Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

Purge server cache

May 21[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 keep - Liberatore(T) 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media representation of Hugo Chávez[edit]

This article suffers from exactly the same problem as the recently-deleted Personal life of Hugo Chávez, in that it is not a subject worthy of an article in and of itself; the context of the main article is required to make this information meaningful. Any information here which is not in the main article should be merged, and this article deleted. It looks like all the essential info here is already in the main article anyway. Worldtraveller 00:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep for the same reasons given below. [1] The Personal Life article was essentially a copy of the short section in the main article. The Media representation daughter article is VERY long, and is succinctly summarized in the main article. If it is deleted, much of that content would have to be moved back into the already too long main article. This is a very different situation than the Personal Life article, which was nothing more than repeated information. We should honor the good faith of the number of editors who have turned their attention to trying to correct the numerous problems in all of the Chavez articles, and not delete a work in progress. Sandy 01:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:SandyGeorgia. --Arnzy (whats up?) 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Should be a subsection within Hugo Chávez, neither enough detail nor enough significance to warrant a separate article. There's nothing wrong with having a long article if it is well structured with headings etc. Paddles 03:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the same reasons mentioned above. Let's remember that we're trying to shorten Hugo Chávez. --Enano275 03:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The demands to a) reduce the main Hugo Chavez article and b) eliminate several subsidiary articles are at odds with one another. You can do one, but not both. --Daniel 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sandy. THE KING 07:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sandy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per what I said in the Personal life of Hugo Chávez AfD discussion. I thought that creating daughter articles instead of having a 100 Kb article was the policy in Wikipedia. Afonso Silva 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no strong reason to delete.--Jusjih 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article focuses on how Chavez is represented by the media and sub-pages of a main article will be good as articles can get very long. If we delete and merge the material back into the main article, then we will be back at square one. --Terence Ong 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to delete this. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwikify. I would have agreed with Sandy, if it wasn't an unencylopedic writing beyond of common knowledge (as per Paddles). Suggestion: delete text to some talkpage (Wikisource?), let Chavez be media-crucified few years more, then let the author collect external links for his generalizations. By the way, don't take me for a pro-U.S. POV-pusher :). Best wishes, Ukrained 10:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hugo Chávez[edit]

This article is inherently, unavoidably biased, by describing criticisms of Hugo Chávez outside the context of his main biographical article. Criticisms of Chávez are already discussed in the main article. Worldtraveller 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep We are trying to shorten the Hugo Chávez article, which is impossibly long and making it very hard to edit, while working on removing the substantial bias on both sides. The Criticism section in the Chavez article is exceedingly long, and we are trying to work on cleaning it up, removing the POV, and moving some of it to this daughter article in order to shorten the main article. I voted in favor of deleting Personal Life of Hugo Chavez because there was nothing in it that wasn't said in the short section in the main article. The situation here is different: there is too much that is said in the main article, which is too long, and the content needs to be cleaned up and moved to the daughter article. If this article is deleted, some of the content will have to be merged back into the main article, which is already hopelessly too long. Give us a chance to work on it, as we have only recently begun to interest other editors in taking a look at the problems. Sandy 00:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the main article is so long, not so much because there's so much to say, but because it's said in an extremely verbose way. I'd be happy to help on trimming it down - I'd say it could be made less than half the size it is now just by writing it in a more concise way. Even if subarticles are necessary, I still disagree with this one - its very title is biased, in that it defines its scope as reporting one point of view, contravening one of Wikipedia's most fundamental philosophies. Worldtraveller 00:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Criticism and controversy sections are common in many articles: if this topic is biased, then so are many others in Wikipedia. IMO, there are more problems than verbosity with the main article on Chavez, and nominating all of the daughter articles for deletion will not solve the problems. The daughter articles appear to have been created in order to feature the main article, and deleting all of them could just increase the bias in the main article. The daughter articles are needed, although everything about Chavez needs editorial attention. Sandy 00:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I'm certainly not arguing against a criticism section in the main article; quite the opposite - that's the only place I think there should be one. Taking the section out of context and making it a standalone article is what I object to - such an article is unavoidably biased. Worldtraveller 01:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're aware that the main article is already so long that it's difficult to edit? And that daughter articles have been created for almost every section of the main article? Sandy 01:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I'm wondering if you want to nominate List of honors earned by Hugo Chávez for the same reasons you've nominated the others ? This article is also "inherently biased" by its title, if we are to follow that logic. Sandy 01:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, the main article needs drastic editing. But that doesn't affect my reasons for nominating this article for deletion. Worldtraveller 01:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sandy, don't try to keep or shorten a descriptive unencyclopedic text - just delete it, substituting with short review of reliable sources and links. I'm afraid it's that simple :). Down with USA! (just in case if any proponent of the article wanted to hear that from me :)))). Ukrained 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There's no way we can save the Hugo Chávez article if we merge more articles into it. I agree that the criticism article is in a bad state, but that's not a reason to remove it. --Enano275 03:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hugo Chavez article has grown too long and this article is a place to discuss criticisms in more detail. Badagnani 05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can reduce the Chavez article, or you can eliminate subsidiary pages, but it would not be possible to do both. Personally, I think the clamor for reducing the size of the main article is unjustified; the claim having been made is that it's bloated is not borne out by the fact that it still loads rather quickly on my dialup connection. --Daniel 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it is biased not to have this page, since all the other subsections have individual articles. THE KING 07:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly valid split section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per what I said in the Personal life of Hugo Chávez AfD discussion. I thought that creating daughter articles instead of having a 100 Kb article was the policy in Wikipedia. Afonso Silva 10:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no strong reason to delete.--Jusjih 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete, if we delete and merge back to the main article, its back to square one. --Terence Ong 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the keep votes in the world are irrelevant if an article violates WP:NPOV, which is a foundation policy of Wikipedia and non-negotiable. If the Hugo Chavez article is too long then it should be split up along some line other than POV - perhaps break it up by time period, like Isaac Newton's is. Bryan 04:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further inspection, I see that the Chavez article already is split up based on time period. Looks good. I'd suggest splitting off the "political impact" section and drastically reducing the redundancy of the Presidency of Hugo Chávez section/article, then, if size reduction is still needed. Bryan 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete, there is no space in the original article to include all the criticism. For example, in todays newspaper "El Nacional" the main article tells about 54 cases submitted over the years at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the actions of Chávez's government. We need a LOT of space to be able to responsibly inform about all the issues. Caracas1830
  • Keep Though I see how this article might violate WP:NPOV it would be objectionable to not show that Chavez has done things that have been criticised by the rest of the world. This is a fact. I would agree on any change that would make it obvious that this article is in fact a list of criticism that have been called to attention by nations/press/whomever as oppossed to being a criticism in itself.
    • Merge back into Chavez. You're all answering the wrong question above : its not "should Wikipedia mention criticism of Chavez", but "should that information be removed from the main article"? To which the answer is "of course not." -- GWO
  • Merge or delete, as per my post above. Ukrained 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. 1652186 17:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per which above? Bryan 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, no reason to delete. Silensor 23:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true. "Title is POV" is a reason to delete. Bryan 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bryan, can you see a way to fix the title? We need a separate article because of the length of the main article. If it said something else (e.g.; "controversy" instead of "criticism"), would you find that POV? I fail to understand why "criticism" is POV, because it is what it is: a discussion of the substantial criticism, presented (hopefully) in a NPOV fashion. But considering your concern, can you suggest a better title? I've merged all the content from the main article into the daughter article, but since User:Enano275 fixed the reference links, it can easily be merged back if needed. But we're really trying to get the article down to FA size. BTW, Criticism of Wikipedia. Sandy 03:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sandy, I appreciate the work you're doing on cutting the main article down to size, and I don't want to make it more difficult. The problem is not subarticles per se, but which subarticles. You can discuss criticisms in a neutral way, but if you do so ny isolating that discussion from the context provided by the main article, and without any opposing viewpoint also discussed, that is no longer neutral. If there was a subarticle called Praise of Hugo Chávez, wouldn't you think that was POV? The main article is long but it can and should be cut down substantially. I think the 'Criticisms of Wikipedia' article should be deleted as well. Worldtraveller 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • World, if we could cut down the (WAY TOO LONG) Presidency and Political Impact sections of the main article, perhaps we would be able to bring the Criticism content back to the main article. Yes, I think a Praise of article would be fine, as long as it's balanced by a Criticism of article. (But, so much of all that is written about Chavez on Wiki right now, except the Criticism of article, reads like an ad campaign for Chavez anyway, so that article isn't missing :-) Enano has completed the references, so moving text is now easier: would you be willing to help us reduce the size of the other sections? I'd be happy to see Criticism included in the main article: if we can shorten the article to something reasonable, then I'd opt to bring the Criticism back, since the brevity of the current Criticism section of the main article doesn't reflect the extent of controversy and criticism surrounding Chavez. On the other hand, there are a number of comments on the talk page of the Criticism article, indicaing areas that haven't been covered at all in criticism (and I can think of more, such as the mudslides), which I've found to be typical of that whole series of articles, so the Criticism article still has need for growth. So, again, I'm wondering if a new title would work? I'm doubting that the FA status of this article is maintainable, given that so much of the story was left out. Sandy 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Criticism can be handled in a NPOV manner. See Biblical criticism. I think that too much of the material that is included here is not encyclopedia material. Look at how the article Dreyfus Affair handles a touchy issue in a reasonable length. Bejnar 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Presidency of Hugo Chávez, if any more information is wanted for that article, follow the redirect back. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chávez's speech at the 2005 UN World Summit[edit]

Politicians make speeches all the time, and apart from the likes of the Gettysburg I don't think an article on an individual speech is very useful. It appears that in this speech Chávez said nothing atypical for him, and the speech was not regarded as a notable part of the summit concerned. Worldtraveller 00:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I think this speech is up there with a Gettysburg. The article fails to capture the effects but from what I understand at the 2005 UN World Summit their were policy shifts by many countries and Chavez's speech essentially offered the intellectual justification for these shifts (and was seen as such). We won't know for many years if the spread of Bolivarian ideas outside of Latin America turns out to have global implications, but the fact that it might makes this article clearly a notable historical event. jbolden1517Talk 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete Agree that this is a very short article, and if any of it is important enough to be included in Chavez topics, it should be moved into the Presidency of Hugo Chávez article. Unlike the LONG articles, whose deletion I oppose, this is a very short article (similar to the Personal Life article) which could be included in the other topics. Sandy 01:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually anyone? You mean, if Hugo Chávez is entitled a speech article, then so is my hairdresser? But when did your hairdresser last address the UN World Summit, and how did this hit the international press? --LambiamTalk 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my hairdresser does have a way with words :P, but seriously, I meant to say (as someone else mentioned) that IMO speeches should become articles only if they can be shown to be pivotal in history, normally well after the fact, otherwise they go into the bio page. Crum375 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Presidency of Hugo Chávez and/or Washington Consensus. Agreed that articles for individual political speeches is NOT a good idea, except for speeches that are so iconic as to be known by a name like Gettysburg Address. The content in here appears useful, hence the vote for merge not delete. Paddles 03:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Paddles. NoIdeaNick 04:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Zaxem 05:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change title The article's subject matter and its content do not quite line up; it does not discuss the speech so much as the overall visit Chavez made. Nevertheless, I believe that visit was quite noteworthy for the following reasons: living in the Bronx myself, it's not everyday you get a world leader here; knowing Hugo Chavez's career somewhat, I do know that he cancelled planned trips to the U.S. before - so any visit here is noteworthy; last, considering that within a few months, Chavez began a noteworthy program of providing discounted heating oil aid to poor communities to the very area he visited, a program he started with Congressman Serrano (of the Bronx) whom he met on this very visit. --Daniel 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a place to house all speeches. There are plenty of places that have a copy of this speech that we could like to in a previously created article. --Dakart 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Has anyone considered Wikisource for the actual speech? —Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no speech articles please... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! While we're at it, let's also delete I have a dream, the Gettysburg address, the Sermon on the mount, Giuseppe Garibaldi's 1860 speech to the soldiers, This was their finest hour, Tear down this wall, and Ask what you can do for your country. Wikipedia is NOT for speeches!! --LambiamTalk 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a speech library. --Terence Ong 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or transwiki. Probably useful material for citations on Chávez's bio page. — RJH 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A Google search on ["Hugo Chavez" speech 2005 September "United Nations"] gets about 141,000 hits. --LambiamTalk 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - ["Britney Spears" speech 2005 September "United Nations"] gets 50,000 and ["Al Gore" speech 2005 September "United Nations"] gets over 300,000. - Hahnchen 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. World history may contain some dozen speeches that changed the world and therefore are encyclopedic in their own right. This is not one of them. Medico80 21:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most academics did not change the world. It is not a requirement of the professor test. Why should it be a requirement of a "speech test"? For many of the speeches that have an article it is debatable whether they changed the world; the claim that they did is definitely not NPOV, and so if this were to be a requirement the mere fact of having an article on a speech becomes not NPOV. The keyword here is just notability. --LambiamTalk 23:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, I regret choosing that expression; things don't have to "change the world" to be relavant, I agree. I don't know either how a speech's notabilty is weighted, I just recognize that a lot of them have been held in the UN :-) 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest employers[edit]

I can't find any sources to back this up at all and I don't think a list of 4 companies is appropriate for such a broad topic. Metros232 00:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - and I think combining military or national forces with commercial enterprises is not so useful. Crum375 01:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Osbus 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 01:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what? this article made me laugh. It's a list of the world's top employers, but it only has four employers? This article literally made me LOL. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So why delete it? Why not expand it instead? Kurt Weber 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here's a source for the data: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1047265,00.html but the article should still be deleted Bwithh 03:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. --Arnzy (whats up?) 03:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 04:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and greatly expand It's no more listcruft than a lot of Wikipedia lists. If no sources can be found to expand it, however, delete. Morgan Wick 06:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, and I don't like its chances of ever being anywhere near complete or accurate. Choalbaton 07:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agglomerating already-available data does not constitute "original research"--in fact, that's precisely what this encyclopedia is: An agglomeration of data available from many disparate sources. Kurt Weber 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep and expand, or merge data into employment then, redirect. Information appears to be accurate based on various sources. —Viriditas | Talk 09:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A potentially useful list. Zocky | picture popups 11:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as unverified substub. Unopposed to recreate as a sourced and more extensive article. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unverified or unverifiable? The latter is a reason to delete; with the former, no need to delete--just find sources and list them. No need to delete and recreate. Kurt Weber 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, this list has potential. - Erebus555Chit chat.
  • Delete. Useless list. Probably created as a WP:POINT violation about the NHS. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 14:56 UTC
    • Comment This is a VERY useful way to organize information. And your last assertion is just utterly baseless. Kurt Weber 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, original research. --Terence Ong 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Umm...employment data is readily available for a shitload of employers, public and private. Agglomerating available data does not violate NOR. Kurt Weber 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with organizing information in as many ways as possible. That the list only has four entries is not a reason to delete it; it is a reason to expand it. Remember, deletion is a discussion on whether the subject itself deserves an article, not on the content of that article. Content can always be fixed. Kurt Weber 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point was made above that including such an article would mandate, almost in principle, WP:OR and would be extremely hard to maintain even at that. Crum375 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I explained how it wouldn't. Agglomerating already-available data does NOT constitute original research. In fact, that's what this whole encyclopedia is: an agglomeration of already-available data. Doing that is the OPPOSITE of original research--you're simply putting together data provided by others rather than going out and getting your own. Kurt Weber 15:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I beg to differ. In this case, imagine you are down to item 10 on the list. There are multiple references online to which is #10 let's say. And the 'real' one may not even be referenced anywhere. Then how would you resolve it? Then imagine you get to number 11, 12, 13 - the problem gets harder, exponentially as you go deeper down the list. These are not easy and simple references - this is absolute, and very hard, original work, and may easily be disputed as such also. This is not the normal encyclopedic process of collecting information about notable items. It is the very imprecise and controversial ranking process which is the WP:OR. Crum375 16:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We find contradictory sources all the time. What's any different about this? If it is impossible to come to a consensus, you just notate all the disputed entries. Kurt Weber 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are missing the point. The ranking is the issue. It's one thing for 2 editors to argue about whether source a or b are notable enough, and reach some consensus (which may change over time, and then source c may be added, etc.) Here the issue, again, is ranking - you will have to argue who is #8 and who is #9 etc. all with limited and conflicting information. It won't be even about opposing POVs - you'll have (say) 2 fairly reliable published sources conflicting about a company's size - whom do you believe? which numbers do you accept? once you open it up into ranges (which are controversial also), then the ranking becomes even more ill-defined mathematically. Of course any small change can immediately change all the deeper level in the ranking. IOW, IMO this is MI (Mission Impossible), WP:OR to define a ranking, and gets tougher exponentially with every step. Crum375 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And let me add again that not all organizations will publish their size - military forces come to mind. What do you do then? Use estimates? whose? and couple that into the main ranking problem... Crum375 18:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you want to join a magazine and present a yearly list of largest employers, feel free to do so. Then, we can use your list to create an encyclopedia article. However, it can't originate on Wikipedia. That's the whole reason for the NOR policy. Morgan Wick 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You don't understand NOR. Original research would be me going out and sending letters to everyone asking how many people they have working for them. Simply putting together numbers obtained by others is NOT original research. Crum is raising a good point about verifiability (although I don't think he realizes it), which is starting to give me second thoughts--but there are no NOR issues inherent to this list.Kurt Weber 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I should add to that that I don't entirely agree with the NOR policy anyway (and as a result I often try to keep articles that DO violate NOR), but that was never actually an issue with this article; those who claimed otherwise simply don't understand the policy. Kurt Weber 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree in the sense that NOR is kind of fuzzily defined, and can be stretched to kibosh almost any article on Wikipedia if anyone wanted to make a WP:POINT (and to some extent, I do think it might not be OR, which is why I focused on WP:NOT), but I don't think you realize that what you propose is a lot closer to your example of NOR than most of us are comfortable with. We're not supposed to be the source of first record on anything, and if we cobble together a bunch of disparate sources into the first cohesive list of its kind in the world, one which the companies on it will cite as being the "#8 largest employer in the world", that raises some issues as to whether we're really trying to follow our goal of building an encyclopedia, as opposed to an almanac or something else. (I HAVE seen at least one list cobbled together from different sources on a completely unrelated topic, one in which the main concern was that it was approaching cruft level, but I actually didn't think much about the issues raised here.) I should make clear that my vote has always been a keep on the condition that reliable sources be found to expand it on. I only want to delete if a) reliable sources can't be found (i.e., the sources you're looking for turn out to not be easily accessible or not existent at all) or b) any source turns out to be inherently unreliable, as has been raised here. Morgan Wick 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'Probably created as a WP:POINT violation about the NHS.' - ha, not everyone is that bitter about the world. It could be useful - would need a lot of research to make it accurate, but holds potential. --Pwilko 16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after noting information on companies' pages. That is, say in the WalMart article that it is the second largest employer in the world, employing X number of people, etc. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete - unmaintainable after the first couple of entries (as the 1.3-1.6 in # of employees for NHS clearly shows) - be sure the amounts & likely ranks are noted in the company articles (and who is higher as a reference) but the ist itself should go--Invisifan 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I just found a source and updated the page to match it, so it's not unsourced anymore. It should obviously be expanded beyond a simple table, and probably should be broken out by different definitions of "largest" and "employer" à la World's tallest structure. But there needs to be an article here. —phh (t/c) 15:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, creating a ranking is WP:OR. Keeping track of first place, e.g. largest x or tallest y maybe OK, properly cited, but as you get into the runners-up the work becomes progressively more creative and hence original, i.e. WP:OR. Crum375 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, actually the Department of Health created the ranking, or at least the one that's in the article now. —phh (t/c) 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can cite a ranking by any reliable neutral source, but you cannot create a fresh one on WP, per my understanding of WP:OR. Once you have multiple sources with multiple rankings, how do you reconcile them? Crum375 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who says we have to? Why not just present each ranking on its own with information about where it came from? If a ranking is different from others because it uses different criteria, explain the difference. If we get several lists, presumably there will be some commonalities between them, and we can highlight those commonalities without establishing an explicit ranking of our own: "With an estimated 2.3 million active-duty troops, the People's Liberation Army of China is considered by many to be a strong candidate for the world's largest employer, with the U.S. Department of Defense a reasonably close 2nd, although some list-makers dispute the notion that a nation's armed forces should be considered an "employer," and others lump all employees of a country's government into a single group for the purposes of ranking. Most list-makers consider Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to be the world's largest private employer, although McDonald's can be said to rival it in size if the employees of all of the chain's independent franchisee restaurants are included in its total." Etc. —phh (t/c) 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the first few, say 3 or 4, it is possible to create a ranking, with a lot of qualifications that may tend to obscure the picture. When you get to higher numbers, I think the problem to present a fair ranking will get exponentially harder, with the picture to the casual reader becoming ever more obscure. Also, as someone else mentioned here, imagine the conflicts with other WP articles that claim a ranking. To summarize, IMO creating a ranking, especially of dynamic and fuzzy targets, is WP:OR. Crum375 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly written article, but should be kept. Keep. It's a very interesting subject, too. —Mets501talk 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my comments above. I think that ranking fuzzy values is WP:OR, not allowed under WP policy. Citing existing tables, pre-ranked, with proper sourcing, if such existed, would be OK, but this is not it. Crum375 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NOR.--Peta 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- with references added. - Longhair 03:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • References to what? If it is to other hypothetical Web sites that have a complete ranking, you will have to present each in its entirety and you will then have multiple conflicting rankings, which will get very confusing. If there is an attempt to reconcile the differences, it would constitute WP:OR IMO. Crum375 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: actually, compiling and summarizing data produced by secondary sources is exactly what a tertiary source like Wikipedia is supposed to do. —phh (t/c) 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In general yes, but rankings of fuzzy values are extremely problematic. Of course you can refer to any published reliable source for such rankings if you can find it, but once you have several, and they differ (and they would by the nature of the fuzziness), it becomes confusing to the reader. It would be nice if you could point to an example anywhere on WP where this is done. And comparing exact values (like tallest buildings or largest countries by area) is not relevant here because they are not fuzzy. Note also that due to fuzziness the values will start becoming ranges (like 2.6-2.9) and then the comparison or ranking is even more ill defined, so this whole concept, regardless of the source, is shaky at best. Crum375 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Day of Design[edit]

