wenn ich jetzt noch sehe, dass hier der richtige Name veröffentlicht wird, dann weiß ich wieder, warum ich meinen nicht nenne. Welche Wikipediaregeln kannst du denn anführen, dass das Spiel nicht relevant sei? --SGOvD-Webmaster (Diskussion) 10:17, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)

An Belanglosigkeit nicht zu überbieten. Also: Behalten -- 80.145.35.220 14:13, 13. Mär 2006 (CET) 

Gelöscht --Uwe G.  ¿⇔? 14:35, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)

Der Hintergrund des LAs ist sicher diskutabel, aber dieses Spiel hat weder größere Verbreitung noch ist die WP eine Spieleanleitung. --Uwe G. ¿⇔? 14:35, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)


55Stones has been described in the Italian wikipedia (no, not by Ralf), it has been included by the admins of BoardGameGeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/22792) and it's still included in a special German brettspielwiki. To learn more about Tobias and his real motives go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhymeless#Beware_of_Tobias_Schmidbauer Palmiro wrote about him: Thanks for helping sort out the guy who thought I had called him an asshole!

Just a quick note: I am the author who added 55 Stones to it.wiki, based on information taken from the Manqala.org wiki. I am usually against deleting from wikipedias, and the game (if you are interested in mancala theory or classification) looks interesting; on the other hand, I would agree that the looks are against its right to be on wikipedias, as it seemingly exists *per* wikipedias alone. I'll think about it for the italian version. Meanwhile, being a mancala lover, I have copied the rules from manqala.org in case the game suddendly disappears from everywhere as a result of it being "fake". Thanks to the anonymous who pointed me to this discussion. -- Moongateclimber (@it.wiki)


So eight wanted to keep ("behalten" in German) it, three wanted it to be deleted ("löschen").

The redlinks are mainly because they are mapped to en.wikipedia.org instead of de.wikipedia.org. Lambiam 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All are genuine German Wikipedians as Lambiam has pointed out. There were only two IPs who posted (obviously Capitalistroadster is quite confused) and, yes, one vote for keeping it. Makes still 7:3 in favor of keeping the article.

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active Server Pages/Hints

[edit]

This page has no point being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide.[13] Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.[14] The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Here are just a few: [15][16][17][18] Nova SS 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvise uk

[edit]

A group of skateboarding teenagers. Non-notable per WP:BIO / WP:VAIN. Sandstein 15:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protologism

[edit]

An unreferenced dict-def which freely admits the term is itself a neologism. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, Wikipedia should strive to avoid self-reference, which is what this article is; the word appears almost exclusively in Wikipedia pages and mirrors, with very little use indeed outside this. What is on the Wiktionary page is sufficient, and this stub has no reason to be. In short, self reference + unverifiable + neologism = delete. For the purposes of full disclosure, I'd tagged this article earlier today with prod, this was then supported with a prod2, but subsequently the prod tags were removed. No complaints about this, but I do feel this article is misplaced, however, and so bringing it for discussion on AfD is probably the best way to decide this. Proto||type 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ballasy

[edit]

Delete - Subject of article fails to meet guidelines for WP:BIO or WP:VANITY SeannyFunco 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this violates the policy. Ballasy is well known on his campus and in the state of Jersey and his shows are all over the internet and he has his own official web site. He deserves the promotion other people who have wikipedia pages dedicated to them and their work recieve. Thank you for your understanding. I don't believe it is vanity. I am simply writing information about the man and his accomplishments like the articles written on many other people here on wikipedia include. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgamenab (talk • contribs)

Ballasy exists and has really interviewed all those well known people...are you trying to challange that fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs)

Aside, is that your job? To make jokes about entries...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs)

I understand it's not about promotion, but he and his work exist. Has everyone heard about everything written in encyclopedias? - NO— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs)

Many of you are very sarcastic. I will just have to get others to back me up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs)

  • Allgamenab, (or Unsigned, if you're different people): it's nothing against either you or Ballasy, who is probably a fine upstanding person with a bright future, but there are standards, as listed in WP:BIO, as to who gets a Wikipedia article. It's not everyone. And you sarcastic folks, don't you bother getting your own websites. This Internet thing is a fad. It will never last. Oh, and Delete, per WP:BIO. GRuban 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Christian H.