Seems to be a "holiday" designed by one organization. I can't find evidence that shows it is recognized as an "international holiday" by any organization or nation but this AIGA group. Metros232 00:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google seems to show it's 99% AIGA Web promotion. Crum375 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont't judge the world by google; we can't expect every aspect of modern life to be extensively documented in English online. The day has been marked at least since 1998 in the Czech Republic. Do we even know the Czech translation of "World Graphic Design Day"?--Pharos 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is this: what if a company invents and heavily promotes via Web a new 'holiday'. Then WP picks it up, before it's really established, and once WP picks it up WP becomes a factor in its establishment. That would not be a passive observer role which WP should assume IMO, but a positive and active feedback role which it shouldn't. In a way WP becomes an advertizing tool. Assuming we don't want that role, I think it makes sense to be really sure a holiday (or similar) has taken root before accepting it on WP. Crum375 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World Graphic Design Day" predates the AIGA's promotion of it, but anyway, they're a non-profit group that's been around since 1914; this isn't a scheme by some corporation to make a quick buck by selling greeting cards and candy.--Pharos 18:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can accept AIGA being non-profit org, but non-profit can still be a business with advertizing and promotion needs. The issue here is the specific proclaimed holiday - is it something they just whipped up and are trying to promote or is it already established and recognized around the world. To verify it is truly established, I would have to see reliable record of several neutral parties around the world 'celebrating' it, as opposed to just a mention by some Web page that google-searched the date to see if anyone has a holiday claim, on an otherwise slow-news day. Crum375 18:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Thanks to Hellborg for rewriting it, but unfortunately the consensus here is that the mod isn't notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopaedia, no matter how well-written. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DungeonDoom (computer game)[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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


Was proded, author requested it to be restored, thus in some sense, a contested prod. -- Drini 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article doesn't assert why it's any more notable than any other mod. In addition, parts of it read like an ad (which could be fixed- the subject of the article is insignificant either way). -- Kicking222 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. DarthVader 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I do not see why this article violates any of the four policies that would justify deletion. This article has a Neutral point of view, it's Verifiabile, it's contents is derived from real world, readliy available (linked in external links) information and thus "No original research" and it does not violate any copyright. The article points out what is special about this mod and although the subject might be insignificant to many, it might be interesting to anybody who either likes the Doom3 game or roguelike games. The mod has been reviewed in many popular computer game magazines including PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.137.31.7 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: Including some citations for those reviews would do a lot more to save this article than any comments you make here. --Hetar 03:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. Paddles 04:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Doom3. Zaxem 05:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VSCA. The anon does not understand the NPOV policy, as this is essentially WP:SPAM, with most of the article taken up by a "Features" section that looks like it came off the back of a game box. Needs a stronger statement of notability to me. Morgan Wick 06:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DakpowersTalk 07:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's just an advert for a mod. --Nydas 08:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys do whatever you think is best for you! I see what you mean and yes, this article does not change the world and frankly it appears to me that all of you spend too much time considering a deletion. As someone asked for it, these are some excerpts from reviews on this mod: PC Gamer(US) April 2006 (also in UK version Feb 2006): Cross Carmack's Programming brilliance with a tried-and-tested game formula and you get genius. - GameStar(Germany) March 2006: translated: The search for magical weapons and items continuosly drives virtual hunters and collectors though role-playing games since years. Up till now, FPS fans had to live without such addictive supplements. DungeonDoom puts an end to this: The mod transforms Doom3 into an Ego-Diablo. PC Zone(UK) Feb 2006: ...it's strangely addictive once you get past the initial difficulty hurdle... Computer Gaming World Feb 2006 (2.5 of 5 stars): ...it's a frenzied meat grind from top to bottom... PC Action (Germany) Doom3 Special 2005: translated: Diablo 2 as a First Person Shooter? DUNGEON DOOM makes this dream reality. - so, yes, delete it if it makes you guys happy! Hellborg 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Object to this AfD Drini, his objection to prod was four days late! The proper thing to do is not to subject undisputed deletions to recreation, and thereby undermine the prod process - it is to take it to WP:DRV, where it's manifestly harder to get something undeleted. It's designed that way for a reason, and should not be tampered with. My vote is, uh, Endorse Deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable game mod. JIP | Talk 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft. --Terence Ong 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have fun deleting - Please do me a favor and also delete the other 60 game mod articles. I don't see any reason why these should be any more or less notable that this article. Hellborg 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete - As stated, it's not as if there are not other mod articles. What sets Dungeon Doom apart is the fact that it was one of the most quickly built and most innovative mods yet, and it is fact that many other developers use this mod as a referance for getting certain aspects in their own mods. Joe_Quaker 11:05am EST, 22 May 2006
  • Keep. While this article is a mess, it is quite a notable subject. I would encourage interested parties to edit and expand the article, then see if you can get some people to change their votes. Go to WP:CVG and check out styles and infobox for Computer and Video Game articles. Aguerriero (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably merge into Doom3. It passes the Wikipedia:google test with flying colours, it's been reviewed in the press, it's played by a whole bunch of people - in short, it's notable. Yes, it needs fixing, and it might need merging, but it doesn't need deleting. --Hughcharlesparker 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Doom3 somehow. The content is useful. Create a section called DungeonDoom mod. Bye --Starionwolf 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Rewrite According to the suggestions made in this discussion, I rewrote the article based on the suggestions detailed in the "WikiProject Computer and video games" guidelines. Hellborg 08:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hellborg and Hughcharlesparker or Merge into Doom3. The content about this notable free game mod should not be deleted.—204.42.17.67 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 22:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causality (gaming)[edit]

Just a non-notable internet forum. Has around 240 members, only 72 of which are active. Does not come close to meeting WP:WEB. Reyk YO! 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; just another clan, vanity article created by clan leader whose only edits have been self-promotion. —Zero Gravitas 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE ALL CLANS! -- Kicking222 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as with most clan articles, does not assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete er...we should create a wikipedian law about the correlation of clan content versus notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Links to WP articles are completely unrelated to article in question. Delusions of significance. Paddles 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn clan. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per User:Zero Gravitas
  • Delete I can't think of 1 notable clan!!! Argh! --Dakart 09:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another article self-promoting a non-notable website/group. - Erebus555Chit chat.
  • Delete, non-notable gaming clan forum. JIP | Talk 14:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Valentinian (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ChaosAkita 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete  RasputinAXP  c 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellboundhackers.org[edit]

Falls under the "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages." category. A small community site, imo doesn't warrant an encylopedia article. Moreover the article is poorly written and structured and is lacking context e.g "at the moment there are 104 challenges open to users". ErikWhite 01:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete OR weak keep with complete rewrite (I know that's a weird vote.) The site's number of registered members (assuming the number is factual, which I will for this argument) qualifies as it as being notable enough for a WP article. However, the page as it stands is quite terrible. It really doesn't assert the site's importance at all. If the site's notability was much better asserted in the article (and if the article was cleaned up a lot, and if much of it was completely scrapped), I'd vote keep. But right now, I have to go with delete. -- Kicking222 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Website with Alexa rank 177,875. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It just passes WP:WEB, however the subject of the site itself is pretty controversial and the presentation of the article now doesnt really assert things. Perhaps a rewrite suggestion as per User:Kicking222. --Arnzy (whats up?) 03:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP is not a web directory or review site. Paddles 04:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, the article makes no claim to notability besides the number of editors, which is not large enough to make it notable by itself, in my opinion. I will reconsider if a rewrite is done. -- Kjkolb 09:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable with extremely low Ghits.--Jusjih 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to violate WP:WEB to me. Also violates WP:NOT Aeon 18:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too minor. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is the website for it's comunity. It's currently growing at 30 users a day. while it may not be known to people out side of the topic it is very well known in it's circles. However, I don't think it being poorly writen warrents it being deleted but rather re-writen.Wolfmankurd 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Peta 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running Fist[edit]

This appears to be a form of kung fu in one gym in New York. Google turns up about 1,050 hits, about 1,000 of which link to eBay. Metros232 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by RadioKirk as a nn-bio (CSD A7). --Hetar 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shea Parker[edit]

Seems like he only plays small bit roles according to this IMDB profile. He may be up and coming, but "Cute Boy #2" is not indicative of a notable actor. Metros232 02:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 04:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nesmith's hamburgers[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced, uncategorized burger joint Paul 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Jordanhill railway station provides a service which is helpful to many people. This burger bar joint would not make anyones life difficult if it shut down. Only the employees and I'm a MacDonalds restaurant isn't too far away. You only have to open your eyes and there's one infront of you. Back to the point, serving burgers is hardly a notable profession. - Erebus555 12:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They call it a "small" place... it's nn. --Dakart 08:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a listing directory. - Erebus555 12:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not assert any notability. I agree with Erebus555, railway stations are notable. JIP | Talk 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 123 Ghits only.--Jusjih 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - low Google Search results. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A6 too, I think. Also, WP:SNOW - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of British West Florida[edit]

This looks like just somebody joke website [3] that got mentioned in somebody's else's blog. Not a real entity. Not a notable fantasy entity. JW1805 (Talk) 02:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yet another fake micronation. I wonder if these can be speedied as NN groups? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX. Morgan Wick 06:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, move, and rewrite Delete and create new article per Viriditas. Morgan Wick 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DakpowersTalk 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Erebus555 12:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Jusjih 14:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this might seem like I'm just being awkward, but I don't think this can be written off as a hoax so quickly. The link to the "nation's" site is an interesting read. What I think is needed is a thorough rewrite, explaining why the group think they have a claim to the area, etc. I just don't think this is a hoax, it's more of a badly written historical claim etc Gretnagod 15:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Micronation does not appear to meet guidelines for notability at this time. I was unable to find the Baltimore Sun article referring to the Duke of Westarctica. Entry for the Dominion already exists at List of micronations. Keep but move to new title, British West Florida (main article West Florida) and completely rewrite to reflect the sourced historical record as found in Possession of Florida by Britain and British rule of Florida. The British rule of West Florida between 1763-1783 is a valid topic, and judging by Spanish Florida and History of Florida, is ripe for splitting off from those articles. See also: Menard, Russell R. "The Economy of British West Florida, 1763-1783." Journal of American History 75.n3 (Dec 1988): 915(2). Troxler, Carole Watterson. "The Economy of British West Florida: 1763-1783." Journal of Southern History 55.n3 (August 1989: 471(2). Steele, Ian K. "The Economy of British West Florida: 1763-1783." American Historical Review 94.n5 (Dec 1989): 1474(2). TePaske, John Jay. "The Economy of British West Florida: 1763-1783." The William and Mary Quarterly 46.n3 (July 1989): 615(3). —Viriditas | Talk 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The British rule of West Florida is a valid topic....but that has nothing to do with this article. There never was a historical entity called the "Dominion of British West Florida". --JW1805 (Talk) 04:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever said there was. It should be pretty obvious that it's an article about a modern micronation. That's what it says in the first sentence, after all. --Centauri 05:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the notability guidelines for Category:Micronations? Does this article qualify? I suppose I'm talking about moving this (redirecting) to a main article about British West Florida, child of West Florida, where this content may or may not be notable for inclusion. —Viriditas | Talk 12:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should create a new article called British West Florida if you think that is necessary, there is no need to move and redirect this one. This article is a fantasy. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. This micronation does not appear to be notable. Changing vote. —Viriditas | Talk 01:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - hoax. Crum375 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn. Ifnord 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not a hoax, and is of some interest as a micronation because it has produced metal coins recently, so it has some substance in the real world. --Centauri 21:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical value, though the "Dominion" site seems silly. Rename (remove "Dominion of") and rewrite please. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The micronation has produced coins, they seem to be promoting a historical claim, and the web site acknowledges their unrecognized status (not a hoax) Bo 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the best way of deciding whether this is valid or not is by comparing the article's virtues to those of Sealand, which is accepted as an entry of a nation with a claim, although its claim has never been officially substantiated - it's a WWII fort off the coast of England, after all. Gretnagod 12:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, Sealand is notable, and there are reliable sources attesting to its existence and importance. Is the same true for the Dominion? —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the question that I am struggling to find an answer to but, on the balance of evidence, I was minded to consider the Dominion notable enough to warrant an entry.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything except for a nation simulation article. Their website mentions that they are recognized by the Aerican Empire, Kingdom of Ribault, Grand Duchy of Elsanor, Union of Parlesian States, etc. If the information on this page can't be verified, and has not been covered by secondary sources, I'm afraid I'll have to change my vote. —Viriditas | Talk 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                 The events listed down to what they call 'Third Restoration'
                  can be verified. (I have checked them in google)  Their
                  'arguments' based on those, are not verifiable. Bo 14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no axe to grind over this, I have no particular interest in micronations. But I think we need to consider what makes a micronation worthy enough to warrant a Wiki entry. For example, the Aerican Empire, which apparently recognises the Dominion of British West Florida, has existed, apparently, for 19 years. This would seem to catagorise these micronations as being similar to RPG games, which have numerous entries here Gretnagod 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me as long as it was covered by a reliable source. Did you review the link to the Aerican Empire Afd? One alternative is to delete the article, but give the group an entry in the micronation article. —Viriditas | Talk 14:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, but the only problem I can see is that Sealand is both a micronation and a genuinely worthy article. This entry could slot into the micronation article fine. I think common sense shows that Sealand is worthy of an article, though. Gretnagod 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sealand is notable, having been covered by many reliable news outlets. Unless I've missed something, this one isn't, but micronations such as these may have exceptions. The Dominion appears to have had coins made by the Central Bank of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica. Can this be verified? According to the AfD for Richard lake, King of The Sakonta Tribe, there was a Baltimore Sun article. Can someone track that down? :-) —Viriditas | Talk 14:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If other micronations accept the claim of the Dominion of British West Florida as a valid micronation, I see no reason this can not have an article just like the other micronations in Wikipedia. I agree the historical claim is weak and downright ridiculous but separatists groups in Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska use some of the same weak arguments relating to illegal annexations in the 19th century and these groups are treated seriously by Wikipedia and not treated as hoaxes. LarryQ 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the "Aerican Empire" article was deleted. Entities like Sealand, and the Republic of Texas separatists have appeared in newspapers, clashed with law enforcement, etc. Is there a reference anywhere in any legitimate news format (not counting their own website, and that blog, which is just someone commenting on the website) to the "Dominion of British West Florida"? There has to be a minimum notability requirement for "micronations". Otherwise anyone could make one up and get their own Wikipedia article. I might do one myself! --JW1805 (Talk) 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That blog is the World History Blog. Go and type history blog into Google, Yahoo, and MSN. The WHB is the most noted history blog on the Web. The fact that the Dominion of West Florida was covered there is notable. That post at WHB was then covered in History Carnival Number 30 and The Carnival of Satire (#33). Go ahead and start your own website but what makes you think that a noted history blog and several well known web carnivals will cover you? LarryQ 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't buy that a couple paragraphs in one blog from last month (and two other blogs referencing that blog) establishes sufficient notability for inclusion into Wikipedia. The bar must be higher than that. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (5 to 1, with one ignored IP vote)  RasputinAXP  c 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo Milicevic[edit]

Originally PROD'ed but tag removed. Non-notable musician, article goes into more depth about the music he likes than the music he creates. Ifnord 02:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His only claims to fame are being an actress's brother and being in a band which is only notable because it's fronted by an actor. The article itself is also rather ludicrous. -- Kicking222 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, vanity. Paddles 04:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 588 Ghits only, nn.--Jusjih 14:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable musician from a notable American band. —Viriditas | Talk 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.220.156 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: The unsigned vote from 66.69.220.156 is the only WP contribution recorded for that IP. Paddles 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Tyrenius 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes 215[edit]

lack of notability Greece666 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. See List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes. While the articles on each episode are a tad fancruft-y, there is ample precedent to have articles for each episode of a TV series. --hello,gadren 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not a particularly good article as it stands ("Kimiko's hairstyle"?!), but the precedent for TV episodes has pretty much been set already. More a case for cleanup than deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to The Black Vipers (Xiaolin Showdown episode). And I would advocate all the other episode articles to be similarly moved. -- Grev 04:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Gadren. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per above.--Jusjih 14:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - likeways.
  • Keep per precedent, and I also concur with Grev's suggested pagemoves, as the current naming system within the category is pretty strange and non-intuitive. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Berg conspiracy theories[edit]

Non-notable conspiracy theory. Page is a dumping ground for original research and links to Blog topics. Topic not seriously considered in the media since the event first happened. DCAnderson 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If the information is important enough to be on Wikipedia at all, then merge with Nick Berg. --hello,gadren 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper my original nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCAnderson (talk • contribs) (Whoops, adding my real sig.)--DCAnderson 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NO Merge per nom. --Strothra 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom, no merge - Rampent speculation is all this topic contains. San Saba 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything salvagable with Nick Berg. --Charles 05:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research --MarsRover 06:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and avoid merging the ramblings of an unsound mind. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see the results of the previous nominations. How do I find those discussions? Thanks. Phiwum 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the above pointers. I have beeen enlightened by the previous discussions and agree with the anonymous editor who wrote, "The truth is a vibrating quantum blur- the viewer and the view create it. Let the truth be alive." Just kidding. Delete article but the Nick Berg page could include a discussion of the conspiracy theories. Phiwum 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rubbish original research. Vizjim 11:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SICK Morton devonshire 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR, no merge. Sandstein 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Original Research (No CSD for this), however, the ability of an article to accumulate vandalism is not criteria for deletion, otherwise we would be proposing Wikipedia for deletion daily. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete junk, nothing to merge - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything salvagable with Nick Berg. Between the conspiracy theories on Nick Berg, and the conspiracy theories surrounding Abu Musab al Zarquawi, both may be fiction, or both could be true. If you keep one side of the story, you have to keep the other.
  • Strong Merge - I believe that it's worth noting such inconsistancies on Nick Berg's assassination, even though the information is largely conjectural. Merge this with Nick Berg. - XX55XX 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NO Merge - "information is largely conjectural" - THE KING 04:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has survived two prior deletion attempts already. I get the impression there is a desire to sanitize this incident (i.e., only show the "official" POV). —204.42.17.67 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user's second contribution[4]. His first contribution was to another AfD 13 minutes earlier.--DCAnderson 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is probably not very useful to imply that other Wiki editors are part of a conspiracy to "sanitize" Wikipedia. Just a thought. Phiwum 13:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your use of the word "conspiracy" in your comment is interesting. —131.103.138.231 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not attack other editors. Remember to assume good faith. See WP:AGF. --Strothra 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not accuse me of attacking other editors. Good faith is always assumed. But when event show otherwise, an impression is made. Voicing that impression is not an attack. For instance, I began the process of merging the content of this article into the Nick Berg article and the same editor who nominated this for deletion removed each section. —131.103.138.231 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not accuse you of anything. I observed your action. You stated, "I get the impression there is a desire to sanitize this incident." That is an attack upon the faith of other editors participating in the discussion. There are policies on Wikipedia against this behavior. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. --Strothra 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominating editor called the article a dumping ground. Where is your complaint about his attack upon the faith of the hundreds of editors that have contributed to creating the article he seeks to delete? When choosing to judge the work of another, do not employ double standards. —204.42.17.16 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To quote Kurt Weber, "Agglomerating already-available data does NOT constitute original research. In fact, that's what this whole encyclopedia is: an agglomeration of already-available data. Doing that is the OPPOSITE of original research--you're simply putting together data provided by others rather than going out and getting your own." —131.103.138.231 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia still requires that you provide verifiability in your claims. Just because data is available widely does not mean that it is true or verifiable. One needs to cite their valid and verifiable sources. The problem with this article is that it comes from sources which use no valid research at all thus the article is based on conjecture and thus origional research. --Strothra 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid and verifiable that these are conspiracy theories. There are extensive resources to back up existence of the enumerated conspiracy theories provided in the article. —204.42.17.16 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is verifiable information that such a conspiracy theory exists but that does not make it encyclopedic. Anyone can have theories about anything but those theories are not encyclopedic because they exist. One must establish a reason for their encyclopedic nature. Either a theory has to have made a wide impact such as the Kennedy Assasination Conspiracy Theory or it has to be based on verifiable information but if a theory is based on verifiable information then it wouldn't really be a theory any longer. This consipiracy theory is neither widely believed or widely publicized and is not encyclopedic. --Strothra 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories surrounding Nick Berg and the video of his death death have been widely publicized. —204.42.17.16 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still does not establish notability of a theory. Rather, all those articles state are that there is unprovable controversy over the circumstances of his death. In one of your sources, you have a doctor who never saw his body contesting whether or not Berg was beheaded and was supported by a "forensic death expert" who's a doctor only because he holds a PhD and not a MD. In another of those articles which discusses the supposed Berg-Terrorist connection, the article specifically states "the feds(FBI) concluded he had never actually met Moussaoui, who had friends and roommates at the same college." Just because controversies exists does not make them notable...or credible but that's not what's being debated here anyway. My view on the deletion will remain. --Strothra 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the articles do establish that there is unprovable controversy, i.e., conspiracy theories, over the circumstances of Nick Berg's death. And since the articles come from major mainstream media sources, any claim that the subject of Nick Berg conspiracy theories is non-notable has been laid to rest. —204.42.17.16 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Bill 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following deletion discussion was orphaned and I'm adding a link in this AfD in case this topic is discussed again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Berg conspiracy theories (1st nomination). -- Suntag ☼ 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Tyrenius 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Customer relationship management[edit]