[edit]

Nonsense vanity page, no value. Picture should go too. Egil 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutatron

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Tree

[edit]

Delete Vanity Article - Despite a small number of press references, Westminster Tree cannot be considered "notable". It has no official connection to Westminster School. Some Westminster School pupils (who are minors) find the content of Westminster Tree site deeply upsetting. However, since the site is "closed", its content cannot be verified, and might even be illegal. —This unsigned comment is by RichardHindley (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska in the Elite Eight

[edit]

Delete for obvious reasons Kgwo1972 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Passim

[edit]

Non notable Interestingstuffadder 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems to be an article for a non-notable music club in Cambridge, MA. Although some moderately well known artists have performed at this place during its history, it is unclear what sets this club apart from any of the other thousands of small music clubs throughout the country... Did some particuarly important act get its start here? Was there a riot here at some point? Is this club of general cultural significance for some reason? Absent some notable incident(s) along these lines, this seems like just another non notable local establishment where live music is performed and is thus unencylopedic...'Keep: Change my vote. Additions to the article made since I nominated it for deltion have convinced me that this is notable. In this case, the deletion process seems to have worked perfectly. Interestingstuffadder 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please assume good faith... I did happen to notice this on your userpage during our exchange, but I legitimitely didn't think it met notability guidelines. But to compare this to our fuck truck debate, it is unclear how a local music club is more notable than a local college shuttle bus. And how is this "notable within the genre of folk music"? Is every one of the many clubs where reasonably well known folk groups have played "notable within the genre of folk music"? I see nothing that seperates this club from the probably thousands of other clubs across the country and around the world where bands of this level of notability have performed. These are small venues and there are many of them. Absent some specific reason for notability, this club is insufficiently notable to merit a wikipedia article. Interestingstuffadder 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Boston folk scene is central to the genre of contemporary folk in the US, and Club Passim is the most important folk club in the Boston area. I've added some references to the article that document this. Catamorphism 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calyr Elvin Church

[edit]

plus Calyr Church (redirect page)

Religion … in which belief, fiction, fact and faith are interwoven. Unreferenced. Possible vanity - author is Freedomelf. I presume non-notable. -- RHaworth 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is listed at the bottom of the article, which is www.calyr.org. The Calyr religion is an actual religion practiced for the past 4 years by members in the US and Canada. The website calyr.org serves as their online reference. I can understand why members of other religions may be upset at the addition, but I believe that deleting this article entirely would cause legal problems with discrimination, since many other religions, even obscure ones, are referenced on wikipedia. However, if you can think of how it could be edited to standardize it for wikipedia, I am open to suggestion. :) --70.162.19.183 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I forgot to sign in when I made the comment above. Please let me know how I should edit the article to make it acceptable by wikipedia standards. Thank you. -Freedomelf 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the other members of the church, and all 16 have agreed to abide by your decision on whether or not to delete this entry at this time. I apologize if I have offended anyone by putting up the information about our organization. -Freedomelf 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No apology is necessary and please don't take this personally; it's not meant as an attack or indictment of you or your beliefs. If this page does get deleted at the end of the AfD process, and at some point your group can meet WP:V criteria, there is a process for undeleting pages that you could initiate. There are a number of smaller and/or obscure religions listed here, but they all meet WP:V (see Discordianism for a good example).--Isotope23 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Religion claiming 16 members (according to the above), seems to be primarily internet-based, yet website has no Alexa rank, which is hardly a good sign. No Google hits for Calyr Evin. Unverifiable at the very least. Looks very interesting though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments. I will take your advice to heart and check out the other pages. Thanks again. Freedomelf

I wanted to add one more thing, if I may, before I close. I'm afraid that my fellow Calyr and I were quite clueless as to google hits, etc. for a web site. We had been working on putting our books of faith on the web for months, but had not gotten it finished until this week. The site was only actually published day before yesterday, and we had a party to celebrate with all of our members (except the one who lives in Canada). One of our members suggested putting an entry in wikipedia and I volunteered to do so for the group. I realize now that we were much too hasty, and should have built up a web presence. I am very grateful for your instruction, Isotope and Starblind. I hope that as we grow in knowledge, we will be able to resubmit the entry at a future date, if it is taken down now. In the meantime, I think I will study other entries on the site to gain some experience. Thanks again and good night. - -Freedomelf 06:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DufferI

[edit]

Fake user page discloses personal information about the real individual it intends to spoof, and defames the character of the real user. CobaltBlueTony 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Joseph

[edit]

NN musician. Tagged as speedy but page creator insists on removing the tag. Listing here to give him/her a chance to respond. Nominator votes delete. Fang Aili 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for removing the tags...I didn't mean to so. I just saw all this text and deleted it because I was editing the entry. He is in the process of getting a record deal and could use the promotion other people who have wikipedia pages dedicated to them recieve. Thank you for your understanding. What do you mean he doesn't seem to have any google hits? He has a popular myspace page and website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgamenab (talk • contribs)

he exists and is well known locally - I guess that's not enough for wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs)

When he is signed, which will be soon, I will remember how you didn't allow this page to stay up, regardless of the reasoning and I will make sure Lucas does not get a wikipedia article written up about him because this is ridiculous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment If he is signed by a major/well-known indie label and puts out a couple of albums or goes on tour, rest assured that someone out there will add him to Wikipedia again... at that point though he will meet WP:MUSIC and his article will belong here.--Isotope23 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artists who only have one album have wikpedia articles...even ones that aren't even that well known..I could give you plenty of examples...I'll get others to back me up on this too— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs)