There are quite a few things wrong with this page. First of all, several editors can't tell if it's a copyvio or not. This text is so many places around the net, that we can't tell who copied from who. That aside, it reads like a strategy guide (WP:NOT), and the article made up of original research (WP:NOR) --lightdarkness (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree with LD, cleanup is greatly needed if this article is to be kept. Naconkantari 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Important topic, well-known in the business world. Article has been around since 2001 and edited hundreds of times. If the current article is bad, slap a cleanup tag on it. To give a general idea of just how notable this topic is, "Customer relationship management" (in quotes) gets 46 MILLION GOOGLE HITS. Wikipedia needs an article on CRM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, it needs a lot of cleanup. The content of the article is unsourced, and there are tons of instances of the exact same text on the net, it's extremely unclear of who copied who. I'll withdraw my nomination if the article is greatly cleaned up, but a lot of it is WP:OR in my opinion. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're finding other instances of the same text on the web, are you sure it's not other websites mirroring/quoting WP's article? This article has been around for five years and received loads of edits and attention, I find it hard to believe it's a copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I've been saying, I'm not certain. The dates of the content from the various websites (doc files, and ppts) do not give a clear cut date of when the content was published. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence about this article until I saw Andrew's keep vote. Now, I'm sure. -- Kicking222 03:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for cleanup + referencing + rewrite and all of the other things this article needs. The subject is verifyable, encyclopediac etc.., just that this article reads like the sort of University essay that gets failed for lack of references. Peripitus 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant topic in business world. Cleanup wouldn't hurt, but I've actually found this article useful in work to help cut through CRM hype. Paddles 04:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.Too significant an article to be deleted.Bharatveer 04:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove any copyright violations found. --MarsRover 06:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MarsRover. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, eminently notable subject. If there is a copyvio in there, let the copyright holder assert it. Sandstein 07:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/probable copyvio. We don't need to wait for the copyright holder to assert it, if it's obvious. See http://www.thecomdaily.com/crm.html . — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - anyone have any objections to it being culled to a referenced stub with some external links. Like this version with today's external links ? Peripitus 10:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. That copy seems better than the current one, although I would hesitate to revert that far back. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. That site has many articles mirrored for wikipedia (although I don't see any attribution of that fact, which might be a GDFL violation. They've even copied Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia! Many Wikipedia articles are copied and pasted all over the web, both GDFL-compliantly and otherwise. This does not make Wikipedia's original article a copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote -see below. Vizjim 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I've worked in CRM. The reason the article's confused is probably because CRM "experts" spout (usually TLA) BS 24/7, FYI. Keep the article, trim out copyvio, slap cleanup notice on it. Vizjim 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see a lot of people commenting "cleanup and keep", which I'm fine with, HOWEVER, what worries me is that this article will be thrown into a backlog (similar to the one this was found at (WP:CP)), and never get taken care of. I'll withdraw the nomination of drastic cleanup occurs, but the article really does need a TON of work. --lightdarkness (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Yes a cleanup is needed. But delete? That must be a joke. CRM is a very significant marketing concept. --Sleepyhead 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Note, my employer was previously in this space, but does not market itself that way any longer.) Any proven copy-vios where it is proven that the other version is oldeer should, of course, be removed... but to prove such a copy-vio will be an arduous task, as you must ascertain the original date of the relevant content in both places. Not trivial with a five year old article. GRBerry 01:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete? Maybe not necessary, but we need to remove the copy-vios, unsourced comments, and BS (even if sourced), and see if anything is left. If not, then deletion is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep in its entirety as there is no copyright violation. This serious charge, which does not assume good faith, has not been substantiated. The only article linked above has obviously been copied from here, not the other way around (look around their site and you'll see information from all over Wikipedia, as well as other sites). The article does its best to cover a bloody confusing topic, and does it pretty well. Vizjim 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was acting on a report filed on WP:CP, and have followed through with it as such. Please AGF on mypart aswell. --lightdarkness (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh crikey, yes, didn't mean criticism of any one person, just the charge itself. You're great. Vizjim 13:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's no copy-vio (which, as noted many times, is difficult to tell), then I suppose the article should be kept. The topic is notable, although we still need to delete unsourced comments and BS (even if sourced). My vote is still delete as probable copy-vio, but I have difficulty reading marketing-speak. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading through the article it is clearly in need of extensive rewriting. It seems as it is original research og copyrighted material. I suggest that the entire article text is removed and replaced with a stub. I can write a brief article for this topic. --Sleepyhead 14:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hugely notable topic. Aguerriero (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, came here from a stub sort, had no idea what a CRM company was. Looks like it links to over 100 articles, so a deleate would break a lot of links.Rayc 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Important topic. Shouldn't have to start again from scratch. Edit: but we could start again from a much smaller version Stephen B Streater 12:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very Important topic. Edit: should be revised: the content structure and content should be changed - will be happy to revise the new content having worked a long time in the CRM space - Jmeriaux 12:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: even if it isn't a copyvio, it strikes me as original research and borderline advertising. I am unconvinced that "customer relations management" isn't just an excessively abstract jargon phrase for "keeping your customers in a database," only here this mundane process is described with halo words like "holistic." Prior versions of the article were full vacuous prose such as "In today's competitive business environment. . .": but the closer it gets to plain English, the less seems to be there. Vizjim's remarks suggests that those who speak of "customer relations management" are charlatans, and nothing here really suggests otherwise. There is an awful lot of this sort of buzzword-laden process cruft in business articles recently, and we need to draw a line somewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article needs an extensive cleanup. But please vote on issues that you have knowledge about or do at least some basic research on the topic before you vote for deletion. CRM is a very significant topic in marketing and IT. The term has been around since the beginning of the 1990s. --Sleepyhead 16:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that comment. I work for one of several very large corportations that make CRM software, including Siebel and Microsoft. How about magazines like CRM Magazine with a circulation of 85,000+? Or, books like Microsoft CRM for Dummies? Please, at least do a rudamentary amount of research before coming to AfD and slinging around baseless statements. CRM is a global business. Aguerriero (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some time ago, someone added the following text to the article:
There is not much new about CRM, it is just a piece of new jargon with some useful, money making, side effects. First it lets a load of academics and consultants pontificate about nothing and pretend they have invented a new discipline. Second we can write lots of expensive software to help you "do" CRM. Of course astute business men have applied the concept of “customer relationship management” for hundreds, probably thousands of years. Ever since they recognised the value of a special relationship - “To you my boy I got a special price for this flint axe, not even two cows, ‘cause you buy so many of these fine weapons it is just one cow and a bushel of gain.”
Obviously, this needs to be reworded before being reincluded into the article, but it does suggest that my perception of the kind of prose in the article is not completely idiosyncratic. When an article is proposed for deletion, I tend to go through a two step process. First, is the subject worthy of an article? I am defiantly liberal about this step. Second, is the existing text at the page helpful to someone who wants to whip it into a good article? I have had my eye on this article for some time now, and I am still not convinced that it is. Smerdis of Tlön 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with you on those two points. It is clear that much of the article has either been written by industry wonks who are full of marketing fluff, else cynics. There is a middle road. I'm not willing to re-write the article, so I guess my argument for notability is strong but myu argument for keeping the article is inherently weak. Aguerriero (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough about the topic to tell what or how much of the current content of the article is BS, which is why I'm not going to cast a vote on this one, but I think the subject itself is keep-worthy. Yvh11a 00:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really obvious KEEP extremely notable concept - known to most in the corporate world by now. I'm honestly not sure if it is a copyvio or not, though. RN 10:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston and Shaun[edit]

Contested prod. Boston and Shaun is a webcomic whose only real claim to fame is being reviewed on Something Awful[5]. For a webcomic, that's kinda like receiving a booby prize and indeed if you try to access Boston and Shaun from Something Awful directly, you'll just get a banned referrer message. It is certainly not an indicator of notability. The article itself has POV problems, mainly because its creator insists on turning it into a summary of the Something Awful review. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have removed material from the article which amounted to unsourced criticism of the author itself, violating WP:LIVING. To prevent it from being re-introduced, I have also protected the article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't assert any notability (unless you count the SA review as notable... which I don't). Aside: Why does every webcomic creator have to name one of the main characters after himself? -- Kicking222 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Seems to attract a fair amount of attention on forums and such as an example of a bad/nonsensical webcomic. However, the Alexa rank of 570,091 suggests that it has few actual readers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Paddles 04:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Why why WHY does every aspiring web-comic artist feel the need to spam Wikipedia? Reyk YO! 05:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the record, there's no evidence of vanity here. It's more likely by a fan of Something Awful. There does seem to be some effort to turn it into a meme, but it comes no closer to meeting WP:MEME than it does WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 13:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only reason I've heard of this is because of the ALOD. Which incidentally, is a lot stronger claim to notability than many other webcomics which exist on WP. - Hahnchen 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as initial "prodder". I have seen nothing that suggests notability to me, but I decided to avoid a speedy since the article does assert some form of notability. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 14:33 UTC
  • Delete and I created this article. I should have looked over the criteria for notability for webcomics first. Pugs Malone 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case this probably qualifies for a G7 speedy deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing biodiversity[edit]

Was originally proposed for deletion and was contested. The topic is already adequately covered in the biodiversity article, and as such should either be deleted or merged. --Impaciente 04:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, plus looks like a chunk of it is original research. Wickethewok 04:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything worthwhile that's not already covered in other articles can be moved to Biodiversity. Zaxem 06:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 07:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While under prod, I had reviewed and decided that it was already adequately covered in Biodiversity, so that a merge would not be worthwhile. GRBerry
  • Redirect to Biodiversity. Seems like a reasonable search term. --Allen 14:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything salvageable, then redirect. —Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2005-06. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cricket tour of South Africa 2006[edit]

This article is just a POV version of what's available in Australian_cricket_team. Metros232 04:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as notable tour and cleanup. The highest score in the one-day international will be talked about it in itself. However, it certainly needs a massive cleanup. Redirect as per I@n if we already have an article on the tour and this article needs a lot of work. Capitalistroadster 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable sporting event. Lankiveil 05:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep but get rid of the POV. --Arnzy (whats up?) 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to delete or redirect per below. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change what is one of the least encyclopaedic article I have ever read. --Roisterer 07:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but agree entirely with Roisterer. It is currently a very bad article about a notable cricket tour. Change to delete or redirect as comment just below. --Bduke 08:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or change to a redirect. Subject is comprehensively covered in Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2005-06 which includes a link to a separate article on the amazing 5th ODI. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per I@n. Nothing to merge. --Muchness 10:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per I@n. Johnlp 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per I@n. Hammer Raccoon 11:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per I@n. - Ganeshk (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any article that begins "Without a shadow of a doubt in anyones mind,......" can't expect to survive. Moriori 23:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per I@n.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per Ian.--cj | talk 05:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ias I@n. -- GWO
  • Redirect , page name may be searched for as it includes commonly used "cricket tour" and redirects are free Ansell Review my progress! 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per I@n. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, discounting 'votes' from accounts with hardly any contributions and IPs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newgrounds groups[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Delete - this article is nothing more than vanity/spam for Newgrounds users, nor can I see it becoming anything other than that. This topic does not really need anything more than a paragraph in the Newgrounds article. Wikipedia is not a place to chronicle the accomplishments of whatever flash animation group you belong to, thats what Geocities is for. Wickethewok 04:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CSD: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject." It's hard to determine this since the original article deleted is now gone, but comparing the initial creation versus now (or even before I started removing the cruft from the article), at least, shows substantial changes. cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It contains things that have already been deleted, it's amazingly crufty, and pretty mcuch everything in the article is wholly non-notable. -- Kicking222 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as website vanity. JIP | Talk 14:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but merge what we have in the "Newgrounds" article. Groups are an important part of Newgrounds --TrashLock 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge/Redirect with Newgrounds. A lot of this is unencyclopedic, and also unverifiable according to sourcing guidelines, but there's probably a minimal amount of salvagable material. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Such authors that have similar themes like Joseph Blanchette and illwillpress (Neurotically Yours is a more detailed article) have not been deleted. Eklipsep 19:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Firth is another good one. He even has pages for four of his series. He has no references that aren't his homepage, newgrounds, his group's webpage, and what's essentially a blog that looks like an article. If that's all these groups need to have "independent verifiability", I'll write an article for them myself. Cableshaft 23 May 2006
  • Response - You raise a good point. Articles such as David Firth should be indeed be sourced. You may source them yourself if you like or it may be put up for deletion, though if they are sourced they can be kept. Citing other bad examples of articles, doesn't really help your case though... Wickethewok 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David Firth can be put up for AfD if no sources can be found? Interesting. I'm not going to address this for now.cableshaft 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anything can be put up for deletion, but anything can also be speedily kept if notable sources are quickly provided or whatever issue is otherwise addressed. Wickethewok 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Note I belong to one of the groups in question and therefore a bit biased (but how can you tell who is or isn't on this list anyway), but I sincerely believe at least one of the groups is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. Also it should be noted that the previous vote for the Clock Crew was done when their website was down and they were falsely considered to be a dead group. Cableshaft - 23 May 2006
  • Keep The clock crew has gone on for years and years, and isn't really just a part of "newgrounds" anymore. It's developed its own personallity. Heck, even if it didn't have NG it'd still be going just the same. The other groups, as a result, are the same thing. They aren't reliant on Newgrounds and as a result shouldn't just be merged into the Newgrounds article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.248.197 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep "Website vanity" is publishing a Wikipedia article about your personal website because nobody visits it and you're looking to get more hits. Some forum someone just starts up on InvisionFree or something is not notable and would be website vanity. However, groups on Newgrounds (especially the Clock Crew) have histories all their own, often separate from goings-on at Newgrounds entirely. This article is not about a website--it is about a large community of animators, akin to what the Ant Farm (group) was, except most publicity it recieves is on the Internet, and it's far larger. Ultimately, a group of artists who come together to make a variation on a sort of art. Architecture is to "fringe architecture" as animation is to "Clock/Lock/Glock animation." If you're looking for some hard evidence of notability, one member of the Clock Crew once donned a StrawberryClock suit and passed out fliers on the streets of Dublin, Ireland. There is video of this event if you would care to see it. 62bda02 - 23 May 2006
    • Actually - Actually what you are describing is spam, not vanity. Vanity guidelines state that "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created." This article has been solely written and maintained by such people. Hence, vanity article. Wickethewok 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, this article has not been "solely written and maintained" by such people. Care to address how User:Billpg, creator of the page, is writing about himself or something he's created? His user page and blog mention nothing of these groups, and it appears he mostly only cares about Newgrounds. Additionally, with the exception of the Glock Group and Star Syndicate vandalism, these people aren't writing about themselves or what they have done. They are writing about what other people have done in a group that they either are a member of or have seen significantly while visiting Newgrounds. If you check just about all edits of the Clock Crew page, for example, the only members referenced are 6 members that have not been around for years. Plus there is other criteria under vanity guidelines, addressed below.cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heehee - Whether or not its relevant, those who voted keep (4 users) have a combined mainspace edit total of 7, only 1 of which is not to the article in question. Sometimes AFD is quite amusing. Wickethewok 00:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm too afraid to contribute anything but typos or grammar fixes on this site since it seems just about anything related to the internet gets branded with "non-notable" and deleted on here. I just don't have the time or the stamina other people on this site have to hunt down what I consider to be false or missing information, find an online article that makes the claim I'm looking for, and use it to justify the edit. - Cableshaft - 23 May 2006
That's too bad. If you feel that Wikipedia needs more useful internet-related articles, you should add them. Be bold, though aware you do need to back up your claims of notability and facts, which is the entire point of AFD. As I'm sure you realize, without such standards, Wikipedia would just become an assortment of a mess of arbitrary information. Best of fortune with future editing. Wickethewok 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so afraid of making new subjects after all this guideline reading I've been doing. Looking at some of the stubs you've made has given me a bit of faith, also. I guess you don't really have to post too much if you can reasonably see its notability, even without posting third party links. That's not so bad. cableshaft 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/Smerge Possibly some useful material in there. Beno1000 00:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - why delete, these things exist, and existance is reason to be included in wikipedia, isn't wikipedia supposed to be a user based all encompassing encyclopedia, if so, then why deny the existence of such groups, that would be like saying nazism doesn't exist because people didn't like it, keep it, and if this is vanity, then delete the several articles pertaining the single characters of flash animation including the animators/artists, because that would be considered vanity in that cause — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malteseclock (talk • contribs)
  • Very Strong Keep - As has been said before, these groups are a well known section of the site, Newgrounds.com. The information mentioned in it are based on actual events. Also, the groups have tried before to make independent articles regarding these groups, however, each time they were either deleted or merged into this section article. These groups represent a large faction within the subculture of Newgrounds and should be mentioned so that persons wishing to learn more about this subculture can better understand it. So since this can be used by persons to learn more information, it should stay due to its own merits towards better informing persons interested in Newgrounds and the internet culture that has grown around it. WinchesterLock 23 May 2006
  • ""Very Strong Keep""* - There are articles regarding all kinds of web fads and trends, and this site actually gave me a good bit more insight into the clock crew. I see no valid reason for it's deletation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.231.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - The article serves as an accompaniment to the main Newgrounds article as the Something Awful Forums article does to the Something Awful article. If a list of minor characters from Danny Phantom warrants an article, why not four prolific groups of flash animators? The article on Jonti Picking, creator of Weebl and Bob, was nominated for deletion, but kept because Weebl and Bob is so prolific. This was aside from the fact that Weebl and Bob has an article of it's own. Dan Paladin, a talented animator who co-created a videogame for PS2 Gamecube and Xbox, was a prominent member of the Clock Crew. The Clock Crew sparked Dan's interest in the character Tricky the Clown, who makes a cameo appearance in the game. Moreover, most of the groups exist independantly from Newgrounds, utilizing their own websites, and sites such as FlashPortal, SheezyArt, and DeviantArt, to funnel flash output. If Newgrounds went down, these groups would stay up. Biddynorris 23 May 2006
  • Comment - Both "clock crew" and "lock region" have started threads on their message boards regarding this, so I would expect the vote spamming to keep coming. The clock crew's one is titled "We're Losing the Wikipedia Battle AGAIN". Amusing... Wickethewok 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no kidding. I'm sorry for creating that thread now. I actually want to have a valid discussion regarding Wikipedia's own guidelines, but the comments by the rest of these people colors the whole discussion. I apologize for that. I made that thread before really closely researching the policies. cableshaft 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wish to note that by following the same reason that is expressed by Wickethewok that it seems that a page that discusses the accomplishments of groups should not be listed on Wikipedia and thus using that same logic that all discussions of all military battles and skirmishes should also be deleted from the site as well because they discuss accomplishments of groups of people. Wickethewok, do you now see how absurd your reason for deletion is now? It isn't a matter of site vanity, it is a matter of letting people know more about the groups that are so influential on Newgrounds and in internet pop culture. I have sent persons interested in what the groups are about to this page in discussion and they learned more about the groups and thus got a better understanding of Newgrounds and its history. I happen to believe that any article that gives information that wouldn't have been known otherwise and that properly expands knowlege of the topic to these unknowing individuals is worthy of keeping. On a side note, why should it matter if persons have made posts on a forum in regards to this matter. As long as the reasons that they mention in this discussion are not abusive, they have every right to speak their thoughts regarding the matter. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." So it is better to speak your mind on the matter and let one's own voice be heard rather than sit idly by and watch persons that appears to not understand the groups' importance in the flash community in general. But I digress and offer another idea, rather than a deletion, why not just separate the Clock Crew and Lock Legion from this Newgrounds Groups listing and allow separate listings since they are also well known of on other major flash sites such as SheezyArt, DeviantArt, and Flash Portal. WinchesterLock 24 May 2006
  • Guidelines Argument For Keeping - There are several separate claims for deleting the article, and I would like to address each according to the actual text on their corresponding guideline articles on Wikipedia. They are as follows: cableshaft 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Website Vanity/Notability - Vanity Guidelines First of all this page HAS had vanity edits, and is in need of severe editing, though that does not mean it must be deleted. Also, "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article." The consensus for websites is under WP:WEB, which also addresses notability, so we should use this as our guideline.
2. Importance - Also, the same article on vanity states that "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is." According to that link, "An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." The Clock Crew in particular, but the Lock Legion and Star Syndicate to a lesser extent, are well-known on Newgrounds, at the very least, a flash community website whose notability has already been established. As a result, the link states that "If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: 1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or 3. obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)" But as the link says, it still may fall under other deletion criteria.
3. Fancruft - Cruft can be removed, and according to Wikipedia:Fancruft - "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." So this cannot be the reason for deletion.
  • So back to notability. The guideline for this is on WP:WEB. According to it, "Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, ... through ... an online publisher." Additionally, this has a subscript that "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion...Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." They discount Newgrounds as trivial, and rightly so, as everything on that site is submitted by its users. However, there is, at the very least, some content made by the Clock Crew that is distributed by hundreds, if not thousands, of independent online sites outside of Newgrounds, the vast, vast majority of which do not accept submissions. Here are four examples: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Again, this is rather debateable, and depends on your definition of 'nontrivial'. According to the online dictionaries, at least, nontrivial means "Not trivial; of some importance" And the importance of these groups have been established in 2.* Also, I agree that any unsourced information in the article needs to be deleted. The article has bloated significantly from its inception, much of it by people unaware of this criteria. Again, that does not mean the entire article needs to be removed. cableshaft 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, I made an honest attempt to clean up all the unsourced mess on the page. I'll work on it more later, I'm too tired now. cableshaft 09:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - It amazes me that this is even an issue. These groups exist and create large numbers of animations every day. There have been two clock crew entries on the front page of newgrounds this week alone, the one that's currently there according to my research that has more than thirteen thousand views. How is it that anyone can refuse to acknowledge the existence of these groups? I can agree that using it to showcase the group's flash is not good policy but to use that as grounds for completely disacknowledging it is asinine. What you're suggesting is like saying that we shouldn't have a page on the Nazi party because some nazis would like to promote themselves. If there would be an unbiased chronicling of the clock crew perhaps with the help of some of its older/founding members to show the concept of the clock crew, the development of characters, etc. then that should be allowed and acceptable. Peter Deer 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the members of the Clock Crew ever stage a coup, start a major international conflict, and are convicted in large numbers of crimes against humanity for attempting to commit genocide, then there might be some merit to your analogy. Until then, not so much. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really have to hand it to that argument though - not everyone would be willing to compare themselves to Nazis in order to have their article kept on WP. Also, agreed with Bull-Steak that your argument is absurd. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Wickethewok 15:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These groups have had combined memberships in the thousands. Google tests show that Clockcrew has 15,000 results alone. Surely the popularity should speak for itself. While it's not the most popular cult/fad/etc but combined at least they are definitly notable enough for an article. Celardore 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why don't you guys just put this kind of stuff on your userpages? That way you can put almost anything you want there and it won't have to be in the main WP space or comply to WP standards. Wickethewok 15:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Just about anything can be put on your user page, and the fact that you can does not have any bearing on whether or not this page should be deleted. As an example, thousands of people have a healthy interest in the C++ programming language, and might want to put information on it on their user pages, does that mean that the C++ programming language article should be deleted? cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Actually, that was an idea taken from your BBS, so I was just throwing it out there, too. Your analogy doesn't really work though, as C++ is not a thing the editors of that article created or are a member of. I think our current situation would be more like someone writing about a program they coded in C++. Wickethewok 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question - So basically what you're saying is that if the creator of C++ decided to make an article about the language here then it would be deleted, but if a random guy made one with the exact same information it wouldn't? Nuril
  • Comment - This isn't an argument, but you might want to take into consideration the massive amount of vandalism this page has to endure daily. Before this page was created, the same people who vandalise this page currently used to vandalise the Newgrounds page with the same information. [10] . The Newgrounds page has been relatively vandal-free since this page was created. Deleting this page will only redirect their attention back to that article. Is it better to have a more visible page constantly hammered with this excessive information, or to have a sub-page for groups of tenuous notability that will get maybe 1/10th the traffic of the Newgrounds page would get? Again, this isn't an argument, just something to keep in mind. cableshaft 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Vandalism shouldn't be taken into account for AFD. Many of the most promiment articles of every subject are vandalized daily, but a solution is not to create other articles for those people to vandalize instead. But, yeah, I realize that that "isn't an argument" as you said. Anyways, I'm gonna stop hogging the AFD for awhile and wait for others to bring forth their opinions. Wickethewok 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I don't feel that individual groups are worthy of articles, I feel that the sum of these groups and the phenomenon of groups themselves are notable. In addition, the main Newgrounds article would be too long if this were merged back in, even if trimmed. I would also like to echo the vandalism comments of "Cableshaft" above. One motivation to creating this article was to contain the petty bikering. --Billpg 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full discolsure. I, User:Billpg, created this article currently up for deletion. I have also initiated deletion of some of the pages for individual groups. I am the primary - but not only - author of the Criticism section of the Newgrounds article.
  • Delete or possibly smerge. Not inherently notable. -Sean Curtin 23:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suggest a strong keep again. There are so many less notable groups included in the wikipedia with far less argument about their inclusion. I'd say keep, again, this group of groups is notable even if individualy they are not. Given a google test ClockCrew is notable at least... Then there are the Lock Legion and so on. I say KEEP. It's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Celardore 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - I don't really think the Google test is really applicable for proving notability. For example, "Penis Hat" pulls about 80% as many Google hits as "Clock Crew" does, but we still shouldn't have an article on it. Also, have we had anyone vote keep who isn't a member of one of these groups? Wickethewok 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume that Peter is a member, as this AFD is the first thing he's ever edited. Wickethewok 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I accept your point about the google test, but still I feel that collectively the groups are notable enough. Any Newgrounds member who's been around longer than five minutes knows who they are. Some members of these groups have produced some excellent movies, although a lot of the groups submissions are admittedly terrible. I just don't feel that this article needs to be deleted, granted it's not the most notable subject ever but they do have a small place in internet history. Celardore 18:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To 70.173.248.197 and other new members - Please do not vandalize mine or any other WP editors user pages (Special:Contributions/70.173.248.197). That is clearly not the way to get your article kept. Wickethewok 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry - Haven't used Wiki for anything but reading before, fucked the page up a bit by mistake. I tried to fix it though. ~Edit: Oh wait, userpages? I didn't do that. :P Nuril
  • Comment. I observe that some people have posted deletion comments to the article's talk page during this AfD process. I'll leave it up to the admins to decide what to do. --Billpg 13:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass Jr[edit]

Appears to be a bunch of kids who film their own versions of Jackass. Doesn't appear to be on TV anywhere and it's low on the Google scale. Metros232 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per article: "Unlike the original Jackass, Jackass Jr. do not have any television time..." Well, that says it all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --MarsRover 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who cares? (nn). --Arnzy (whats up?) 07:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is nn and stupid. --Dakart 08:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Their website is the ~12,000th on Alexa's traffic rank. Afonso Silva 12:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are not notable in the slightest. - Erebus555 12:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should almost qualify for a speedy delete, shouldn't it... Medico80 14:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fan-created show. JIP | Talk 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. DakPowers (Talk) 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Andrew Lenahan and nom. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete non-notable group, no opposition in AfD. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. I withdraw my nomination due to the complete rewrite of the article, which has brought it up to Wikipedia standards. romarin[talk to her ] 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Can Sailors[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion (prod) and un-done by the author. Though this topic probably merits an article, this is not it. It is badly written, the grammar and punctuation are incorrect, it is not wikified, does not provide sources, and in general it does not read as an encyclopedia article should. Aside from being tagged with various templates, only one editor has ever worked on it, leading me to question its notability. romarin[talk to her ] 04:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable naval event. There's a fairly popular book entitled Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors with the whole story. Needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw a lot about fiction, but no reliable sources. Do you know of any? IronChris | (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try this site, with info not only on the book (which isn't fiction) but also a History Channel documentary based on the book, with interviews of veterans who survived it. If that isn't a reliable source, then I don't know what is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that looks like a good source. However, as I point out in my comment below, the title is wrong. Maybe it should be moved to The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors (which is specific to this particular battle), it could then also mention the book about it. IronChris | (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn; grammar and punctuation are very bad, the article is POV and unwikified. Nothing has been done to improve it in weeks despite the tags. I'm not even sure about notability as I could not find any reliable sources about this on the web (besides quite a lot of fiction). IronChris | (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's more "tin can sailors" just means sailors on a destroyer, it is not the name of a given naval battle (the title of the article is therefore highly inapropriate). There were many destroyers during WWII, and therefore many tin can sailors were involved in many battles (a few examples here). I don't even know which battle this refers to, as there aren't any dates! The article would therefore need to be moved to a better title to be understandable, but considering the poor quality of its content it is surely best to create a brand new article under the correct title. IronChris | (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move, and dramatically cleanup, possibly by nominating it for WP:COTW. No matter how bad an article is, if all its faults are in things like POV and grammar, but the topic itself is notable and encyclopedic, it probably shouldn't be deleted. Morgan Wick 06:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I change my vote, the rewrite looks fine now. Good job Tyrenius. IronChris | (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move, and dramatically clean up. I agree with Morgan Wick; the article as it stands is awful, but the subject warrants an article. Pastafarian Nights 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note I have rewritten this article stub from scratch. The preceding comments were about the former version. The nom may wish to withdraw the AfD in the light of this. Tyrenius 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job, Tyrenius, rewriting the article; thank you for taking the innitiative. I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion. romarin[talk to her ] 17:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge into Enema of The State - Liberatore(T) 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going Away To College[edit]

Although it is only a proposal, it fails WP:MUSIC/SONG. There is little that can be done with an article about a song that was never a single or a hit. Metros232 04:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into blink-182 as per nomination. Probably deserves a sentence or two there for its (apparent) rarity, but that's about it. Alphatango 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of the Immpmantropolis Zone[edit]

Nonnotable topic, just fanfic based on a video game. Charles 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 03:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis DeLarge[edit]

No notability established, failed google test, seems extremly vain. Yanksox 05:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete it is a hoax. The flute picture was taken off the internet on a sales site. Ted 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Makes a claim to notability, but one so over the top that when it gets contradicted by the Google results, it comes across as (and probably is) WP:HOAX or at least extreme WP:VANITY. Fails WP:V. Also see WP:NFT. Agree with TedE. Morgan Wick 06:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's funny, but not real... --Dakart 08:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.--Jusjih 14:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious although bizzare vanity page. Ydam 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yawn. Tyrenius 16:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to account Kuzoukiriyama (talk · contribs), then delete. —Viriditas | Talk 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Torn between Delete and Userfy. Sounds like WP:VANITY, but author appears to have written quite a bit of info, so… I'm such a softee. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost BJAODN, but I'm not sure it's funny enough... jgp 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7 & {{hoax}}. I am a musician and the page claims are false. You cannot just spontaneously claim to be a Virtuoso. :P ~Kylu (u|t) 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree with Tyrenius-yawn...ignorance... the flute picture was, bought, neh?
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity, no Google hits (excluding Wikipedia of course). — TheKMantalk 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (could have been a speedy, how many full-length releases on notable record labels again?). --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles Girls' School Symphonic Band[edit]

Delete. Non-notable school band. Its achievements are worth mentioning at the page about the school, but the band is not significant enough to justify its own page. Singopo 05:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom. NSLE (T+C) at 05:48 UTC (2006-05-21)
  • Delete after merging relevant information into school page. PoptartKing 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete school band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge With releavent school article. Ydam 15:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with school article. Tyrenius 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. School bands shouldn't typically have their own article. Cedars 06:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, school bands are non-notable and don't need their own article. --Terence Ong 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete with school article Bacmac 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I fail to see what relevance this has to Mehrask's userpage, but I'll restore and userfy it if he requests me to do so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrashk[edit]

Delete - No more than a dicdef of a name. Taken from someone's user page apparently... Wickethewok 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, A7. GTBacchus(talk) 07:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amokolia[edit]

Appears to be hoax.

Evidence:

  • The only references in the article are to the site amokolia.com.
  • The domain "amokolia.com" was created last week, on May 15, 2006.
  • The only hit Amokolia has in Google is in the list of daily domain changes.
  • Amokolia is not in the CIA World Factbook.

Because the creator of the article claims that it is not a hoax, we have to do this the hard way. John Nagle 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of those pieces of "evidence" have anything to do with whether something is a hoax or not. This was already dealt with on the article's talk page. Jimpartame 06:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fartia"? Seriously. Do you have any evidence that this is not a hoax? I could say that my left foot is the size of Uranus, and you would have nothing to disprove it. Does my left foot deserve an article? Delete. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Most likely a hoax, and non-notable if true. Reyk YO! 06:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NFT. More strictly, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Fartia" is a silly name, but even silly things can be encyclopedic. Jimpartame 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many fake micronations recently for me to spend any time thinking about whether or not another one is true. Provide more sources to meet WP:V to convince people this is not WP:HOAX, or else it's just your word against ours. And by "you" I mean Jimpartame and no one else, and by "us" I mean just about everyone else on Wikipedia. Morgan Wick 07:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, why me? I'm not part of Amokolia. I only created the article because Jimbo's talk page said to. Jimpartame 07:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're the only one defending it. Change "you" to Jimpartame and Cartman4000 and no one else, and Jimpartame is probably the unwilling victim of a hoax. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Create a page for what we're both referring to. (Note: if the Cartman4000 who signed that page is the same one who registered in March, note that that user has been blocked for vandalism since April.) Changing vote to Speedy Delete. I'm more convinced than ever it's a hoax. Morgan Wick 07:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7: groups of people. Whether it's a hoax or not, no claim of notability is made for this group of people. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article, the only person who wants to keep it, now has this entry in the block log: "07:11, 21 May 2006 Freakofnurture blocked "Jimpartame (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove...)", as a result of other unrelated activity by that user. So nobody is likely to object if this article just quietly disappears overnight. --John Nagle 07:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fileanchor[edit]

Delete - Not particularly notable file storage service. Alexa rank of webpage around 1.3 million. Wickethewok 06:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 06:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Ydam 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like an advert. Tyrenius 16:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7 Non-notable ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio. JIP | Talk 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAYT[edit]

Non-notable synagogue. The content reads like a memoir, not an encyclopedia article. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. It is a copyright violation word-for-word copying from the website. Ted 07:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per TedE, and copying from websites comes across as WP:SPAM and rarely if ever is NPOV. Morgan Wick 07:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 07:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlmightyLOL[edit]

Delete - Non-notable forum or whatever. Prod removed, etc, same as usual.... Wickethewok 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit-conflict Delete - non-notable, Alexa ranking upwards of 1,500,000, 700 members. Looks like the creator's not interested in discussion, either, from the tag being removed repeatedly.Tony Fox 06:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and the 'dont delete this u faggets' on the talk page as the reasoning against speedying doesn't do much for it either. Tony Fox 07:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Ted 07:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please block the IPs and members vandalizing and removing tags from this article repeatedly and constantly. Wickethewok 07:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is meant to be and objective represenation of a website growing in popularity.
    Unfortunately, certain wikipedia users decided to vadalize it. I and others have been attempting to restore impartiallity and some level of accuracy and decency. Please excuse any accidental deletion mistakes that ocured in the vandaizing.--Almightylol 07:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and preferably speedy delete per A7 "groups of people". Obvious self-promotion. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment I thought for sure when I saw the above comment by Wickethewok I would find a thread encouraging people to vandalise and remove tags on the site, but no. Instead apparently people saw the link to the Wikipedia page and decided to have some fun. They seemed to me (and I will probably forever go down in AlmightyLOL lore for saying this) to be a bunch of drunks and stoners sitting around spewing nonsense all day. Not-notable, vanispamcruftisement (just look at the ID of the creator, and of the comment above - do you really think he's interested in NPOV?). The "Best Member" section is probably (un-)worthy of BJAODN. Interference of deletion process also doesn't help case. Just plain bad. Morgan Wick 07:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article seems to be a vessel for self-promotion, more than anything else. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Violently delete, WP:VSCA. Sandstein 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit-conflict delete- vanispamcruftisement... i love that word :). Reyk YO! 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • CommentWell, this is indeed humorus. To be fair, you should recognize the FACT that I happened to be the most impartial member of this (large and growing) group of mostly "drunks and stoners." Excuse me, but who are you all to judge the efforts of a user attempting to save an impartial representation of a human community. Frankly, it's of no concrn just how drnk of unintelligent these people may be. Who are all of you to decide that they don't deserve to be recorded in history?--Almightylol 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT for advertising or self-promotion. If you can show notability for your forum under WP:WEB then fire away, and it will be considered. Tony Cox 07:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Echo Tony Cox. Morgan Wick 07:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Glen TC (Stollery) 07:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete,, Yeah, a closed forum that hates newcomers is really intrested in self promotion. Get over yourselves, how many people do you think will ever see the page?
  • Delete per nom.--DCAnderson 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Stannard[edit]

Prod deleted, bringing here for consideration. 15-year-old local stage actor with minimal credits; doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. Tony Fox 08:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazza (nickname)[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, in this case of people whose nicknames end in "zza". There appears to be no collective name for these nicknames, so the current inappropriate title can not be changed. Nothing can sensibly link to this article. Gazza, a disambiguation page, and John Prescott link here, but the latter article already contains the same information - that his nickname is "Prezza". This article was originally called Hezza but that was made a redirect to Michael Heseltine and the material moved here. However, see discussion on Talk:Hezza. Bduke 08:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done my best on Talk:Hezza and Talk:Gazza (nickname) to help the people intere4rsted in this article to improve it, but it has just become a longer list of indiscriminate information. Let us see what the community thinks. --Bduke 08:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable phenomenon of popular culture. Sandstein 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we keep this we'll soon have articles on the Australian boganisms Stevo, Davo etc... Nicknames are simply not notable. Peripitus 10:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Paddles 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact it is "others" who have joined in and added to the article. There is no other reference work which makes the link from Bazza to Gazza. Gazz and Hezza both have entries in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Gazza is widely listed in British lexicons and there are plenty of reputabale works that collect together this sort of slang. The recent BBC series "Balderdash and Piffle" highlighted the interest in how words/forms came to be coined. "Gazza" is not in fact a passing fad in the UK. And there's a long article about "Gazzagate" that is far less interesting! --IXIA 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mentioning that Paul Gascoigne (sp?) is called Gazza is enough, there's no need for a separate article about his nickname. JIP | Talk 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect no need to redirect to Paul Gascoigne - I didn't realise there's already a redirect from Gazza. It's a well known nickname. Tyrenius 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, abbreviated to a couple of lines, with hypocoristic. The hypocoristic article is after improvement, and is a good location for this kind of information. Diminutive does not cover name-derived nicknames well enough. Examples of hypocoristics may be non-notable, but they're studied in ancient societies, and information like IXIA's above would be relevant in that article. As for discoverability, there's already a disambiguation page, and I'd expect most people search for Gazza rather than Gascoigne (it's hard to spell). --Mark 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has now been condensed. It is not about Gazza per se, but the trend that it gave rise to and (thanks to most helpful advice from - ironically - Bduke above) details of the link to "Bazza" which is not widely known or written about). The term "not notable" has arisen before and yet lexicographers, etc deal with this sort of thing very day of the week and there are many books covering precisley this kind of usage. Could anyone think of a better title? --IXIA 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keeep. Interesting and unique article that is of encyclopedic interest. Wikipedia is not television. —Viriditas | Talk 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I nominated I did not give a firm opinion and I'm still not sure.
  1. "Delete and redirect to Paul Gascoigne". Gazza already does that. Why should anyone type in "Gazza (nickname)"? Also something similar has already been done with Hezza, but some people want a general article.
  2. "Most people search for Gazza". Indeed, so why are all the others mentioned? How do people get to this article if they are not interested in "Gazza", but in "Macca"? It is wider in scope.
  3. "Wikipedia is not television". I have not idea what this is intended to mean.
  4. "Merge, abbreviated to a couple of lines, with hypocoristic" or even, perhaps Nickname. This is a possability, but if someone could think of a better title that covered the full generality of this page, I might support keep.
  5. Yes, I did suggest the Australian connection on Talk:Hezza, but it is unsourced and only an idea. Maybe the UK useage did not come from the Oz "Bazza". --Bduke 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has given sound reasons to keep it and many have given sound reasons to delete. The article has not been improved, so I conclude delete. --Bduke 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To meet Bdukes's concern about the title a similar article has been established as Zza nicknames. There is no reason why Wikipedia should not be creative in this regard since, as has been noted above, this is a unique article. There is perhaps an argument about links, but that could be overcome with imagination. It is not true that the article has not been improved; a number of changes have been made to meet Bduke's curiously insistent concerns and he has in fact kindly helped in that regard. Earlier comments, when Bduke first proposed the article for deletion, was far from overwhelming in favour of discarding. Ultimately this is not that important - it's not quantum physics - but Wikipeadia would be the poorer if it could not accommodate articles of this kind which do contain the sort of material that gets intself into many British books about popular language. In fact this is probably the most comprehensive article on the "subject" in existence - and, indeed, had been more detailed until curtailed to meet concerns which were partly understandable. The article is not offensive in any way, not does it get in the way of anything. Still, there it is: the fact that this has generated so much debate tends to detract from the notion of its being of marginal interest. Not sure what happens now ... --IXIA 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful names of Allah mentioned in the Bible[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable book (Amazon rank #2,805,735). Sandstein 08:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is religious propaganda.
  • Delete Advertising Nuttah68 09:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nuttah68. Paddles 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. Tyrenius 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Ted 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7 non-notable. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Furry Liberation Front[edit]

This is a vanity page (nor for a person, but for a group. Dakart 08:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No notability asserted or, I suspect, willing to be photographed within half a mile. Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. —Zero Gravitas 08:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Events within a nn forum. Delete, speedily if possible. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above Speedy Delete. Nuttah68 09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Speedy Deleting this under A7, but here's a sample sentence anyway: "With Myonosken (formally known as NanotechMonkey) put in charge, things started to disarray." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings of nothing[edit]

I'm pretty sure this isn't notable enough... It might also be a vanity page. Dakart 08:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though at least vandalism of WP is easier to fix. Paddles 12:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article will soon be nothing. -- Kicking222 13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see any notabililty here. Ydam 15:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing there. Tyrenius 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7, three google hits: one myspace and two unrelated. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flashphone[edit]

Advert, nothing special. feydey 09:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks real to me... I don't see anything wrong with this article. --Dakart 09:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising + copyvio. Cut and paste job from [11]. Peripitus 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "That's not a phone, that's a knife." "I see you've played 'Knifey-Phoney' before." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A8 - advertising, copyvio. Paddles 12:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Tyrenius 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Flagrant marketing abuse of Wikipedia Bwithh 05:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bacmac 16:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otserv[edit]

This page has already been through AFD once (first nomination), and was deleted in June 2005, then recreated in December 2005. The content is extremely messy; it's generally unsourced, and reads a lot more like a project web site than an encyclopedia entry. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • OTServ is a very interesting part of Tibia. Please dont delete it although i agree there is a lot of crap in that article. Although imsue there are articles with a lot more rubbish in them— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.173.171 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • False, this just contain the different distributions, history and usefull links with the "project site" --Arkold Thos 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still in development, not released yet, implies non-notable. Too much unverified and POV. Paddles 12:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend to you check the links in the footer, Otserv was released in the 2001-2002 and the project is hosted in sourceforge.net --Arkold Thos 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and previous observations. Tyrenius 16:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reply to the previous observations --Arkold Thos 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for various reasons, only among them being that it was already deleted once and not really any improvement was made the second time. OneGyT/T|C 23:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are improving to give a better wikipedia article, anyway im making a topic in otserv forums to do a perfect one. --Arkold Thos 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zetawolf, why don't you change the things you think are bad written. Yes, I know its funnier to delete than to fix things. What a pitty.
  • Don't Delete, OTserv is a project with great potentional and a wikipedia article will certainly help expanding the project, and thus the article. Keeping it will thus improve the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.2.190 (talk • contribs) .
    • Remember that Wikipedia is not a promotional device. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • we dont want promote this project, right now DeathfireD and me are working with this stuff, open this a article in few days to see the big change --Arkold Thos 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: We remove crap stuff and now we are reddoing the just the usefull stuff

You've got to be kidding... It contains nothing that is promoting it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.107.246 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 03:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --TM 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! This article contains a small history of OTserv and the basics on how to use it. Its setup isn't the greatest, but nontheless it does supply information - which is the whole point behind having an encyclopedia article, is it not? And you could say that this article is an advertisement, but I could also say you're wrong. Anyway, OTServ is not a product. It isn't sold, it isn't traded for something else, and it is productive. So advertising this wouldn't actually get us anywhere, would it? Seems kinda silly to think so. It would seem that support goes for deleting this article, but I am willing to bet that these are people who have barely read the article or have no clue what OTServ really is or any of that. ~nfries88
  • Don't Delete! Article provides good information for research of MMORPG emulation software. ~ivucica (Khaos)
  • Note - AfD message on the page was blanked by Arkold Thos (talk • contribs). Warned. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit the page please Zetawoof the page has been redone, stop crying about it and edit/add/correct the things that you still hate then take the AfD message off. -DeathfireD-
  • Keep - Why delete? It's not an ad and it gives information on something. What else do you need for a Wikipedia article? -JNighthawk 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be written poorly, but that can be freely edited, which is the point of Wikipedia. Edit it, don't delete it. -JNighthawk 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This nominations seems to dont contain stuff against otserv anymore... about the pm of Zetawoof, i delete by mistake that, i wasn't unable to move nothing for unknow reason, i say, i can't refresh i can't do nothing, i delete that and it works again but i forget how to add again
  • Weak delete 104000 GHits, but it seems like it could count as reposting of deleted content M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of Linux Graphics[edit]

Original research. Prod contested with edit comment Proposal of deletion removed: this article is of great importance for Linux developers. Move it elsewhere if you think it is unencyclopedic but, please, do not delete it. It's not Wikisource material I think, does the Linux community have a FAQ site that could give this a loving home? Weregerbil 09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:OR essay. Belongs on the authors personal website or a Linux forum. Not wikipedia material Peripitus 10:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. A Linux wiki might want it but it doesn't belong on WP. Paddles 12:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a wonderful essay, and it would be a pity to lose it. However, it's nothing but original research, and does not belong in our encyclopaedia. I hope the author moves it somewhere else before we delete it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR they? (Anyone? Rushmore?) -- Kicking222 13:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. I'll admit it's a very good essay though. Ydam 15:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it should be preserved somehow but deleted from the Wikipedia. It's original research. Reyk YO! 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rewrite and merge relelvant information into new article entitled Linux graphics. —Viriditas | Talk 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and find a way to preserve this elsewhere per nom. jgp 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more for the fact that it is not in the proper format of a Wikipedia article than anything else. Cedars 06:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the author, jonsmirl 22 May 2006

The article is a year old and not considered new research any more. I never considered it research to begin with, it is a survey of the state of graphics technology on Linux.