  • Many artists who have only one album released by a major label have articles; I doubt you will find many whose only CDs are independently or self-published. You already admitted you want to use wikipedia for promotion; we have explained wikipedia is not to be used that way. We will be happy to endorse an article when he releases a record under a major label or goes on a national tour or gets significant radio airplay that can be verified. (Most significantly, look at other articles on the AfD list. Try and spot the people who advocate keeping almost anything. They aren't jumping to your defense here, are they. If you want you can userfy the page so can have it ready to go as soon as that first record hits the shelves. Thatcher131 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fries BBQ & Grill

[edit]

Local Iowa City restaurant that closed in the late '90s. As I feel that it fails WP:CORP, I vote delete. Andy Saunders 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am the author, and this is the first thing I've ever written here. I had no idea that as soon as I posted it that users would be circling like sharks trying to take me down. Can It be notable for the network of people who used to work or eat there, and, well, will enjoy reading the article? I don't know what to say. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegoodfriend (talk • contribs)

Replied on user_talk page — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, not improving contributors' self-esteem. Whether this was the author's first article or their 1000th shouldn't matter here. Catamorphism 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to lighten the mood, since the article clearly fails notability and probably nothing can save it. Peter Grey 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ward

[edit]

Richard Ward is a contributor to the work of Andrew Collins, and a pivotal player in the world of psychic questing. He has helped Andrew Collins research ancient civilisations, and is credited as such in Collins's books, including FROM THE ASHES OF ANGELS, where his name appears as supplying 'additional research' on the frontispiece. He boasts a specialist knowledge of certain areas like vodon and alchemy.

(The above unsigned comment was left at 09:37, 16 March 2006 by 80.6.88.221) . Waggers 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know anything about this, I am just rescuing it from speedy, it seems that there is at least enough assertion of notability to make it worth looking at and not speedying. Herostratus 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurophone

[edit]

Prod contested. User:Tenebrous says: "factually dubious, not notable, advertisement". It's about electronic telepathy. I can't really tell if it deserves an article. The concept appears to pre-exist the article. NickelShoe 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Seems to get good Google coverage... by pseudoscience websites. Let's note the dubious efficacy of this device in the article and move on. Sandstein 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing to suggest that anything related to this subject is factual or notable, and I've yet to see anything on the subject that could be considered a reliable source. How do we know this device even exists? This article will likely never be anything more than a stub; there's just not enough context. The originator of this device, however, is a bit more notable as a crank, but only a little bit more so; I'd probably oppose an article on him. An article on pseudoscientific mind-related devices, I could see. This particular one, no. Tenebrous 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenebrous, read the life magazine article about the patent and the deaf guy at the patent office. Now, tell me where you made up "nothing." Your vote for AFD is frivolous. --JimmyT 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try and keep it civil. haz (user talk)e 14:03, 17 March 2006
  • Keep --JimmyT 11:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC) JimmyT (talk · contribs) is the article's author.[reply]
  • Keep but needs to be expanded. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Please expand the article, though. haz (user talk)e 14:03, 17 March 2006
  • weak keep Seems to exist, disclaims accepted by mainstream science, seems interesting. RJFJR 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup or delete. Article's author keeps editing the article to make it falsely look as if no one disputes that this device does what it is claimed to.[20][21][22][23] -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: And again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - But rewrite as historical device rather than feasible relevant technology.
    • As an engineer (and a Tufts Alum <g>), I read the article carefully, and purused the Talk as well. I certainly don't see much about credible scientific studies supporting the claim that it actually does pass intellegence directly into the brain (presumably by electromagnetic induction acting upon electrical charges involved in neuron discharge). However, that mechanism (i.e. affecting brain currents) is certainly concievable as CAT/NMRI scan technologies have some similarities, and it is accepted knowledge (shrug) that cell phones, walkie-talkies, etc. (and other EMI fields) do cause some brain damage given LONG TERM and EXCESSIVE use by adverse effects on said current flow, so I surmise that the technology is premature, may just be in it's infant stage (Like semiconductors back in 1910-1920 period—  No one could figure out what to do with them yet. We all own thousands of transistors these days!) But bottom line, the device was given a patent in modern times. That's notable enough to deserve space as an historical article. Lastly, I remember the term back from when I was but a wee Lad. Perhaps the article should be modeled more on phrenology, i.e. a theory about the device.
  • Hope someone stops the edit war noted above by one of it's partisans! Perhaps a lock on the article while this process completes would be in order? FrankB 17:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable. The answer to the edit war is WP:DR, not AFD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup or delete per above. Time is ticking. — Mar. 20, '06 [00:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WorldDance New York

[edit]

Vanity Advertising page, created by admitted employee of the company pschemp | talk 18:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Metal (Second Nomination)

[edit]