When it was first written it was well publicised and it has been referenced by a dozen papers during the last year. As far as I know it is the most complete description of Linux graphics in existence. I'm trying to find a permanent place to put it so that the historical information it contains won't get lost. Multiple translations are also available.

It doesn't contain standard footnotes, instead everything is linked to the original sources. I have received no objections from any of the sources linked.

I moved it here, but this constant bouncing around between hosts is equivalent to it being deleted. It is linked from close to 1,000 places in google to the freedesktop.org site but they don't want it anymore and deleted it there.

Well, original research is defined as being analysis or synthesis introduced in the article itself rather than from any external sources, even if sourced information is used to justify your analysis and synthesis. Age has nothing to do with it. In other words, Wikipedia should not be the primary home of an essay that introduces its own analysis and synthesis. An article reporting on a similar essay that's published elsewhere would be valid, however. Read WP:NOR if you desire more information. Even if it's published elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a place to publish verbatim copies of such essays (also see WP:NPS, which is titled "Don't include copies of primary sources"). If your essay is as well-publicised as you say it is, you might look into using Wikisource. jgp 18:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good research, but this belongs at The Linux Documentation Project. Aguerriero (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOR.--Peta 06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been moved to wikisource and nobody has deleted it yet. Hopefully it will be ok there. freedesktop.org has put up a redirect from the existing link to my copy on googlepages. I don't have access to freedesktop.org so I can't change the redirect to wikisource. Linux Documentation Project is not a good home, their project is about building user manuals for software, not the architecture of the Linux kernel. As for relevance there are still 9,000 hits in Google on the title --Jonsmirl 05:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaveJ[edit]

Non-notable, has created two game mods. Prod contested with edit comment rm prod / if by 2 game mods, you mean the most played FPS map ever, then you'd be right. Weregerbil 10:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I'm not actually too bothered with the deletion of this article, being that it's so content thin. However, he is the mapper of de_dust and pretty well known in the Counter-Strike community, the Counter-Strike community being in the millions, and de_dust being the most popular FPS map of all time. I thought that this article could be expanded upon and just link to the works hes done. - Hahnchen 11:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maker of a video game map. Oh, come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete without prejudice. Notability is borderline, but with so many edits producing so little content, I think it should be scrapped until someone can come up with a non-trivial article. Besides, the article name should be based on his name, not his nickname. Paddles 12:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Aside from my agreement with Paddles that the article name should be his real name, I just don't think he's sufficiently notable for an article of his own. If the only info about him is that he created these maps, then "DaveJ" should be a redirect to de_dust (assuming that survives the AfD process). -- Kicking222 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known and influential FPS level designer. Gets a decent number of Google hits. (The article could use quite a bit of fleshing-out, though...) ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And how is this guy more notable than Tomo Milicevic? Let's see some consistency, please. —Viriditas | Talk 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Non-notable. Bwithh 05:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkFluent[edit]

Non-notable company, makes no claim towards WP:CORP. Company name gets three google hits[12]. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 10:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. Paddles 12:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article appears to make the company look notable but the Google search says it all. - Erebus555 12:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Tyrenius 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and earth salted. This is not just a recreation, this is the third time User:Richardbooth has created this article, making it the second recreation following its first AfD. That goes beyond a faux pas, in my view. The majority for deletion in this renomination is not overwhelming, but the arguments that this serial self-promoter is notable are hand-waving - no external sources, no evidence of awards won or suchlike. Mr Booth, Wikipedia wasn't a vehicle for promoting yourself last September, it still wasn't in December, and it still isn't in May. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Booth[edit]

Entry was recreated after it was deleted a year ago for being a vanity page; author Richardbooth has ignored request for explanation. Folajimi 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not a notable filmmaker, vanity. As per previous nomination. I'm not sure how notable Nick Tatham is either. - Hahnchen 13:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing at a time ;) -Folajimi 13:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Richard Booth should redirect to Richard George William Pitt Booth, the bookseller and self-proclaimed King of Hay. David | Talk 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article admits this is a local project. But good luck. Tyrenius 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I posted on Folajimi's page, even though he denies it: "My page was created by my team at Final Cut Films (www.finalcutfilms.co.uk) after I directed a music video earlier this year for signed music artist Nick Tatham. I also made a feature film two years ago, readily available on DVD (which was shown in English cinemas and is featured on IMDb), and I am directing a short film with Equity-registered actors this summer. I make my living as a filmmaker." This is NOT a vanity page and you will find that IMDb backs up my claims. I am a professional filmmaker who has been featured on British TV (BBC South Today and ITV1), cinemas in the south of England and on DVD through Final Cut Films and Xenon Films. Richardbooth 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I stand corrected. Your remarks were uncommented, and another user had left me a message shortly after you did. Please be sure to sign your posts in the future.
As for the nomination, creating an article on yourself is still considered to be in bad taste. According to the third subsection from the project page dealing with vanity articles, you have committed a faux-pas:
The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them...
Independent filmmakers are not disqualified from inclusion in the encyclopaedia; however, allegations of conflict of interest is fair game here. Folajimi 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richardbooth. While he probably should have left somebody else to write his article (as Folajimi said), still notable so deserves article. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it is a recreation of previously deleted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Booth - CSD G4. The page should have been tagged by the administrator who deleted it the first time with a {deletedpage} tag. Apparently this was not done, allowing for a recreation to be done. Before this page can be recreated, by WP policy, it needs to be sent to the Wikipedia:Deletion review for permission to recreate it. Brimba 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Sorry, not a notable filmmaker for wikipedia. Just because you're in IMDB and have done a couple of shorts doesnt make you notable. Vanity article. Come back in a few years when you've become more well-known and have more of a portfolio. Bwithh 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry if I was unclear but one of my employees at FCF created my page, not me. In terms of notability I have been reviewed and interviewed by English media with my 90-minute feature film Live for the Moment, screened at UK cinemas and released on Region 0 DVD. 193.195.73.66 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think his notability trumps the potential faux pas of creating an article about oneself. Richard, even creating an article about someone you work for fits in the same category, because it's nearly impossible to be unbiased and maintain WP:NPOV. That being said, I stand by my first statement, and I will always say that artists are underrepresented here due to systemic bias. If it takes an artist making his own entry to get him here, I can live with that. He's clearly making significant contributions in his field. Aguerriero (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of Information. How does the nomination of this article contribute to the idea of systemic bias? Also, is there a valid argument to counter the points made by Brimba and Bwithh? Folajimi 00:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the typical active user here is inclined to favor articles they deem worthy or appropriate; for example, there is a proliferation of articles about exceedingly minor technical phenomena, and all kinds of cruftish minutae (and I mean that in the warmest way possible) but similarily minor artists are usually treated as deletion fodder. That is systemic bias.
Notability arguments per Bwithh in this AfD are weak, considering his accomplishments. Also, they are inaccurate and indicate a dismissive attitude toward the arts. Shoot first, ask questions later. He directed a music video for a major recording artist, and has a feature length film that screened in UK theatres. How does that equal "a couple of shorts"?
As to the comment of Brimba, the criteria for speedily deleting an article based on being a recreation hinges on it being "substantially identical" to the original article, which according to WP:SPEEDY an admin is responsible for determining. In other words, not me, and not Brimba. If it is determined to be the same article again, then I will accept its deletion. And then I will re-write it. Aguerriero (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-on. Need for clarification:
  1. Could you give examples of the "cruftish minutae" you alluded to? (Since I am asking, my contributions are fair game for illustrative purposes.) Perhaps it will help explain how this nomination contributes to the notion of systemic bias, a question which has yet to be answered.
  • I don't have any specific examples, and certainly not within your contributions. I certainly didn't mean to imply a personal bias on your part; only a systemic bias. I am speaking of things like articles for specific video game maps, articles for minor television characters, etc. The community in general will come out in strong support of things like this (as well they should) but not of similarly minor cultural contributors. Is that more clear? Aguerriero (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As for the "...arguments per Bwithh in this AfD are weak, considering his accomplishments..." remark, whose accomplishments are you referring to? Bwithh, or the subject of this AfD?
  1. It seems that there is some conflation related to the deletion review process. Articles which have been deleted can be recreated [at will]; however, reversing (i.e. "resurrecting") a deleted entry requires a deletion review. Folajimi 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, thus my point that it is up to an admin to determine if the article has been recreated or reversed. If you view the article Richard Booth from the old AfD, it still shows the current iteration. I am unaware of a way to view the previously deleted iteration for comparison's sake. Aguerriero (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More Follow-on. It is clear as he light of day that this article is substantially similar to the deleted article, and should have been sent to a deletion review before being resurrected here. No one should have taken it upon themselves to over ride an AFD conclusion. It is not an excessive burden to send it to review. It is disrespectful to the other editors who took the time to review the original and vote, to say that their votes mean nothing, and you will over ride them because you know better then they what should be included in WP. As per what you said: “which according to WP:SPEEDY an admin is responsible for determining. In other words, not me, and not Brimba.” So let it be. Brimba 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it clear as the light of day? Do you have a record of the previously deleted article? If you view the article Richard Booth from the old AfD, it still shows the current iteration, check the history. I do not mean to be disrespectful; it has not been established that we are voting on the same article as the one that was deleted before. Aguerriero (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough, faux pas notwithstanding. Silensor 23:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, my portfolio is expanding this summer as I have been hired to direct another music video for En Masse Music & Production Ltd., as well as directing a script of mine entitled "Ashes to Ashes". Both will feature professional performers and will be shot in the south of England. Richardbooth 07:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The spectre of systemic bias raised here by Aguerriero is little more than a red herring. To claim that contributors are incapable of maintaining a neutral point of view is an inappropriate smear on all those who submit articles to the main space. I had invited the user to examine my contributions to find information which will help make the case for such bias. Casting such aspersions is absurd; the preponderance of my contributions has to do with artisans with little or no recognition. To put it mildly, shills disgust me; it behooves me to establish notability without resorting to their tactics.
As it currently stands, the notability of the entry nominated for deletion here is suspect, at best. The cavalier attitude presented in some of the replies towards the author's faux pas does little do neutralise the appearance of impropriety regarding this matter. (It should also be noted that Aguerriero is determined to recreate this entry — regardless of the valiidity of any arguments put forth for the entry's AfD nomination.)
The author should have known better than to create an autobiographical entry. At the moment, it is unclear who the role model for such unbecoming conduct is; certainly not Jimbo Wales... --Folajimi 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well said. We have all stated our opinions and the consensus seems to be that the article needs to be deleted. I stand by my claim that systemic bias exists for artists, whether you want to admit it or not. I am not compelled to examine your contributions, because one person's contributions do not tell us much when discussing a community-wide idea. I sincerely apologize for anything that you construed as a smear.
Further, you requested this page be deleted because its recreation violated process; you have yet to address my question as to how you have established that. This AfD turned into half process debate/half notability debate, so I am curious about why we are really deleting this article. If it is deleted because it was illegally recreated (meaning it is "substantially identical") then I think it is appropriate for me to re-write it, establishing notability. You can note that I'm "determined to recreate this entry" all day. While you're at it, note that I'm determined to make Wikipedia the best place I can, by opposing deleting of articles I think benefit the community. If it is deleted because the community decides it lacks notability, then I will let it lie. As a side note, the credibility of your process arguments is severely diminished in my opinion, due to your voting twice in your own AfD. Aguerriero (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely a solution to this problem would be to allow another user, like Aguerriero, to rewrite the article and thus avoid claims that one of my employees has been biased? It could be written to a Wikipedia standard with a more encyclopedic feel and presentation. Richardbooth 08:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Carbonell[edit]

This entry should be deleted. Rolando Carbonell should not be included in the canon of Writers from the Philippines. Respected writers and critics dismiss his works. He is not included in significant studies and anthologies in Philippine literature in English. He does not have any national or international reputation as a writer. Here is a sample of his poems. The Philippines' foremost expert in Philippine Poetry in English and University of Chicago-trained Professor Gemino H. Abad does not include Carbonell in his landmark critical essay Mapping Our Poetic Terrain: Filipino Poetry in English From 1905 to the Present. That is virtually a mapping of important Filipino poets in the 20th century and onwards. 7258 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not withstanding the above, the article is also devoid of any real or useful information. Very short and pointless. --Crossmr 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its short because its a stub and has many google hits. Lack of "technical maturity and emotional control" isn't one of the criteria for deletion yet. MarsRover 07:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep unless charges are substantiated. Your assertions, if true, would have me voting delete, but first you need to back them up. As the nomination stands right now, it's facially insufficient. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this nomination as I believe not enough discussion has taken place to determine consensus on this issue. Rje 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - two books listed on Amazon ( both out of print and published in 1961/1963 ) is not a great deal but the AfD notes do not demonstrate he's not notable. Other authors ( like T. J. Bass ) on wikipedia have a small output but are still notable - Peripitus 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He has two books listed on Amazon, but the only info Amazon has on them is that they were published. It has no information on the content of the books. In addition, both books are out of print, and nobody else is selling them through Amazon. And not that it makes a difference either way (but I just decided to check), but eBay doesn't list a single item for Rolando Carbonell, without quotes around the name, in listing titles or descriptions. -- Kicking222 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ignoring the nominator's claims (not they are necessarily invalid), the article does not assert sufficient notability. Just because he's written books is not proof that anyone has read them. "Rolando Carbonell" gets only 50 Google hits, and "Rolando A. Carbonell" gets only 26. Even if he's from the Philippines, he's contemporary enough that a notable writer/poet should get far more Google hits than that. In addition, the external links are to a high school's web site and to a Geocities page, and neither of those are "reliable sources" which assert importance. -- Kicking222 13:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete Weak keep based on having two books published. It makes sense that a Philippine writer published in the 1960s would likely not have much Google presence. Will reconsider vote if said books are nonexistent, self-published, vanity-press, or merely pamphlets. Update Changed vote to weak delete per 7258 that subject's books were vanity publications. Still willing to be convinced otherwise if more information should arise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are numerous anthologies of Philippine Literature in English or Philippine Poetry in English since 1898 (Works by important writer-critics like Gemino Abad, Bienvenido Lumbera, Leonard Casper, Doreen Fernandez, Roger Bresnahan, Isagani Cruz, Ophelia Alcantara-Dimalanta, Caroline Hau, Roland Tolentino, J. Neil Garcia and many others, for instance). There are numerous articles, theses and other studies on what is generally accepted as important authors long before the age of internet. Filipino authors who emerged before World War II like Paz Marquez Benitez, Francisco Arcellana, N.V.M. Gonzalez, Nick Joaquin, Bienvenido Santos and Jose Garcia Villa are still being studied extensively in universities offering courses in Philippine literature including UCLA, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of Hawaii, Cornell University and several others. Remarkably, there isn't a single major anthology, textbook or course in these universities that has included Mr. Carbonell. Considering that Mr. Carbonell is still alive, there should be discussion about his work if he is important enough as a writer. But nothing is being discussed about him. Ask any Philippine Studies scholar or critic anywhere in the world. His 2 books were vanity publications. Mr. Carbonell was never published by any major publisher in the Philippines and anywhere else. - 7258 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amusingly, the second link on the page is to a library, which notes that nobody has ever borrowed Mr Carbonell's volume. A Google search for Horizon Books, Manila, turns up only Mr Carbonell's books. All of this seems to back up 7258's assertions regarding notability. If anyone can provide sources for this article beyond what's already been supplied, then my vote could be swayed, but right now there's nothing out there. Vizjim 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going for delete, because the article doesn't provide substantiation of any significant status. However, "Respected writers and critics dismiss his works" indicates that he is actually known, as unknown writers don't get their work dismissed, so I would like an explanation of this. We are not here after all to evaluate the quality of his poetry.Tyrenius 16:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should have earlier used the word "ignored", not "dismissed" to describe his presence as a writer. It seems rather strange that although he has been published since 1960s, his works have never been included in important studies and discussions on Philippine writers, whether in a positive or negative way. No one considers him important enough to be discussed by artists and scholars of note. - 7258 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it then that he does not have an "alternative" or "underground" reputation, and he is just insignificant, as notable writers/poets can certainly be shunned by the establishment if they are rebels? I would be grateful for your comment on this. Tyrenius 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Carbonell does not have an "alternative" or underground" reputation. "Notorious" writers and artists who rebel against the prevailing established aesthetic styles and forms are widely covered by Filipino and international experts on Philippine Studies. Examples of these alternative and underground artists (who eventually became mainstream) are David Cortes Medalla, Victor Nadera (or Vim Nadera), Jessica Zafra, Paolo Manalo and Carlo Vergara. Though initially ignored by mainstream crtics, these artists had massive cult following that eventually forced the prevailing literary and cultural establishment to take note of their works seriously. Carbonell never had a cult following. He was never discussed positively or negatively by the major critics. As one entry had put it, his book has been in the Ateneo High School library since 1961 and yet, no one has borrowed it. - 7258 13:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for taking the time to answer. Tyrenius 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has zero hits with Google Scholar and the EBSCO academic search engine. Non-notable. Ted 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per User:Vizjim's reasons. DakPowers (Talk) 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of comments by 7258. Tyrenius 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dongo[edit]

Hoax or joke article. I can find nothing anywhere to back up the artificial intelligence angle. Note that the "unofficial fansite" points directly to WP:V. The "Linux thing" line was added only after I asked the creator if the page was a joke. Joyous! | Talk 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Holy frijoles, delete! It's |_| that close to a speedy deletion candidate, but hoax isn't grounds for deletion and the article just avoids being patent nonsense. -- Kicking222 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Joke article, and not funny enough to BJAODN. The only amusing part is that the "unofficial fansite" link points to WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and why does the official fansite link to WP:V? Ydam 15:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a waste of time. Tyrenius 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Ted 16:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax, the longer it stays here, the more tarnished your reputation becomes The Fish 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about Wikipedia's reputation, why did you create the article in the first place? Joyous! | Talk 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article's creator says that it's a hoax, can the thing just be speedy deleted? Joyous! | Talk 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete See {{db-author}}. Only author(s) requesting deletion. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was'Speedy Delete--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BDWiki[edit]

Non-notable site for a non-notable role playing group. Low Alexa rating (in the vicinity of 1,900,000 or so) supports this. Crystallina 13:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very non-notable. It only started a month ago, but even if it had been around for years, I would still vote for deletion. -- Kicking222 13:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A wiki for an IRC channel?! That's gotta be among the least notable things I've seen here in awhile. Fails WP:WEB by miles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small, new, unknown. Tyrenius 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Article is A7. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Extreme[edit]

Entirely non-notable web forum. As far as I can tell, this is the main page, and these are the forums, which have only 38 members. I'm not usually one to dismiss something for not being "notable", but 38 members is utterly insignificant. Delete. bainer (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination definitely says it all on this one. -- Kicking222 14:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles 14:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there's some noughts on the end of the 38. Tyrenius 16:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Qualifies as A7, no contest to lack of notability claim. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 10:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACOC[edit]