Non Existant genre. After researching, only 3 of the bands on the list actually exist. The genre directly copies the Thrash Metal and Grindcore articles, except for picking and choosing aspects to remove from each, something like a childs game of Mix And Match. The bands that do exist also have non of the traits on the supposed genre has. List of heavy metal genres nor heavy metal music makes any mention of it at all. Seems like another article in a long list of made up genres to glorify one or two paticular bands. Ley Shade 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Spearhead 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per nom. A poorly made article, but not completely wrong. But this genre is not often referred to as "Noise metal", usually either being called Noisecore or just lumping it in with Noise music. It is a new, emerging genre which doesn't have many bands. The creator does seem to toot the mastodon horn quite a bit in this article, but thats because mastodon is a band plently of people have heard of. After searching for the mentioned bands I found that most of these bands DO exist, they are just very obscure and underground. "real" bands that creator mentioned: Mastodon, Sielwolf, Anal Pope, Pterodactyls, Alchemy/Manifest, Humanzee, Plastic Dragon, Amentia, Halaka, and Faizan Qamar are ALL real bands. as for the others, I am not sure. look through MySpace, and http://www.dmusic.com/. You will find the bands i have mentioned above. It is wrong to delete

Information that is correct, if not well known!

  • Leave It should be noted that most bands of this type are Inde bands, that don't hold many elements of genres with noise and Rock/metal as the two main genres.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 content, move to Mason Williams (webcomics) - Liberatore(T) 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tailsteak.com

[edit]

Delete nn. website with alexa rank of >800,000.Deproded by author wiyhout comment--Porturology 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete all.  (aeropagitica)  22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Nelson, Silly nelson, Silly Nelson and The Cop Cars

[edit]

All pages pertain to the same musician, who does not appear to be notable per WP:BAND. Sandstein 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1

[edit]

This page is a autobiography: [24], [25]. Google returns nothing: [26]. I say delete on grounds of nonnotability. Dijxtra 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPITCORE

[edit]

A record label with a discography of two. No apparent notability per WP:CORP, especially judging by their web page. Sandstein 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Upcoming"? Sorry, this sounds a little crystal-ballish. Are there any sources for this "research"? Sandstein 04:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Upcoming releases are listed on the myspace page, and other information is posted up on the nerd for everyone to read that's in the know.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable band. Capitalistroadster 21:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tubelord

[edit]

Nonsense article + non-notable band LimoWreck 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. speedy delete as per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebrock (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Shanel 19:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Maher

[edit]

"He is perhaps best known for the distribution of over 6,300 copies of self-produced 'zine, 'Fraught Rag'". That's not what I call a substantial claim to notability. No Google hits, anyway. WP:BAND probably also applies. Sandstein 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tits

[edit]

Delete absolutely no evidence that this meets notability criteria.Deproded by author without comment--Porturology 19:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Funny name though. Aplomado - UTC 20:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportssigned

[edit]

PROD removed; article fails WP:CORP. Delete. Andy Saunders 20:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Open Space Technology. W.marsh 03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open-space meeting

[edit]

Delete This page is a pretty convoluted conjecture about the origins of Open Space Technology, none of which reflects the sources available on the process. I suggest deletion in favour of a more extensive articel on Open Space Technology which I will help coordinate through the international community of Open Space facilitators Chris Corrigan 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity women who took their husbands' names in marriage

[edit]

PROD tag removed. Unencyclopedic listcruft. While the phenomenon may be less common than previously, that does not mean it is particularly notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; delete. MCB 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the definition of nee, you moron: 1 -- used to identify a woman by her maiden family name 2 : originally or formerly called. The second definition applies. You are ten times more pointless than this list. -- Gerkinstock 15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crouching Jimmy, Hidden Sheen

[edit]

Delete- This is nothing more than an episode of the children's television show The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. Seeing as Wikipedia is not an episode guide, this is hence an inappropriate entry. Ljlego 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perianal hair

[edit]

Delete: Looks like a hoax and is not verifiable Joelmills 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHRISTyle

[edit]

Delete. It appears to be a pure promo for a band that doesn't seem to have any real following, and had not released their first album at the time of the posting. A google search turns up nothing. Carlo 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth banknote-issuing institutions

[edit]

The connection between Commonwealth of Nations and Banknotes is too remote to justify an article. If we need a list of banknote-issuing institutions, why not have a world one? The timescale also needs to be clear. This one seems to try to cover the entire history of banknotes but is woefully incomplete. Cavrdg 21:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - I'm torn between merge and delete, because I don't know if it would be redundant to place this information into each country's article, or if it's already there. It's neat to know who's allowed to print money, but I agree that lumping together all commonwealth countries is a bad idea. Is there a broader list of money-issuers around the world? Night Gyr 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However we do end up doing it, it seems like it would be best to have a section under each country for current and for historical, which would settle up the time periods nicely. Night Gyr 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 merge also possible of course. W.marsh 03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblack metal

[edit]

A nonexistent pseudo subgenre of Black metal that has a minor differnce with it, plus it largely overlaps with Christian metal delete Spearhead 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many bands of these are actually notable. Horde maybe... CM appears to be notable, Antestor doesn't use the term in their artcile - the rest is probably not notable. Spearhead 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Christian metal. Catamorphism 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aplomado, and Expand. I first heard of unblack metal years ago - I think on the now-offline Dead the E-Zine [40] - and have heard the term used many times. It's definitely not a "nonexistent pseudo subgenre", and Christian metal encompasses more styles than just this one. Given that there are more obscure genres with good, long articles here, this genre should have more written about it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Christian metal. I'd like to point out that Symphonic Black Metal and Symphonic Power Metal are included under Symphonic Metal even though they are clearly vastly different and the bands are all relatively famous (Dimmu Borgir, Cradle of Filth/Angra, Nightwish). I don't think Unblack Metal needs to have its own article any more than Symphonic Black or Power Metal and should be treated as a subgenre of Christian Metal. Also, I think there are too few renowned bands in this category to justify keeping it separate.--IronChris 06:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per IronChris. Punkmorten 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christian Metal. The term Unblack Metal is used by Black Metal fans to insult Christian Metal bands. Its also use to mean 'Non-Black', meaning 'any band that isnt black metal', same as UnGothic, and UnDeath, and UnThrash. Ley Shade 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Disagree. In the many sources that have been cited here, 'Unblack' is used as a term that refers to bands with a Black metal musical style except that their lyrics are against Satanism. Articles such as Un-American exist but they don't necessary mean 'anything that isnt American' but 'anything that is against America'.--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 22:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sampi, as much as i respect yew, im also against many sites about Christian Metal. Ive found several that have stated that bands such as Mortiis, Behemoth and Burzum are Christian Black Metal, and ones that have claimed that 'Goth Metal' is another name for Christian Metal bands that wear black. Ive also only ever known the term to be used as 'non black metal bands'. But thats just me. I still vote delete and redirect to Christian Metal, however. Oh, and Sampi, please check your talk page, i posted something there that needs immediate attention. Ley Shade 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miral sattar

[edit]

It's someone's CV (resumé). There seems to have been an influx of these things recently. Not encyclopedic in any way, shape or form, and probably nn to boot. Hynca-Hooley 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Khan

[edit]

Consider for deletion along with Miral sattar. It is a similar self-promoting article, and a look at the usernames of the articles' creators suggests that these two people have written each other's articles--some kind of vanity exchange? Hynca-Hooley 21:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DontDateHimGirl.com

[edit]

Prod tag was removed by creator. Appears to fail WP:WEB. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big_Damn_Funny

[edit]

Delete. The website appears to be a vanity project. It's only been around for a year (unless you count its 6-month existence in 2000) and the only hits for the website appear to be from advertisements and the creator's blog. The humor on the site sucks anyway. Aplomado - UTC 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

audience of two: 5,770,170 What does alexa ranking have to do with anything? 70.60.152.14 19:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save So the fact that is HAS been published elsewhere factors in none? 70.60.149.226 05:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Curtis

[edit]

Another CV/resumé type vanity article. Hynca-Hooley 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremys_films

[edit]

Delete as non-notable vanity project. Aplomado - UTC 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely spam and an embarassment to myself. The person who made it never recieved any permission from me and it contains completely false information. JeremysFilms 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UniKEF_Gravity

[edit]

Delete,because it is an obscure crank theory of gravity. The source for it appears to be a MSN group devoted to it, where it is noted that this theory has not been published.Salsb 22:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, blanked by author. — Mar. 19, '06 [21:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Blazer Boulevard

[edit]

Prod tag was removed, site fails wp WP:WEB --Obli (Talk)? 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games

[edit]

Delete - Listcruft; not enough items to populate list. --BWD (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally unncessary. Aplomado - UTC 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is pretty accurate and completed. Definitely not Listcruft. No need for deletion. TomS64 02:22, 17 Mar 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that this user probably meant to vote Keep. In any event, he/she only has 2 edits on wikipedia as of this writing. --BWD (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I just registered for this account so I can have a signature. Before I created this account, I contribute to this site under the name/ip: 154.20.205.3. TomS64 05:22, 17 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I had been searching the net for this exact list. It is perfect, whats the problem?