Delete or Merge - the organization itself doesn't seem notable, but the college does. Crystallina 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Spirit (Madonna song)[edit]

"Fighting Spirit" is a bonus track available only on a limited edition version of Confessions on a Dancefloor. It's not a single, there is no video, it's not being remixed for clubs. The article isn't formatted correctly and there is no infobox. Nice song, but not notable. -- eo 14:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Berger[edit]

This is a stub, appears to be a vanity article, and doesn't seem to fit the criteria for notability. Pastafarian Nights 07:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as db-bio (no claim to notability). ... discospinster 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the stub undersells him, as he has some decent credits to his name. Certainly not speedy. Check out his site. Tyrenius 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Peta 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 8 Conference[edit]

I know people insist that high schools are notable, but are their athletic conferences? I don't think that they are. Metros232 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think so, either. College conferences in and of themselves aren't that notable, as a conference is just a list of schools. They become notable in college because of famous tournaments, teams, alumni, and rivalries. It's rather hard to assert those things for high school. You're also not going to find many web or print resources relating to high school athletics. -- Kicking222 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kicking222 nn --Jaranda wat's sup 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish therapy[edit]

Nonsense. Kpalion 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, clean up and move. The article as written is nonsense, but contains a seed of truth. A Google search shows that there does appear to be spiritually based therapy catering to Orthodox/Hasidic Jews. I don't think that factoid warrants an article, but if there's a mention of other spiritually based therapy modalities (as in 12-step programs) elsewhere, this one might be included in such a list. Pastafarian Nights 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable joke - if not needs rewrite with WP:RS Crum375 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be established. As it stands, the current article reads as original research. —Viriditas | Talk 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research due to lack of sources—unless someone cares to write a good stub referenced to reliable sources prior to expiration of AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unverifiable original research. Pecher Talk 07:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. --Strothra 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Big Brother UK series 7. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Thomas[edit]

Non notible Big Brother 7 housemate. -- 9cds(talk) 15:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Merge Merge and Redirect with Big Brother UK series 7 as per the precendent for all other housemates in big brother in previous series. Even winners don't have articles. An article is only justified if they achieve notability once outside the house. Ydam 15:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of information, all winners except Anthony (BB6, 2005) appear to have articles. He was made Young People's Ambassador for Consett [13], so surely it must be a shoo-in? --Ross UK 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I guess I should take a closer look at more than just the previous series. I should point out that the winners from series 1-3 became tv presenters in some capacity or another so I suppose they achieved notability outside the house. Still if this person goes on to win then they may deserve an article but until then they're NN Ydam 10:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of an article even on Miss Wales seems to indicate not. Nice pic though. Tyrenius 18:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (article started after this post Tyrenius 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Super Weak Keep as a former miss Wales. --Eivindt@c 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Ydam. jgp 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes the numa numa test - is more notable than Numa Numa
  • Speedy redirect This comes up every year. Non-notable game show contestant. Redirect to series. Mrsteviec 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Orlaith McAllister of last year had a similar profile to her i.e beauty queen/celebrity gossip and she wasn't notable enough for her own article either. Her limited profile can go on the main BB2007 article. Mrsteviec 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles for about half the winners of Miss America so far, including some with no real claims of notability beyond the title (Marilyn Meseke, Yolande Betbeze, Evelyn Margaret Ay, etc.). There's also a succession box for the title. As such, the answer to your question would seem to be "yes", by precedent. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. I stand corrected I suppose... Barbara Osgood 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - if the Miss Wales competition doesn't have its own article, then the winners shouldn't either, unless they do anything noteworthy. Going by the precedents of previous Big Brother contestants, this should be merged with Big Brother UK series 7 until such time as she is noteworthy in her own right. Robwingfield (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a Miss Wales article at the time you posted this, although it was admittedly rather small. I've gone ahead and expanded it a bit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on that basis. As long as this doesn't set a precedent for other BB articles. I started this and a few other BB7 contestant articles, but in hindsight, that was perhaps wrong. I now favour the approach of redirects to the BB7 article, unless the contestant is noteworthy for any other reason, such as Imogen for he Miss Wales victory. Robwingfield (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep change vote in the light of Miss Wales and Big Brother. Double whammy. Tyrenius 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as she won the Miss Wales, so, she is notable. Carioca 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - For the moment.... If she becomes really famous (like Jade) after or even during the time in the house, then we can create a new article for her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.96.197 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge & Redirect - yep, create an article if she becomes notable in some other way. THE KING 04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy as a copyvio. - ulayiti (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards Into The Future: The Recorded History of the Firesign Theatre[edit]

Advertising - Text is completely copied from source page Dan (Talk)|@ 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising Ydam 16:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if it's a cut and paste job then it's a copyvio. Flagged as such. --Bachrach44 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Tyrenius 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio [14]. GarrettTalk 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Soul, The Memoir of a Navy SEAL[edit]

Advertising in the form of back cover text Skysmith 16:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under Other Skies. -- RHaworth 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Other Skies[edit]

Blatant advertising (article created by the book's author or his agent) for a not-yet published book. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrior Soul, The Memoir of a Navy SEAL. -- RHaworth 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 21:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ImageShack[edit]

Neatly written, but doesn't merit an article about it.Tyrenius 16:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn. Sorry - I made a mistake in googling the name. (Embarrassment) Tyrenius 16:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why do you think it doesn't merit an article? According to Alexa, over 8,000 pages link to it. That's not utterly insignificant. Pastafarian Nights 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much traffic as photobucket, used in many high traffic communities, established site at 2.5 years service. If someone has an issue with this, why don't they come out and say it rather than making up garbage and obviously false reasons for deletion. --Crossmr 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close this AfD Googling "ImageShack" (in quotes) gets 15.8 MILLION hits. Alexa ranks imageshack.us at 93 [15]. NINETY-THREE! And that's not even in the US- that's worldwide. If this article goes, then the article on every single web site, including Wikipedia, should go. -- Kicking222 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that deletion is being pushed by people who have obviously been here awhile and should have the common sense to see that this is a notable site. --Crossmr 16:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wrong google To err is human... AGF Tyrenius 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither keep nor delete, I instead vote for all of Wikipedia's multitudinous contributors to point at Tyrenius and giggle. Vizjim 18:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your idea made me giggle. :-) Tyrenius 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 04:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard Of Odd's Forum[edit]

Delete. As Robmods prod'ed: "Non notable internet forum." No claim to notability. Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of over 4 million. discospinster 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 16:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Reason: Kieron Gillen once posted on Wizard's Forum. Cheye 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not deleteReason: It is important that this page is preserved, wiggle's forum is a ground breaking development in youth and homoerotica Craigp —This comment was really added by anonymous User:172.200.236.214

  • Do not delete Reason: Forum has been mentioned in Pc Gamer UK before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.64.160 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not delete Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to chronicle everything? If you delete this page, you're deleting the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.170.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Well below the notability threshhold. Could probably have been speedied, since nothing in the article strikes me as an assertion of notability. --RobthTalk 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Reason: "Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to chronicle everything? If you delete this page, you're deleting the spirit of wikipedia."Flongoid 17:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Significant part of UK internet underground, behind veneer of irresponsibilty is a critical part of the infrastructure of various memes and counter-cuulture vis-a-vis (particually) PCGF. Dunkyb 18:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Robth's reasoning. Vizjim 18:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no suitable reason has been given why this satifies WP:WEB (This is going to be another one of those with no Keep votes again isin't it.) Ydam 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from their forum [16] The challenge is not to get the thing deleted. Just make stuff up if you have to. Say about charitable donations or something. That's not going to work guys everything here has to be verifiable per WP:V Ydam 19:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB and is, for the most part, unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ydam: You do realise that was a totally sarcastic comment don't, hence the presence of the ¬_¬

  • Do not delete Reason: WoO's forum is listed in the download information for a file downloaded by over 30,000 people int total from the torrent sites of Empornium and PureTNA. None of which are asociated with the forum. Denying these people the history and information of that file would go against the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, WoO's forum recives nearly weekley coverage in PC Gamer UK. Coverage on either the forum itself, or it users. And also, does it do any harm if this webpage exists or not?TwistyMcNoggins 23:014, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


"Non notable internet forum." sorry, but what? Wizards forum is imfamous!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.52.232 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete yet another minor forum that has no impact outside its core group of users. Joyous! | Talk 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the terrible alexa rank, and all the newbie Do Not Delete votes (a sure sign of nn). --eivindt@c 23:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete http://www.empornium.us/details.php?id=68033 20k unique hits, over 50k downloads over about 5 different sites. Thats quite a big impact outside of the core members. Weekly mentions in a national independant games magazine. Again, a much wider impact than just the members. What more do you need? :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.64.160 (talk • contribs)
  • "yet another minor forum that has no impact outside its core group of users" But what if those core users and the daily influx of new ones want to check out the history of this site? Once again, I pose the question "What harm does this page exisisting cause?"TwistyMcNoggins This edit was actually made by User:Wizard's Forum
  • Delete. If the core users and new users of the Wizard of Odd's Forum want to look up the history of the forum, that information should be posted on the Wizard of Odd's Forum. Few web forums are notable enough to warrant encyclopedia articles. --Metropolitan90 02:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Protect Site is A7 non-notable (Fails WP:WEB) and is attracting meatpuppetry. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to duplicate version with proper case. Rob 16:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Hills and Far Away (song)[edit]

Over the Hills and Far Away (song) is the more appropriate title. JB82 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver J. Y. Denton[edit]

Oliver J. Y. Denton aka;

is a 24-year old founder of the "Speakers Corner Independent Youth think-tank", which he claims is the only "youth think tank" in the UK and which oddly only has a rather incomplete website, and indeed appears to consist of a single member. The only other crossreference is the vanity note that he added to the Hindenburg (airship) article [17] [18] promoting his own book (I don't know if this was vanity pressed or not, but it seems unlikely that if it accurate he was the first to notice). He has also violated WP:3RR on Giggleswick School. — Dunc|☺ 16:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Egads, delete! (Or, speedy delete if it can be wedged into any of the CSD criteria.) Non-notable bio whose only asserted importance is both made up of lies and vanity. -- Kicking222 16:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GigglesDelete - per above. Wickethewok 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and beware sockpuppetry. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD:A7 + {{hoax}}. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smackers[edit]

Was prodded (by me) but the tag was removed. Copy and pasted from Lip Balm Anonymous ("Our primary purpose is to stay free from lip balm and to help others achieve the same freedom.") I could be wrong, but since that's not a specifically commercial site, I don't think it qualifies for a copyvio speedy. An article at slightly more correct title Lip Smackers containing similarly worded criticism of the brand was turned into a redirect to Lip gloss last month. Vary | Talk 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crum375 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nom. --Dakart 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban art movement[edit]

This movement is non notable. It was named by a person whose article is under AfD for being non notable. If a non notable person names a non notable movement...I think that pretty much calls for a deletion. IrishGuy 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, well said. Wickethewok 17:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. no rs, or, short Crum375 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no substantiation of this. Tyrenius 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NB : There are various groups or types of art which have been categorized as "urban art movements"; however, this is a term which is used to highlight their similarity (of methods, resources, etc) rather than to imply that they are parts of a cohesive whole, as this article does. In any case : neologism, nonnotable, better covered in other articles (cf. Guerilla marketing). Docether 17:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the nomination. -- Mikeblas 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Adrift* 02:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban goth[edit]

As opposed to Rural goth or suburban goth? This is another article (by one of two users) about a non notable and unverifiable genre. IrishGuy 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not even sure exactly what this is an article for. Is it for a music scene or is it for a style of clothing? The article is based on Original Research and the Sources don't point to what the article is about. There's nothing on Hot Topic's website that I can find that mentions "Urban Goth", The link to the Will Cristopher book review uses the following adjectives "heavy" and "urban" with the noun "Goth" to describe the mood of the novels, it doesn't specify a new genre classification "Urban Goth". The Urban Goth Apparel website is a normal online Gothic clothing website. The Artamatik source simply gives a link to the same Urban Goth Apparel website I just mentioned. The two Alexandre Plokohov articles don't mention anything about "Urban Goth", he's a designer who makes "Goth-influenced" clothing. The candisc.com link appears to be a CD/DVD replicating website that mentions its replicated cds for a number of different genres "ranging from rock to country, jazz to hip hop, and classical to urban goth"... It seems rather obvious that urban goth here isn't referring to a specific genre dependent of Goth, but again, an adjective before the noun Goth. It appears to me that most of the citation was taken at random from a simple search on a search engine for anything that had both the words "Urban" and "Goth".--Adrift* 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a 'dictionary' definition for it. I am not sure if it's a really 'notable' genre yet. Crum375 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, but it's in reference to Cyber (subculture) which already has an article, and I personally find any reference you can find in the Urban Dictionary to be contentious at best. Have you read some of its entries? Here's one for the 3rd entry to Cyber Goth on the Urban Dictionary: Usually either very tall or short, so will wear massive boots to make them selfs look either REALLY tall or just a bit smaller than everyone else. Is also usually more arrogant than normal goths, ie will only talk to you if you like anything really dark or horrible, or like put fuck loads of drugs down your throught every weekend. note: can also be pronounced cyber-gaff just for a laff. even more basically, a goth who goes to raves "oi hugo, get that puppie out of the oven, you fucking crazy cyber-goth!"
Doesn't exactly seem like an encyclopedic reference if you ask me.--Adrift* 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's a matter of notability - a subculture can still be notable - the question is how many members (I think 10,000 would be a good start) and can it be reliably verified. Crum375 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (still no opinion)[reply]
  • Comment - The article fails to establish what country(ies) this sub-culture occurs in, and also what differentiates "Urban Goth", from the more common "goth" - (which from personal experience I KNOW was around at least 15 years earlier than cited). Cptoatsy 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I think this article doesn't have enough context for me to even be sure what exactly it is supposed to be about. Mangojuicetalk 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then convert into a redirect to Urban Gothic, a UK television series. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Peta 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tuesday[edit]

Unsigned Indie band, that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject & does not show verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC blue520 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the associated album Day In, Day Out by the band.--blue520 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability made in article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just Googled this as a starting point, plenty of hits but not only are there other uses of the phrase, there is also at least one band using this name.Ac@osr 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just Googled it also. The number of hits mean nothing in terms of notability—and yes, there is a band, but it's not notable, so that's why the article is up for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what I mean is that, due to the various uses of the phrase, including its use by another band, it would be difficult for anyone other than the original author or someone else who already knows of the group to bring the article up to scratch. Ac@osr 20:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article doesn't exhibit the slightest amount of notability, and Delete Day In, Day Out, as it's a non-notable album by a non-notable band. -- Kicking222 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned. DVD+ R/W 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established in article. --Strothra 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 02:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One-time characters from The Simpsons[edit]

  • Delete: This list is useless since The Simpsons has hundreds of one-time characters that are not that important, it conflicts with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not where it says this is a textbook "indiscriminate collection of information" and is mostly fancruft. But the end result remains an encyclopedic fancrufty list. mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am in no way an obsessive Simpsons fan, and in fact have never seen an episode. I couldn't tell you who the supporting characters were; however, I find this interesting, encyclopedic, and not at all cruft. Cruft would be having detailed articles on every single one-time character. A list acknowledges them in one page in the necessary detail. Crystallina 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the list was close to complete, I would agree with your comment, but on a second thought, I think that there are more then just a couple of hundreds of one-time characters that are not in the list --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love The Simpsons with a fiery passion- Matt Groening is a god. With that said, I have no choice but to vote delete, as this really is an indiscriminate info collection. There are hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of one-off characters. For every Frank Grimes, there are dozens of characters who had one line. What about guest stars? They're one-time characters. This list could go on and on, and the point is that if none of the characters would be notable enough for a WP article by themselves, the sum of these characters does not equal a single notable article. -- Kicking222 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Beno1000 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft Bwithh 18:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Anchoress 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because almost every item is referenced to a specific episode, and this article thus at least meets the spirit of WP:V and WP:CITE. This does not meet that I think any article meeting WP:V and WP:CITE should necessarily be kept, but it weighs heavily in the balance. I rather like well-researched articles on obscure topics. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hate most lists, but this one seems legit enough. Imagine the howling if each of these got an article on their own, since that's the logical alternative. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I can't believe this. Between this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of significant others of Friends, AfD is now striking against the character lists it had once encouraged for fear of having individual articles on these characters. The Simpsons especially is such a notable show that these characters are probably widely recognized and notable. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Simpsoncruft. They don't need individual articles, they don't need a list, this is of general interest to no one outside of hardcore Simpsons fans. Have you ever heard of The Simpsons Archive? Danny Lilithborne 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is very informitive, encyclopedic and has a purpose. Deleting it because another page has simular information is very silly. If The Simpsons is well known enough to have articles on each of its episodes, then we shouldn't delete this article. Spongesquid 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete. —Viriditas | Talk 23:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Kaizersoze 23:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why on earth is this even being considered for deletion? The basis that "there's so many one time characters in the Simpsons that it doesn't even matter" is absurd. It completely contradicts the entire purpose of Wikipedia, which is to bring people ALL forms valid of information available. A listing of characters that actually appeared on the show, even if it was once is valid information. I really think more people need to take the time to really understand what the word "fancruft" means. A listing of characters who actually appeared on the show isn't fancruft, thats just general information...I can't make up the fact Allison Taylor was actually a character on the show even if she appeared only once. What if some person came on the website, and thought "I wonder what was the name of so and so from that episode where Lisa meets her match." and find that this character has no page of their own...and that the character isn't even listed in a list. This isn't Simpsoncruft, its a general list of one time characters BECAUSE of the fact they don't require their own individual pages. Where else is that information going to be put if thats the case other than a single list? . This list is neither pointless nor is it fan based, its a general listing of characters who don't need their own page. This page is not just for the die hard Simpsons fans, the show is so well known and everyone has some fond memory of it that they'll no doubt come to wikipedia to look up some random bit of information on it and one time characters fits that bill. Thats the whole reason I made the character template, so that not only are the individual profiles easilly accessed....but the lists to the minor charactes not listed there are also ready for easy access. This isn't maintaining valid information folks, this is blatantly sacrificing the integrity of a wikipedia meta-article for the sake of cleanliness. Its not right. This doesn't conflict with what wikipedia is not at all because its all basic and valid information. What are we just going to just pretend whole characters don't exist just because they don't warrent their own page? If anything, thats against what wikipedia is. Yes, there's Simpson websites where this information can be accessed...but since when did Wikipedia become a place that tells people looking for info on something to "look somewhere else". I mean..honestly. If a character that doesn't warrent their own page gets one we'll deal with it (like the case with Ling Bouvier), but deleting this whole page because its supposedly "irrelevant" is irresponsible. --Kiyosuki 01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the purpose of Wikipedia is not "to bring people ALL forms valid of information available." I wish people would stop inventing new missions for Wikipedia, when the mission has always been to be a "free encyclopedia." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is longstanding policy. We can certainly discuss whether this particular article is encyclopedic or not, but it is plain wrong to say Wikipedia's mission is to include all valid forms of information. Wikipedia's mission is to include those forms of information that belong in an encyclopedia.Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is, is that if this place is supposed to be an encyclopedia...the deletion of this page would be a terrible waste of valid information that exists whether people like it or not. If this was a page about something that was really unecessary like complete fan created info or every single character ever including background characters, then it'd be different. But these are characters that as stated...had an impact on the episode they were in even if it was only one. They had personalities, voices, and a purpose. The deletion of this page is a total lack of foresight and common sense. Everyone would constantly come and create either this page, or individual pages for whatever character they didn't find on here over and over again. Its stuff that was actually in the show, and had some weight so its not just going to go away. I admit that my opinion of what this place is isn't flawless, but I whole heartedly think its more accurate than the nearsighted logic behind the decision to question this page's validity.--Kiyosuki 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I took a look at the "indiscriminate list of information" section of WP:NOT, and it says, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". I would say this list fits that pretty well, because of the phenomenal popularity of The Simpsons. --Joelmills 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Joelmills. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, either. jgp 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom, pointless list. --Strothra 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crystallina. Lbbzman 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -JYOuyang 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joelmills. Crazysunshine 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Joelmills. Tyrenius 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is important to note that many of these one time characters played significant roles in their respective episodes, and furthermore that many of them were voiced by very notable celebrities. This, combined with Joelmills argument, leads me to a keep. CharacterZero | Speak 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this is 1 of about 5 (one time, recurring, list of characters, animals, LBGT, etc.) character lists from the Simpsons that is about to get cleaned up... see Wikiproject The Simpsons (just recently hijacked from orphan status)... - Adolphus79 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's lots of useful information. if it was on the main Simpsons page I'd say delete or merge, but since it's its own page, I think it's fine. --Awiseman 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I want you to keep this list. It is very neat. I find it troublesome that just because somebody doesn't want this article here, means we have to go through an entire debate about it. --Matthew Jones, 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that a few other people have 'voted' delete, and therefore it's not just one person. If everyone had voted keep, I or another administrator probably would have stepped in and closed the AFD early. Proto||type 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The alternative is a hellish cruftpit of articles for each one-time character, to which we do not want to return. People will insist on this stuff being somewhere, so I'd rather see it concentrated into one article. A valuable dumping ground for redirects. Proto||type 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could do with sorting in some fashion however, possibly alphabetical or by episode production order. Also merge the articles this links to into the list (e.g. Mojo) QmunkE 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will (E@) T 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CNichols 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Kiyosuki. Sums up my entire feeling of people wanting to edit out pages not relevant to THEM, but certainly informative to others. -- buckyboy28 18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It could do with some cleanup, and perhaps Cecil deserves his own entry. But keep because it's The Simpsons, really, and it's huge popularity means that this kind of information will have more use than, say, my village's entry... Perks 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 69.138.229.246 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "First they came for the fancruft, and I did not speak out because I didn't contribute to that list..." God forbid we start hunting for airplanecruft, because "who's ever heard of the Noratlas, anyhow? del, NN" - Saaber 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair 04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Disk is cheap and this article is both useful and long enough that it represents a considerable amount of someone's time. (No _real_ need to delete anything useful that isn't inaccurate, spam/vanity, or illegal.) Bryce 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Da Earth[edit]

Delete - Non-notable website/group. 2 google hits. Wickethewok 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Viriditas | Talk 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto. --Dakart 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 non-notable group. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Staunch[edit]

Prod contested, bringing here. WP:BIO appears to be missed by a mile. Article states this guy is a darling of the conservative movement, with a radio show et al. Google search comes up with one lonely reference and nothing for the radio show. The article also contains just enough questionable content to make me wonder if it's a hoax. Delete Tony Fox 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete... sooo close to a speedy deletion candidate as nonsense Hahahaha! This is hilarious! But not BJAODN hilarious- just "Does this guy expect anyone to believe this article?" hilarious. Three Google hits; article full of POV; this guy rose to the rank of Kid Rock's assistant; refers to "presidential candidate Alfonse Gore"; etc, etc, etc. -- Kicking222 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even if it's not technically meeting CSD, can we just say it's close enough to kill it now? The Nixon award mentioned doesn't even exist! -- Kicking222 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax (this is the only google hit: [19] ) otherwise nn no rs pov etc. Crum375 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. —Viriditas | Talk 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've reverted to a version before the following was all done:

*I say keep it. A fine addition to the academic fortitude of this online institution. Without the entry of Bentley Staunch this online database borderd on the realms of academic suicide (comment from User:67.68.47.60, replacing the first comment from User:Kicking222)
* It's true; Bentley Staunch is the leading voice of conservatism in Tulsa, Oklahoma and perhaps even nationwide. There's so few google hits because Mr. Staunch doesn't believe in the internet (he thinks that sharing information for free is just one step away from Leninism). (comment from User:70.29.55.131, replacing the original deletion reason)
*Comment Bravo Mr. Fox. I say the level of grassroots support seen from the moral majority (if i may quote the late Richard Nixon) in cyberspace, despite the inherent socialist bias of the medium, is no doubt indicative that the real majority in America may be tuned into Mr. Staunch through the internet, but rather, we connect with Mr. Staunch through something far more inportant, our hearts. May I remind you that George Washington once said of situations like this:

 	"Thou who, sinless, yet hast known
 	All of man’s infirmity!
 	Then, from Thine eternal throne,
 	Jesus, look with pitying eye."