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

The result of the debate was delete discounting comments from people with no WP participation outside this AfD. W.marsh 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku generation

[edit]

Non-notable podcast that fails WP:WEB. kotepho 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]" This podcast was covered by Newtype USA (a magazine), where I first heard about it. The write up is discussed in the entry. Deletion is not necessary under these terms. 11:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't know who to tell.. but we have more than 11 subscribers... more like several thousand... a week, and we're not advertising anything, especially via this wiki. I've very confused in understanding how this came about. chaeseco 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Podcasting is not a mature field and there is extreme difficulty in trying to ascertain what's notable and what's not in the field. The metrics for measuring such a thing simply aren't there, and since podcasting is something that can be done by anyone with a copy of Audacity and a fast net connection there is a presumption that most podcasts simply don't reach a reasonable bar of notability. Based on what I found on Google and Yahoo, I honestly couldn't decide whether it was a keep or not, so I more or less abstained. Haikupoet 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem lies in that it is very hard to get reliable, verifiable from respected sources about this podcast. The article in Newtype is trivial in nature (and thus does not meet WP:WEB) so it is not much help. |kotepho 10:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. Kuzaar 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . It's notable enough to have been mentioned in Newtype magazine, and has been linked by both Scott Ramsoomair of VG Cats and R. K. Milholland of Something Positive following their interviews on the show - only three examples of mention off the top of my head, but still. The article is intended to be informative, and could for example prove useful to someone trying to find out about the show after having listened to an episode and finding themselves confused on a point, though it could use a bit of a cleanup. Just my opinion on the matter, however. 72.67.19.75 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd think that the mentions of the show on well-known webcomics sites and their invitation to do a show at a major anime convention would put them over the bar. However, it's true that it's tough to make these sorts of decisions with the sorts of metrics these days. They do link to some metrics off of their site (e.g. maps derived from numbers and locations of recent visitors), but I'm not an expert in that, so I'm not entirely sure how reliable they are. Since it's entirely possible for a podcast to have a significant listenership without a very active web presence, like any other radio show, doesn't that argue that we should be lenient in deciding exactly how popular a given podcast is, until more reliable, public metrics exist? As a side note: I do agree that it could use some cleanup and perhaps not all of the material on the page is suitable for Wikipedia. Teki D 18:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Frappr map with 89 people listed and the hit counter says 14450 hits since Jan 2, 2006 and 22888 since Nov 11, 2005 (or 23349... it has two different numbers). That isn't exactly a large fanbase. The Frappr map has been mentioned on the show at least once. No Alexa rating and a low number of google hits(most of which seem to be podcast directories) also. This isn't about popularity though so none of that matters much. kotepho 23:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. I've found this entry useful on several occasions when I wanted to look up information about the show. While it may not be the most popular of podcasts, I would say that it has a large enough following to warrant keeping the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:140.232.144.68 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Come on guys, Otaku Generation is a great podcast. I need the information on the entry to understand some of the in-jokes. Don't delete this entry! I helped make it! Stumpy
This comment was made by 24.94.57.31 not User:Stumpy. kotepho 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove or edit other people's comments. If you are User:Stumpy log in and claim the edit 24.94.57.31. kotepho 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Otaku Generation would definatly qualify as notable, not simply for its production quality but its recognision by other notables and established institusions, such as New Type USA. The show has run uninterupted scince it's inception and continues to draw new listeners increasing it's noteriety with every passing week. To contest that Otaku Generation is not notable would be akin to dismissing the original Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy as being 'just another radio novel' While OG has yet to achive the mamouth proportions of HHGTTG it's fan base is ever expanding, making a virtual guarantee of it's place in the internet lore. User: Armethis ǀ ǀ armethis
  • I think you should keep it. The guest history and in joke explanations make it valuable for people new to the podcast. It definately helped me when I was looking into the podcast to see what it may have to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.233.123 (talk • contribs)
This was left on Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Otaku generation. kotepho 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frankly, the in-jokes were enough before to merit a wiki entry to explain the origin of some of the running gags and what they mean. With the addition of the "Nickname Me" segments, and people using their nick-names in correspondance to the program, there is further need for a wiki entry to keep a lot of this straight. PeytonWestlake 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say keep it because they have been mentioned in Ain't It Cool news. In addition the entry is also helpful for many a newcomer that has heard the Otaku Generation podcast for the first time because it helps them to understand the many in jokes that are rampant throughout. Such as the infamous flaming duckhole or Tuesday nights. Or my personal favorite the Kyle Dragonash song by Apocalypse Dowell. Saggy Z