I think the use who put this entry up for deletion needs to read the previous passage very seriously. (comment from User:67.68.47.60, represented as being from User:Kicking222)

    • I'll be posting vandalism warnings on the above IP addresses shortly. Tony Fox 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Peta 06:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undoubtably a hoax Bejnar 16:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Party pills. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Ohms[edit]

This page was listed for cleanup because it reads like an ad, but as far as I can see it's completely unreferenced, unverifiable, and most likely NN. Beno1000 18:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fadianism[edit]

Hoax Belief. Even if it does exist doesn't register any google hits so its unverifiable & non notable Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—or should I say "anathematize"?—per nom. Even granting the very slim probability that this isn't a hoax, "several" adherents does not notability make. —Zero Gravitas 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. --- Comment: Not to be confused with Fabianism. Austrian 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I probably would have tried to see if any admins would agree to a speedy, since it lacks any reasonable assertion of notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure original research, if it's not a hoax. —Viriditas | Talk 19:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, and possibly a joke.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as CSD:A7 non-notable. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code Majic[edit]

Violates the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy (WP:NOT). It also doesn't do much to establish notability. The references are a possible saving point, but it's not enough for myself. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. I tried just removing blatant self-promotion/advertising but it doesn't look hopeful. Ifnord 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main problem, besides lack of notablity, is that the device is not yet released, nor is there complete certainty that it will be released at all. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 20:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Volkov[edit]

Probable hoax wrestler. Non-notable at best. References provided are all Wikipedia links which contains the same unverifiable content. The only non-wikipedia link of a site that is "coming soon". I think we can wait. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mijo feo[edit]

"trying to start a band"? That does not look like a notable musician, but please convince me that I am wrong Austrian 19:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No one is notable based purely on the fact that they're on MySpace, and that seems to be the only thing Mijo has going. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7 non-notable, fails WP:BAND, plus above comments. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Raleigh[edit]

Subject doesn't seem particularly notable. Feels too much like an article created to advertise her campaign for judge. Metros232 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crum375 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not quite notable yet, but she did have a role to play as assistant attorney general in a 1999 lawsuit against Rite Aid. —Viriditas | Talk 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. She holds a crucial post and had a role to play in a notable lawsuit. To me, she seems notable enough. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as things stand, unless there is more verified information to establish the need for an article. Tyrenius 13:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A section of her homepage lists some publication credits in legal journals (link, scroll down to bottom). These might or might not qualify her under authorship guidelines. I don't know the magazines in question, so I can't say for sure. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 06:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushnell view of 1 Corinthians 11[edit]

The reason for deletion should be pretty obvious. If it isn't then let me just say that it

  • Is an article about a fairly non-notable person's opinion about a single chapter of the bible.

Its basically a notability thing.

Unbelievably tiny parts of the article could possibly be salvaged for a Feminist Christianity article. Clinkophonist 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The basis for this deletion is that non-notability is a reason for deletion - and I agree the article is nn. However, there is no policy against nn content. Let me repeat: Content is not invalid because it is nn. Since WP has a policy about everything, there would surely be policy if this were the consensus. There is no shortage of long-standing nn articles. ([[%100_hamburger]]) What makes this one different? In order to be deleted, an article must contain one of the [Problems that may require deletion], an element of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or another policy. See Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If an article can be written about every simpsons character, (which the previous article encourages!) why not a little known interpretation of a Biblical passage? May I stress that to delete this article under the guise of nn is no better than forking. If anyone believes nn is a reason for deletion (and you're not alone in that opinion) go try and change policy - don't work against policy behind its back. --Ephilei 23:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV fork.--Peta 06:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was redirected to List of shopping malls in Georgia, follow the redirect back if you want anything from the old article to merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

A more comprehensive list exists at List_of_shopping_malls_in_Georgia. Perhaps the list there could be moved to this one I'm nominating if you all think it is more appropriate for the article to distinguish itself as being about the state and not the nation. Metros232 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Delete I think the important info here should be moved to List_of_shopping_malls_in_Georgia and then that article should be renamed to this one. --Dakart 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom and Dakart. —Viriditas | Talk 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom and User:Dakart. jgp 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge useless list. --Strothra 02:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unhelpful list that doesn't even come close to listing all the malls in Georgia. Zaxem 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Shadow[edit]

MySpace band with no assertion of notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this was deleted. It is indeed a band, and if you go to their site they actually do have music.

And I have seen shorter, less informative, wikis such as the Vicarious Visions article.

But, this band is real, and I have verification of their actual identities. Also, I am most definately not one of the band members my name is Mario Lucero, and I have know the members of said band. but, they are a real band and others have seen them and they have developed a small fanbase. Just check around their myspace. Smile Lee | 2006-05-21 19:22 UTC

  • Comment. Looking at the fact the Smile Lee for some reason had a comment here before anyone had a chance to AfD the article, it would seem that it may have been previously deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was up for deletion previously, and before I had a chance to comment it was deleted. I have since expanded the article to be more informative, but I didn't delete the AfD warning. And, it isn't a myspace band, they are a local band from New Mexico. They just happened to have opened a MySpace, and is the only official page by them. Smile Lee | 2006-05-21 19:30 UTC
  • Comment. By MySpace band, I mean that MySpace seems to be primary provider of any recognition or search engine hits they have. You've given no reason that they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, please sign comments with ~~~~ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They are worth noting because they have developed a fanbase, and are beginning to become recognized. Smile Lee | 19:36, 21 May 2006
  • Comment. What about:

Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. Smile Lee | 19:43, 21 May 2006

They don't seem old enough to have created pieces that are used as standards. For an extreme example, that would be more along the lines of Stairway to Heaven. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I forgot to mention "Your Grace". It is now in the article... my bad lol. That is the song that is standard, you can hear it in most SDA churches during Song Service.
  • Delete - no touring, no album, article admits lack of notability; The band is seldom known outside of their territory. The much vaunted myspace page has 483 views. Mine has more and was started a fortnight later. Ac@osr 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They have had shows, and isn't that the point of a local band to be noted locally. If you go outside of the gaming community most people wouldn't know Shigeru Miyamoto. Under the Shadow is gaining popularity within New Mexico, and with "Your Grace" within the SDA Church. Smile Lee | 19:55, 21 May 2006
  • Comment. Miyamoto is known world-wide by many people. A small band known locally to some people within that region is not notable. The Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and doesn't include every little group of people everywhere on the planet; it only includes those things which are notable. There's a reason the criteria on WP:Music exist. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And I know you can't have every little band, but this is the band that wrote "Your Grace". This is their most notable song, if you go to a Seventh Day Adventist church you will probably hear the song in their service. Smile Lee | 20:01, 21 May 2006
  • Comment - Google search for "Under The Shadow", "Your Grace" and "Seventh Day Adventist". [36]. Enough said. Ac@osr 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable band- even their MySpace doesn't have that many friends. -- Kicking222 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can't find all worship songs, their artist(s), and the church it's most commonly used with and come up with results. Search for "Jesus, how I Love Thee" "Southern Baptist" and you'll see what I mean, or even try baptist, and you won't find the song. Smile Lee | 20:11, 21 May 2006
  • Delete Completely non-notable band- even their MySpace doesn't have that many friends. They have no record label, and the article doesn't state that they've released an album. Enough said. -- Kicking222 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an up and coming band. They seem to have merit in saying what they are saying and also who cares if their MySpace doesn't have many friends. They even said in their article they aren't that well known yet. So at least give the article a chance. And plus they at least have 10 or so songs listed. That gives them some merit.

Monkeyfloop

  • Delete, as the above comments make perfectly clear. "Up and coming" bands are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Only established bands should be here. Wikipedia is not in the business of free advertising. Please see WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not advertising anything. Who would use an online encyclopedia for advertisement? And if they do, they wouldn't do it about a band that they aren't even part of. I have headrd their music, and I think they are worthy of note. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 02:27 UTC
  • Delete - Up and coming bands are not notable. They have to have been already up and have come already. Can there be a CSD where an article has the phrase "up and coming"? Wickethewok 23:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also - can't this be speedied for reposted content? Wickethewok 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons stated above. DVD+ R/W 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"

I think this article should be kept because they are a growing band, they also have good music, meaningful lyrics, and have a fanbase. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 02:27 UTC

    • Comment - "meaningful lyrics" and "good music" are not criteria. It would be absurd to keep this article based on such opinions. Also, having a fanbase is not meaningful criteria either. You must have a substantial fanbase. Wickethewok 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Must I say this again, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."

That comes from the WP:MUSIC. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 04:13 UTC

  • Comment. Right, it's open to interpretation based on the particular situation at hand. However, in this particular situation I and the others who've said "delete" have not seen any reason why the criteria should not be used in this case. You havn't really presented any either. There are sooooooo many "up and coming bands" out there; besides the hearsay about some church using their songs, what have these guys done that any of the others havn't to deserve an article? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never said that they are better than anyone else, other up and coming bands can probably have wikis too. Also, the Seventh Day Adventist church is a world wide denomination. I am not a part of their religion, organized religion is not for me. But, that is more of a side note. Other bands can have wikis, it is never stated that they can't.

^Suggestion I think the criterion for a local band could be:

  • They have more than 4 songs made and have had at least one play on a regional radio station.
  • They have appeared in a live performance as a band and performed works of their own on stage as a group.
  • They have song samples on hand.
  • Some form of band owned website, the band owned website needs to have info on the band, and it's member(s).
  • And lyrics on hand, and the lyrics must be understandable with thoughtfulness obviously put into them.
  • They must also have plans to expand outside of their region.

Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 04:30 UTC

    • Comment - These would qualify every band in the world. Heck, even I would qualify for that... Wickethewok 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again. You're not comprehending something very important here. The Wikipedia doesn't just keep articles on every topic under the sun because it can. The Articles for Deletion process is largely to get rid of articles of subjects that don't have enough notability. You seem to want the band to get a wiki article just because it can. If that worked, my left foot would have an article (and I must admit it did; for a few minutes, and not of my own creating). Read WP:NOT and WP:Notability. The Wikipedia seeks to have articles only on things of encyclopedic value. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a difference though, your left foot hasn't written music, formed a band, played in front of an audience, or been played on the radio. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 04:52 UTC
    • Comment - Well, he's given as much proof of notability for his left foot as you have for your band... Wickethewok 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not my band!

I have given reasons for notability; They have more than 10 songs made, they have appeared in a live performances of some sort, they have song samples on hand, a band owned website, they have plans to expand to become a more nationally known band, continued to get more shows at various places, the song entitled "Your Grace" is becoming a notable worship song within' the Seventh Day Adventist church, lyrics are on hand, and links.

Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 05:17 UTC

    • Comment. I performed in front of a rather large audience during a school play when I was young, have written several (poor) short stories, and plan to become Emperor of the Solar System. Again, you've provided no good evidence that "Your Grace" provides them with any notablity, and besides that all you've said is that they plan to become notable. Many small bands perform in front of local audiences, but that doesn't mean they're of any slight encyclopedic notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Their lyrics aren't that bad, and their music is pretty good. And your feet didn't do the acting, you did, and your feet don't plan to to become Emperor of the Solar System I do... I mean, You Do. And I'm sure people weren't looking at you feet during the play, they were looking at you. And you can write about yourself, in your talk page. And I'm sure the school play went swimmingly :). And writing stories and songs is different, I definately couldn't do it lol.

It (Notablity) differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important. (WP:Notability) Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 05:53 UTC

  • The Article is also not an indiscriminate collection of information

Quoted from WP:NOT

1. It doesn't List of Frequently Asked Questions.

2. It doesn't list loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons.

3. It doesn't use loosely accociated information on small details like numbers, addresses, etc.

4. It isn't a Memorials.

5. It isn't a news reports.

6. Does not have genealogical entries, or phonebook entries.

7. It does not advertise future showings of the band, and does not contain any promos.

8. It isn't an instruction manual.

9. And it is most definately not an Internet guide. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 05:59 UTC

  • Comment. We're not discussing how good their lyrics or music are, but how notable. Notable. Notable. Notable. Notable. Notable. You still havn't said why they're any more notable than every other band that has aspirations of making it big. Your only piece of support for notability so far is that the church whose name I forget is using their song, but you've given no evidence of that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment

It (Notablity) differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important. (WP:Notability) Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 06:05 UTC

  • Comment. Does not alter your lack of supporting arguments for notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh and about Seventh-day Adventists they are one of the largest protestant denominations worldwide. And you've never heard of them? Well you can read up on them, they are an interesting religion. And it doesn't change my arguements. But it does show that you don't need to be importantyou just need to have done something that interesting and knowledgable. Plus, there is argument based on what notability is. But, most of the time it is from a reputable source. And what more reputible source than the people, fans and critics, which their myspace is full of. A secondary source can; be a large group of people more than 100 in number, a recognized newpaper, and/or many other sources. And the source I have used is a group of people. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 06:18 UTC
  • Almost Done, but not defeated! I guess I'll leave this up to the mods from here on out, I hope I have made my points clear. And if I haven't please message me about the subject, either here on wiki, or in my e-mail at: [email protected]

Well, may God Bless wiki and everyone involved, as it is quite the information database, and if you find my article to be not well written or uncyclopedically written please give me tips on how to fix it. You could, maybe if it isn't too much trouble, even help sort the information by editing the Under the Shadow article to make it better. Or maybe even just send it to cleanup. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 07:01 UTC

  • Delete small beginning band with insufficient reputation and impact at the moment to justify an article. If they play at churches, then I suggest the info is put into a church article. Tyrenius 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (Reiterated) Keep! This band ,like Smile Lee has said over and over again, has been played on the radio and has preformed in front of an audience. If they were just some random garage band that had written no songs and not preformed then that would be different. They have merit because they are actually a working band. Monkeyfloop

    • Comment. Note that Monkeyfloop has already voiced a Keep in this discussion ;). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes i have already voted a keep but i would actually like to see an article be kept on the site. :) Monkeyfloop

  • Thanks

Monkeyfloop for taking my side on this band, I am going to change that vote to a reiterated vote with a strond feeling.

But, I am impressed in Consumed Crustacean's will to keep Wiki a trustworthy site of note, and I do respect that. I can see his decision in deleting this article, he sees it just as another band. But, as I've said; they have a decent-sized fanbase, they have a decent collection of music written by themselves, they have performed at various places, they are sometimes played on M88, and were the creators of the worship song "Your Grace", if you look at the link to their lyrics on the article, you might recognize it. Smile Lee | May 23, 2006; it is now 03:20 (UTC)

  • Delete. I looked at the article and failed to see an assertion that it meets any WP:MUSIC criteria. Vegaswikian 17:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 06:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly insignificant. -- GWO
  • Speedy Delete. Utterly insignificant, fails WP:MUSIC. Grandmasterka 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Repeated Keep by Smile Lee 03:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[edit]

  • Remember I understand that you guys "spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage and feel that notability is required for a band to deserve an article here. Please remember that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." And I have a HUGE respect for that, it helps make this place, Wiki, a better source for information. Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's Look it Up In The Dictionary A dictionary can usually help us understand a word. And the definition for an Encyclopedia is "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field." Let's look at the word "Comprehensive" which says "So large in scope or content as to include much." Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this article doesn't contain self-research Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. So gathering the information from the Under the Shadow MySpace is a primary source, while Lyric Wiki and M88 are secondary sources. And wiki reports "what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." And a reliable source would be from those primary and secondary sources, and whether or not they are true or false they are still information on the band. Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And It Is Not a POV The article also contains no POV on the subject. And if you fellow wikipedians spot any, then edit it. Isn't that what Wiki is, an encyclopedia in which people get together and help it to become more informative and reliable. Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopedia Just because something is not famous does not make it un-noteworthy. If it has the need to have information gathered to those who seek it, then let it be included. The reason an encyclopedia is there, is for people to look at it for reference and knowledge. If someone looks for this information and this article is deleted, that means the person will not find it.Smile Lee 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Dynasty[edit]

It reads like it's just some paintball team that has won some odd tournaments. I'm not seeing any notability. I had it speedy nominated, but the author removed that, so I'm doing it the hard way. Anyone else want to chime in? Edit: No vote -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'll put my sources on the page so that it will be better. how about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfloop (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Also, please point out why the group is notable, ie. why it deserves an article in a general encyclopedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as completely non-notable, vanity, and highly POV. Please, do show us the independent, reliable sources that describe your team as the best team in the world. -- Kicking222 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually its not my team. And i said its greatly considered to be the best in the world. And thats fact just look at the stats that they have. What else can i do to make it a real "article" Monkeyfloop
  • Keep. True, the article needs some sources, but they are easily verifiable, as easy as googling to show some other prima facie cruft or neologism is not notable. When an article claims things like "First Pro Team to win the World Cup"; "Series Titles..." and then a list of multiple world championships, I can't understand why you would state that you are "not seeing any notability". The assertion of notability is there in spades. Here's my two second google results: "The WB and CBS, channels 5 and 8, actually shot some staged play by local Professional teams XSV and Dynasty...NBC will be here TODAY filming several live shots from 3:30 - 6:30 pm." [37]; "Dynasty are the reigning champions of the NPPL and PSP circuits" @ about.com's listing of Professional Paintball Teams; more info here and here. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The assertion was present, but sources were absent. I'm still not completely convinced, but I may change my mind in light of some of this. That's a big may. Just because NBC or whatnot had a few things from one of their events is not a notability thing, since the local news has recorded various dumb things around my own city that would never get in the Wiki. Also want to add: Monkeyfloop has removed this nomination from the AfD page, though that's been reverted. Please don't. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |

I don't understand what else i could do to prove this is worth being an article. Look here if you want to be shown its legit. [38] Monkeyfloop

  • Keep This is a REAL PROFESSIONAL PAINTBALL TEAM! Not MonkeyFloop's Team... Yes, it is considered one of the best in the world. Honestly, do some reasearch on the matter before deleting it, how ignorant can you people be. www.google.com And put in "Dynasty Paintball" 71.96.163.107
Comment: Please attempt to argue the merits instead of insulting people.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, professional sports teams would appear to be notable under any circumstances, even for minority sports such as paintball. However I couldn't find specific notability guidelines for sport so I base this more or less on WP:BIO. Problematically, most or all of the existing content appears to be a copyvio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non notable team of a non notable sport. Is paintball even organized to the level that there can be professional teams in the true sense of the word? I doubt it. At the very best, this article would be be best merged into an article on paintball but I would even disagree with that. Delete based on POV and vanity. --Strothra 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that this is a WP:VSCA case, but it apparently meets WP:BIO. Convince me that VSCA has precedence and I'll change my vote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A non-notable team? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dynasty&btnG=Google+Search Well, What do you know? It seems that when you input "Dynasty" into google, that the first search result seems to be "Dynasty Paintball" Hmmm... I think that that's enough credibility... Dont you? 71.96.163.107
  • Keep, notable team of a notable sport. Please make an effort to be civil. Silensor 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strothra please do research on the sport before you ask if it is organized. Also maybe turn on ESPN 2 sometime. They are showing one of the world's biggest Paintball Tournaments right now. And also Oliver Lang (who is mentioned in my article) makes 100,000$ a year playing paintball. I'm pretty sure that's professional enough. Monkeyfloop
  • Comment Strothra, how about www.pbstar.com I think that this is sufficient "notability" for you. Look at all the videos on that site, See how many tournaments have been played by how many people? See all the Locations for the tournaments? New Orleans, Huntington Beach, Tampa, Austin, LA, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bangkok, Shanghai... How is that for "notability"?
  • Keep The Research speaks for itself. Living large 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll roll with a Weak Keep. Some non-primary sources mentioning Team Dynasty or the paintball tournaments they've been involved in would still be appreciable though; especially some more general news / sports news. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0_o? How are the sources not primary? They come off of the teams official website. That makes absolutely no since to me. Since a primary source is about someone who was actually there, these people were actually there and this is their website thats primary in my opinion. Monkeyfloop
  • Comment. Ye've flipped it. I said I wanted non-primary sources. These are sites that are not affiliated with the team. Those are more objective by nature. Like I said, it seems like they meet the notability requirements (hence my weak keep), but I'd like to see some mention of they or the tournaments they've been in outside of their own website or the tournament's own website. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I will be adding some... 71.96.163.107
  • Keep This article does seem to have POV issues, but that can be easily fixed by editing the article. And please people, it is much easier to do basic research before putting an article for deletion. And if something seems to have a biased POV you can fix it to become a better artical, remember constructive criticism is better than just saying something is wrong. Smile Lee 09:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: I closed as a delete at first, but there appears to have been a merge done to Monarchy in Canada, so this needs to be a redirect with the edit history preserved. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Royal Family[edit]

There are a number of problems with this page.