  • Keep. I'll admit that the current article for Otaku Generation could due with some "spring cleaning" but I think it's a decent start at a page which covers the show. The initial deletion request seems to have been made due to the supposed "non-notability" of the Otaku Generation website. Internet culture and media do not always have a high cross-over rate with print culture and media so the fact that the show was mentioned in Newtype USA is already a good first step showing its popularity. The WP:WEB notability guidelines referrenced relate to websites only and although Otaku Generation has a web presense, the Otaku Generation wiki article is primarily in reference to the show itself and not the website www.OtakuGeneration.net. If the Otaku Generation article were to be deleted for non-notability it must first be shown to be non-notable as an entertainment broadcast. I'm using the term "entertainment broadcast" to encompass any audio or video media regardless of delivery method be it internet, over the air broadcast, satelite, cable, or local public access. Not all podcasts will be as popular as This Week in Tech or Rocketboom but that does not mean they are undeserving of a wikipedia article outlining the show. As long as Otaku Generation continues to produce shows on a consistant basis and has an evergrowing viewership, I see no reason that their article should be deleted. In looking over the wiki article standards, I do feel that the article for the show should be re-arranged/edited. It should focus more on the cast of the show, the history of the show, and how the show is produced as opposed to being primarily a list of in-jokes and nicknames. In-jokes are good for helping new listeners understand what the cast is referrencing in various segments of the show. The nicknames portion of the article isn't as informative since the bulk of nicknamed listeners are only mentioned when their nickname is created -- with the exception of frequent "callers" such as Johny Two-Times, Kitty, Jefferson, and Mega. ojenkins 2:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Articles must prove their notability, not the other way around. Just existing is certainly not a good determination of whether an article is warranted on a podcast or not. I urge you to reread WP:WEB as it specifically mentions podcasts twice. Web content includes, but is not limited to, web comics, podcasts, blogs, message boards, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1] How exactly do you think that it does not apply? I am glad you agree that the majority of the content of this article is inappropriate though. kotepho 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kotepho for the constructive correction. I went back and reread WP:WEB and saw the mention about podcasts. After rereading the notability article I have come up with what I believe validates the show Otaku Generation as notable web content. Criteria 1b of WP:WEB states that The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. I would propose that Otaku Generation meets this requirement due to it's [October 24, 2005 appearance] on [Mondays], the sister-show of .Net Rocks produced by PWOP Productions. PWOP Productions already holds an important place in the world of podcasting by being the [first official podcast production company] with high profile clients such as Microsoft. I have been unable to find any stats for the Mondays podcast, but .NET Rocks -- produced and staring the same cast of people -- has a [subscription base of around 500,000]. Given that Otaku Generation was an active guest for the bulk of the October 24, 2005 Mondays show, I believe that the Otaku Generation show has therefore been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ojenkins 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another podcast is not a reliable source though. kotepho 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in the discussion I think I'm more curious as to how this circle of validation, notability and reliability works without any sort of system to begin the first levels of the validation chain. Even the Wiki's reliable source guidelines you mentioned earlier state that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines. Generally trust is gained through government, a person/entity of authority, positive personal interactions, or "having a good feeling about something." Those who are trusted then grant trust to others. As far as I can tell, the Wiki's trust model is more based on the decentralized trust model with those who have exhibited longevity and good decision making being more trustworthy than new users or the "sockpuppets" that Ifnord mentioned below. How, if at all, does this trust model factor in those who are new but knowledgable of the subject matter vs those who have longevity but are not as well versed in the field. Take this scenario: Person A is a mechanic who has been working on cars for thirty years. Person B is an electrical engineer who has just finished their master's degree in DC power distribution. Person A and Person B both work at a repair company doing fixes and diagnostics on vehicles. A driver brings in a hybrid gas-electric car that has been suffering from horsepower problems when in electric mode. Who would be more suited to decide the final course of action. The mechanic who has plenty of experience with traditional gas-powered cars, or the eletrical engineer who has plenty of experience with power distribution systems? Each person is good at what they do but the one who has the most longevity may not be the one with the best perspective on the situation. As I mentioned before I'm interested in how the trust and reliabilty model for the wiki system handles this sort of thing. If you think the resultant discussion would clutter this page, feel free to contact me directly to continue so that I can get a better idea of policy. ojenkins 14:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really is not about trust and is not about longevity either. New users and anonymous users are normally discounted in the 'vote' (AFD is not a vote, we try to build consensus as polls are evil) portion but they certainly have a voice. This is out of necessity and somewhat common sense. However, none of the comments have been deleted thus they all still have a voice. No one is going to discount verifiable evidence just because of the source, although they might scruntinize it more. We need to disenfranchise those that are new as they are likely to be invested in the article unduely, they are not always aware of policy, and the ease with which anyone can flood an AFD with meat or sockpuppets. If you have futher questions feel free to leave them on my or your talk page or email me. —kotepho 2006-03-20 10:16Z
  • Keep. They will be guests at a convention to be announced within a few business days -- convention organizer - 22:42, 15 March 2006
  • Keep. If Adam Curry's Daily Source Code and the Dawn and Drew Show(hardly notable....just potty talk) get wiki pages, then OtakuG should too.Gorkon 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't believe that this is even up for discussion! Otaku Generation is listened to by thousands of people and wiki page is very useful. It keeps me up to date with nicknames and helps me to remember some of my favorite episodes. If this entry is deleted I would say that it would be a tragedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunbar (talk • contribs)
Another comment left on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Otaku generation. kotepho 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, it's Jefferson here. While I'm sure that my opinion can be more or less discounted due to my status as an oblique participant in the show, I'd like to throw in my support for this entry. No attempt is being made to advertise this podcast's presence on the web and I find this to be a very resourceful font of information to introduce any new listener to the show. Even the professional quality of the podcast itself merits a notable mention as it goes beyond just the typical nature of most others that mostly consist of "one guy and his microphone". Granted, the podcast contains mostly niche topics (and in-jokes, but then even radio broadcasts have them) and the main discussion is limited to a particular genre of fandom, but it is a very popular and fast growing segment of fandom. If all podcasts were this good, I'd probably never stop listening to my mp3 player. JeffersonLeeEng 14:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and discount sockpupptets/ballot stuffing. Ifnord 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd almost like to see this be relisted for consensus as there are only 3 delete opinions, 1 keep by a wikipedian with an extensive edit history and a bunch of first timers or users with edit histories restricted to Otaku generation.--Isotope23 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still questioning your reasons for wanting the article to be deleted. Even if there are as many as three delete opinions and the keep opinions are from those you think should be discounted anyway, then surely the notability factor is a moot point anyway. I may not be as well and truly active on the internet as others, but as such, I find wikipedia to be of great importance to even the most amateur of information seekers. And yet, the Otaku Generation podcast will go on... -- JeffersonLeeEng
What is there to question? He believes that this does not meet WP:WEB (which it does not given everything presented thus far). Also, if Wikipedia is going to be a source of useful, encyclopedic information things that are not verified or encyclopedic need to be deleted. —kotepho 2006-03-20 21:37Z
  • Comment I agree that consensus is not clear even if you discount a great deal of the keep votes. —kotepho 2006-03-20 21:37Z
Even if consensus is unclear, the call for deletion is going to continue to rankle a large amount of the fanbase especially those that appreciated the time and effort put into such a page as this. It seems to be clear the opinions of those that seem to be pro-deletion are not going to be swayed by influential mentions in a widely available periodical publication that is Newtype USA and another more or less high profile review site in the form of Ain't It Cool News (AICN). So, what recourse is there for those against this decision for deletion if and when the inevitable does happen? Obviously, you seem to be making this to be a losing battle for the others that want to keep the article and as such, I want to play the Devil's Advocate on my part to understand more fully what moral I should from learn from this endeavour? Somewhere, there has to be a loophole... --JeffersonLeeEng 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it isn't our problem if OG's fanbase is offended by the deletion of this article. There are many, many articles that have been deleted that raised the ire of their fanbases. Since that obviously would not be a constructive way to decide whether a topic is worthy of an article, guidelines were set forth by our community (like WP:WEB. If you have evidence that it does meet those criteria I would be glad to see it. Even if I were to qualify the Newtype USA mention as non-trivial that is not 'multiple'. The same goes for the Ain't It Cool News mention; it is the epitome of trivial--even if it were non-trivial, it is not from a reliable source. —kotepho 2006-03-21 10:44Z
I just want to echo what kotepho said with all due respect. There are hundreds of articles that have been deleted and in the process fans of the subjects of these articles have been angered or offended. That is not a strong argument for including a subject in Wikipedia. It is nothing personal against your podcast, it is just the fact that you have not, in my opinion, demonstrated that Otaku generation meets WP:WEB (per kotepho above). As a good faith gesture I've recommended keeping this discussion open and relisting it to allow further opinions from Wikipedia users to be gathered. If Otaku generation's article does get deleted at the end of this process and you are looking at a moral to learn from this endevor I think I can provide one for you... or at least a suggestion. If your goal is to get a Wikipedia article, read WP:WEB and work towards meeting that criteria, rather than looking for a loophole. I would suggest that you go out and shamelessly promote Otaku generation on messageboards, blogs, etc. Try and get some major web and print publications to do a writeup on your podcast. Get your fanbase to do some viral marketing... submit stories on digg.com etc. Is your podcast listed on iTunes? You've gotten 2 small cites by external sources so far... but you need to get more substantial citations and greater number.
  • Comment Otaku Generation has been featured in Newtype magazine. I realize that many people in this thread are new Wikipedians, but why should we be discounted? Just because of Ballot stuffing that has happened in the past on other articles doesn't mean that thier opinion should be discounted. Also, I may add that Otaku Generation is listed on iTunes, Odeo and many other podcast directories. Would these not qualify as a brodcast medium?? Also, I think it would serve the internet in general better to have ONE Online Encyclopedia for everything...Wikipedia is already this for many. Since MediaWiki is open source, I have seen many deletions create new Wiki's. Maybe that's more appropriate. I personaly don't think so.Gorkon 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not take much to get listed in a podcast directory or on iTunes. kotepho 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keiichi.net radio

[edit]

Internet radio stations of dubious notability. Articles do not demonstrate cultural notability or influence. Also nominated for AfD consideration along with this article are:

Hynca-Hooley 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Fest

[edit]

Speedy delete A3, only contains an external link. Ought to have been speedied, but was AFD'd and possibly orphaned, so listing. Mithent 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article should be expanded and renamed "Vancouver Folk Music Festival." Otherwise 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King George Électronique Inc

[edit]

Delete. The article fails entry criteria as it is advertising for a particular electronics business, IMHO, complete with a product image with pricetag. Colonel Tom 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_14&oldid=1234127744"