  1. The "Canadian royal family" is the British Royal Family. Any relevant info about the former will be covered in a page on the latter. If we are to pretend that the British Royal Family somehow simultaneously exists as a distinct "Canadian" family, and that this family in turn deserves a full page, we may as well make 16 different pages for the Jamaican Royal Family and the Belizean Royal Family and all the countries where the British Monarchy reigns.
  2. Any relevant information about the monarchy as a Canadian institution belongs on the Monarchy in Canada page.
  3. The whole page exists primary for partisan monarchist propaganda purposes. No one outside of the Canadian monarchist subculture even believes in the idea of the "Canadian Royal Family" and even they only use that term to try and win supporters to their case.user:J.J. May 21, 2006
  • Delete for obvious reasons. As a Canadian, I think this article is silly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Agree. The royals listed are all British. Also the list of Royals in the Canadian government website is not very reliable as it still lists Princess Margaret (dead since 2002); Princess Alice (dead since 2004) and Sir Angus Ogilvy (not even a royal and also dead since 2002). Astrotrain 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Agreed 100%. --SFont 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- A foolish article, agree in full. --Monkeywrench Tactical
  • Delete. The Canadian throne is separate from the U.K. throne, but the royal family is the same. -Will Beback 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/redirect. On second reading I see some useful information on this obscure topic. that might not be in Monarchy in Canada, which is long and comprehensive. Move back anything that isn't already there. -Will Beback 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete I found this interesting and I didn't that this was how it worked. The important info here should be moved to, Monarchy in Canada and British Royal Family. --Dakart 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monarchy in Canada. Captainj 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful, then redirect. Do not delete as this is a useful link. See what links here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the love of God, delete Ardenn 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off with its 'ead. The Tom 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Homey 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monarchy in Canada per Captainj. jgp 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monarchy in Canada as per above. —Zero Gravitas 02:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rediculous and per nom. --Strothra 02:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't believe we're going through this again ... CJCurrie 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is plain silly --Lholden 06:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article should be kept because of the fact that Canada is still nominally a monarchy and it sheds light on Canada's form of government. FDR 12:12 PM May 22, 2006
    • Um, not really. The Royal Family per se has no constitutional role or legal existence in Canada.Homey 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what Monarchy in Canada is for. jgp 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the above reasons. (the following has been moved here from the top of page-Homey):Note: This article contravenes none of the cardinal content policies of Wikipedia. "The whole page exists primary for partisan monarchist propaganda purposes" - That's a POV assertion, and should be stricken from this page. Not one single "monarchist" source has been cited - all are government of Canada sources, a book on Canadian constitutional law, as well as the Queen's own words. --gbambino 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless every source mentioning a Canadian Royal Family can be undoubtedly refuted. --Ibagli 20:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't matter if sources can be refuted or not. There is just no reason for 2 articles on the same family. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Canadian monarchy is simply the British monarchy with a slightly different constitutional relationship. Creating a separate page for it would be the same as creating 10 different pages for one person, just because he or she has 10 relatives who have different personal relationships. --MC Rufus 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Captainj. --Merovingian {T C @} 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takin' Control of Him[edit]

By lack of notability. Unless the song becomes a hit, there is no point in keeping it. Tony Bruguier 20:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball, and at this point, the song is completely non-notable. If the info on who sings on the track is unknown, then... well, then I vote delete. -- Kicking222 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not rumour and speculation. Tyrenius 13:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculation. jgp 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and the article is practically content-free. BTLizard
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Liberties Association[edit]

No assertion of notability. Google results give this article. I think the user would appose a prod, so I'm going right to the AfD. See also Brad Randall, which I have attempted to CSD through criteria 7, and which may also have to go to a painful AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no notability. Only 8 Google hits if you take Wikipedia out of the picture, and most of those (if not all of them) are for an entirely different organization. And note that I have deleted Brad Randall. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and too easily confused with the ACLU. --Dakart 21:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even the article says it's small. Tyrenius 13:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jgp 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merged with Cthulhu Mythos biographies. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown jenkin[edit]

At best, a redirect to an article about the short story would be warranted, but we don't even have that. The article itself doesn't tell us anything about this non-notable beast, and it's mostly a quote form the story. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There isn't even a WP article on the story in which this character appears. There's definietly no need for an article that doesn't assert importance about a character that doesn't have much to begin with. -- Kicking222 22:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, NN HPL fancruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Tyrenius 13:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cthulhu Mythos biographies. The character in question is moderately notable, in that he is portrayed as having the ability to travel through hyperspace, one of the first mentions of that concept in popular fiction (see Fritz Lieber's 1966 essay "Through Hyperspace With Brown Jenkin"). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cthulhu Mythos biographies. While the character is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, Brown Jenkin has reappeared in stories by later authors as well as the Call of Cthulhu role-playing game. Also appears in the Masters of Horror series from HBO. The Dreams in the Witch House really shouls have an article, by the way. - CNichols 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. Whitejay251 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Innocence[edit]

An article about a short film with no assertion of importance or of wide distribution except for over-the-top review blurbs that sound fake and do not list attribution. In point of fact, appears to be a homemade film, and the two sites at which it can be viewed appear to be those at which anyone can upload a film. The names of the two filmmakers listed together return exactly two google hits—to student listings at a particular high school. No listing at imdb for film or either filmmakers. Prod was removed without comment by an ip.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I think someone is having fun with Wikipedia. The unsourced "reviews" sound like jokes ("For once the movie is better than the book" for a Bible story; "God would have cried.") Dpbsmith (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minimal interest, very local. Tyrenius 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International response to the Holocaust[edit]

Delete Article is POV fork and poorly cited, seems to contribute little to nothing of importance if POV is removed. Also includes origional research, violating WP:NOR. Very useful and well-written information related to this topic is already covered in The Holocaust. Further, the information in this article is often simply copied from other articles on Wikipedia. Strothra 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a POV fork; POV forking is not an accepted method of resolving content disputes. Merge anything that's NPOV and not already covered in The Holocaust, if desired. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - POV cannot be listed as a reason for AFD. An important aspect of 20th century history. The Holocaust is way too long to cover this topic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment um. POV is not the only reason for listing this article for AfD. It is only one of the many reasons it should be removed not to mention the fact that article contributes nothing useful that is not already included in other articles. For instance, I removed a section on Bermuda Conference which was simply being used to push an unresearched opinion which I had replaced in the article Bermuda Conference with a researched and neutral article. --Strothra 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing useful" and "little to nothing of importance" is an extreme POV. You either don't understand what you are talking about or want to hide historical facts. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not accuse me of attempting to hide historical facts. My comments on here can be as POV as I wish to make them. My articles and article edits, however, are not POV. The fact remains that the information in this article is copied word-for-word in many instances from other articles in Wikipedia which still merits this article for deletion no matter how much your own personal biases make you wish to keep it. --Strothra 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid encyclopedic subject and serious scholars wrote numerous volumes about it. Let's improve the article, not delete it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I very well agree that an article on this topic would suit Wikipedia quite well but there is nothing of use in this article. It is poorly researched & written and what could be left in the article already exists in several other articles on Wikipedia. Isn't that bordering on a copyvio? What I am saying is that this article should be deleted and then replaced at a later time by another article that is better researched and written by in an unbiased manner. --Strothra 23:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assessment "nothing of use in this article" and don't see a valid reason for removal. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we may just have to disagree on that perpetually. A 100% overhaul of this article is needed. I'm not saying that the same topics cannot be carried over into a new article because they can be incorporated into it and probably very well should be. What I am saying, is that a new article must be created which should hold researched material which is not copying directly from other articles. Perhaps it should be more of a general overview and include Wikilinks when neccesary to other articles on Wikipedia. As it stands now, the article seems to be a compilation of topics which already have their own respective articles on Wikipedia. --Strothra 00:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one says it is perfect, but your requirements seem to be much more rigorous here than for other articles/subjects. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make implications. I believe that a good many of the articles which are on Wikipedia are poor and I have put plenty up for deletion and voted to delete many of them. This article is no different thant he others. I am not making requirements, I am making suggestions for improvement of the article which are all reasoned, reasonable, and possible. It is an interesting topic which deserves a much better article which is not simply a compilation of articles which already exist on Wikipedia. --Strothra 00:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then put a cleanup or attention tag on it instead of nominating it for deletion. Per Wikipedia's deletion policy, articles that need a lot of improvement do not belong on AfD. jgp 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Humus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. It looks like a daughter article split off from holocaust. There needs to be a navigation footer or sidebar to link up with the other articles. Above criticisms have significant merit and need to be properly addressed. Compare and contrast with Role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide. —Viriditas | Talk 23:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article may need to be rewritten, but putting it on AfD is the wrong way to get attention. Perhaps bad-faith nom too, given the nominator's comments in this discussion ("making suggestions for improvement of the article" is _not_ a reason to list something on AfD). jgp 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about reading my comments again before you attack me. I stand by my deletion nomination because I feel that the article should be more than merely a grouping of existing articles on Wikipedia. I have stated this already but apparently you wish me to repeat myself because you do not like to or are unwilling to read. I have stated above that this article should be deleted in its current form. Sure, another article under this same topic, may be doable but not as it is. It should be deleted. Someone may wish to attempt writing a new article that is researched and does not simply copy info from other articles. I, and other editors, have begun attempting to make edits to the article but it doesn't seem to be losing its laundry list form. --Strothra 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to _official Wikipedia policy_ if an article simply needs to be cleaned up and rewritten, it _should not be deleted_. It even specifically lists the templates to use if that is the case. If an article under the topic is doable, and the article in question is not a duplicate, it does not belong on AfD. Since you have admitted that the article topic is a valid one, and you persist in trying to get it deleted after being informed of Wikipedia policy, your nomination is in bad faith and you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Furthermore, I consider your comments towards me to be personal attacks. jgp 03:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, because I consider your comments to be personal attacks but you are attempting to turn it around to make it seem as if I am attacking you. Let me clarify my official position on this AfD as simply as I can once and for all, superceding any of my prior statements: It should be deleted because it appears to have been created as a POV Fork. Perhaps it is doable, I don't know that because I have not seen a doable form of the article. Because I cannot see into the future I can neither confirm nor deny the doability of the article. If you could create one and replace what already exists then I will see that it is doable and change my vote. I am not violating any Wiki policy in that statement. As per the discussion resulting from the above AfD process I have begun to institute changes in the article in cooperation with other editors. There is nothing wrong with this because it is considered to be improving Wikipedia and acting in a good faith manner. Please see WP:AGF - I find it interesting how you insist on citing Wiki policy yourself when you continuously violate it. If you assume bad faith of me then I cannot help but to take that as a personal attack and assume bad faith of you. I have been acting in good faith in my edits, If you need proof of this, see my edits to the article along with the edits of editors with whom I have been working with. Simply because I have attempted to improve an article after I have nominated it for deletion does not put me in violation of any Wikipedia policy. Nominating an article for deletion does NOT exclude an editor from attempting to improve that article. --Strothra 03:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Humus. The Holocaust article is TOO small, it needs multiple expansions on all its major topics, such as this one. IZAK 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a POV-fork, but rather should be a good main article for a section in The Holocaust. Pecher Talk 07:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but hopefully replace the text with something better sourced and better written. -- GWO
  • Keep even though it was evidently created as a POV fork, as early versions show, and the straw men and weasel words remain. However there is a decent article to be had from this controversial topic, even though this certainly isn't it. Cleanup instead of deleting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's a valid subject and the main article is long as it is. Agree with all cleanup comments above. Tyrenius 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. It's a valid subject, but it's strongly biased, and may be a copy-vio of the single "Suggested Reading". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not a copy vio of the "Further Reading." That book was added by myself after the fact. It's a fairly right-leaning criticism of the U.S. historical slowness to react to human rights abuses abroad. Take the book as you will but it's an interesting one written by a Harvard faculty member. --Strothra 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How can you say that it's biased, and add new paragraphs? When I wrote this article I meant to write about the international bodies did during the Holocaust, which was relatively very little, and not after it. I feel that the article is not biased and regarding the Vatican's response, I mentioned that Pope Pius XII did act in favor of the Jews, and just said that the Vatican apologized for not taking a stronger position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremesquish (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, encyclopedic topic. However, needs to be rewritten from NPOV (first paragraph is currently awful). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: low quality ranting of someone with axe to grind. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if what you said is true, these are not legitimate reasons for deletion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, see WP:MERGE if you want to pursue that option. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satsui_no_Hadou[edit]

This is fancruft. If anyone wants to write or read about such tiny details of a computer game, they should do it at fan sites for that purpose, not an encyclopedia. Medico80 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've always felt these articles didn't belong here. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Street Fighter. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper. jgp 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just because WP isn't paper doesn't mean we have to have articles for every videogame-related meme. The "Satsui no Hadou" concept is really only a relevant part of the Street Fighter Alpha storyline. I think the only reason there's an article for it is because fans eat it up. It's not really fancruft, but as an SF storyline fan myself, I think its importance is overstressed. Danny Lilithborne 02:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's an encyclopedia. It should have info on relatively obscure bits of information, like most encyclopedias do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slammenhousa (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Researched and referenced articles on fiction and fictional concepts are completely valid additions to Wikipedia. - CNichols 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Street Fighter per WP:CRUFT. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG MERGE after going further down the Japan deletion page there are like articles created from the same series... that should be all smushed together into one happy fun article. --Kunzite 02:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be preferable. -ZeroTalk 01:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not terribly important as an article itself, but it's somewhat important in the context of the work it is in. --DA Roc 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid and informative article that the series revolves around. Not sure I understand the alledged reasoning for deletion, ethier. -ZeroTalk 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much more to add to my short reason for deletion. Gamer fiction like this just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, paper or not. A limit has to be drawn somewhere, or all them game and cartoon categories will turn into independent communities, thinking they own the place, making their own house rules, allways testing the limits of fair use. Medico80 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Testing the limits of fair use"..? Chap, have you read and fully comprehended the basis behind the Fair use criteria...? And have you taken a gander to see where the image links lead to..? Making a extensive analysis over deletable material on wikipedia might also be fair game.-ZeroTalk 12:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the text - it's all copy-paste from an unknown source. No external references, as for most of all game fiction sites here. Medico80 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be satisfied if you could show us a link from this "unknown source". -ZeroTalk 15:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clergy-man and List of Clergy-man episodes[edit]

Hoax? Nothing at imdb. Zero Google hits for '"Clergy-man" Horsell' or '"Clergy-man" Sanston'. Editor's only edits. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything either. -- RattleMan 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be nonsense.--Peta 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kidd[edit]

Another none notable e-wrestler (a person who writes about being a fictional wrestler as a hobby). Strong Delete Englishrose 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6yd[edit]

Vanity page promoting a non-notable search engine. De-prodded by User:Kmweber. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not really close to WP:WEB, one year old front for google ads. Alexa in the 4m+ range and almost zero external references. Why was this de-prodded? Kuru talk 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 06:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- TMLutas 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep but move to Daniel Salomon. Tyrenius 00:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel salomon[edit]

Delete non notable musician. Lacks citations, includes origional research violating WP:NOR. Article does not establish notability. Strothra 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense. --Ezeu 16:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1% rule[edit]

Original research, no sources, self-referential. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article doesn't even make any sense. -- Kicking222 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while there are apparently many references to a "one percent rule" out there, none of them seem to correspond to this definition. It just seems to be a common label for just about anything. Really bad example used here as well; doesn't seem to match the proposed definition. Kuru talk 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research abakharev 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, and as fuzzy version of a topic that is much better dealt with under Pareto principle and Pareto distribution. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per annoying de-prodder nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no citations probably made-up. Cedars 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I created this I can offer no defence of it. I thought is had a wider use but cannot find any. Lumos3 09:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure if this needs an article, but I researched this (gasp) and the "1% rule" has been written about quite a bit in articles and blogs recently. Once such example is here, which is a good one because it cites the book where the research originated, The Wealth of Networks (amazon.com). The premise is that in any online contributor-based community (such as Wikipedia), 1% of the userbase makes the majority of contributions. Aguerriero (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pareto principle, which this seems to be an more extreme (less believable) version of. Maybe we could merge some content and mention the 1% rule in Pareto principle? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - patent nonsense relating to Wikipedia. Stevage 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. As a note, I think it quite possible that this decision will get reversed within a year. However, Svidersky is but one example of a noted media phenomenon, which itself has attracted considerable attention. Mackensen (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky[edit]

Originally incorrectly nominated on WP:MFD by User:Rockneedsasavior. I'm transferring it here as a courtesy. Comments from the MFD page follow. No vote. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As sad as Anna Svidersky's death is (and it is), I don't feel that Wikipedia should devote a page to her. In the spirit of being diplomatic, I would like this matter discussed. Mitch 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it is extremely sad but I also agree that there shouldn't be a page devoted to her. Her death did get a lot of attention in the Washington area, but there are a lot of high profile murders that happen elswhere. (In the Los Angeles area alone a lot of media attention is given to many crimes but they don't have a wikipage and L.A. is the second largest media market in the US next to New York). If you look at the edit history of this article, it was written as a memorial page to her. What is even more telling that this is a memorial page is that no article of the suspected murderer, David Barton Sullivan exists. It is, I believe, the sole "victim only" article on here. Other articles of victims such as Natalee Holloway at least mention in detail, about the suspects. Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article is being treated as one which is evident by the constant POV assertions. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments above this line were placed before the debate was transferred. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with a cleanup) per WP:BIO for live people, I quote: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". I think she would pass the live test per the article from UK plus the charity event at McDo. Given this is a deceased person, the only proposed policy I see there is (I paraphrase) "A widely recognized impact on history" which is fairly vague and maybe too strict. I think one could make a case that there could be an impact on issues of fastfood workplace security given the publicity. The cleanup IMO should focus more on the workplace murder to justify the notability Crum375 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The Guardian is a reputable source that verifies that Anna Svidersky's death has gained "worldwide attention". It does not now read at all like a memorial, but as an informative article. My condolences to Anna's family and friends. Tyrenius 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her death has made an impact on the world. Right now, she may not seem like she deserves a page, but later down the road someone may need or want this information. I have seen articles that I needed that were deleted because at that point in time those people did not see them relevant. If we delete Anna, we might as well delete anyone else who has been murdered. There are many articles in here about people who just died. Though, perhaps you should mention how her death has affected the world. Fiwtart 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but requires a firm grip to ensure her notability is illustrated in NPOV terms. I find it terribly sad that this girl's murder is notable only for expanding Myspace's tawdry ubiquity into the sphere of mourning, rather than for her tragic death per se. Nevertheless, that is what she will be remembered for outside her local community and that is why she deserves an article. Rockpocket (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it Wikinews. Rossami (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Memorial would be if you focus on the person's life. News would be if it's a run-of-the-mill event. In this case, if the article can be focused on the workplace murder, and subsequent events, given that there was world wide publicity, I think it would be construed as notable. Crum375 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you made that case above. I disagree. It's a sad statement about our society but this is a run-of-the-mill event. Had it not been a slow news day, this would not have recieved any significant publicity. Any general discussion of the concept of "workplace murder" should be made on a specific page at that title - not in a biography. Rossami (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, getting murdered does not confer notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Angr (t • c) 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Per What Wikipedia is Not, Wikipedia cannot be a memorial. This page reads like it was written by one of Anna's friends as a way to memorialize what may have very well been a wonderful girl. Again, I am not anti-rememberance, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Mitch 22:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user also commented above the line
    • I agree that as it is written now it sounds like a memorial. The only way it can stay is if it's fixed up to highlight why this murder is different than most and why the case will be memorable far into the future (not just for family and friends), and do it all by pointing to neutral verifiable sources. That's a tall order for sure. Crum375 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note I have rewritten this article throughout from an encyclopedic viewpoint. It is a mistake to see it as a "memorial" or "tribute" page. The wider significance of this tragedy was clearly asserted by The Guardian newspaper, which is one of the four "serious" national UK papers (for those not familiar with it) and which I have used as a main verifiable source. Comments above are based on the previous version of this article. Tyrenius 02:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the latest version is much improved. It probably warrants new votes or comments from the 'Delete' voters. Crum375 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry but I must disagree. If anything, this version strikes me as even less encyclopedic than the version I reviewed previously. No change of opinion. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No change of opinion here, either. I stand by the NfD, lest we make pages for everyone who no longer lives, but whose MySpace page continues to attract attention. Miss Anna Svidersky is not the first, and is not the last. Mitch 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is your personal opinion that it is a "run of the mill event". From a NPOV a verifiable and reputable source has described this as "on a global scale". Likewise, where is there any evidence to assert that this only received coverage because it was a "slow news day"? A tribute video with a million hits is sufficient on its own to justify the article. Tyrenius 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I respectfully propose that Angr et al completely miss the point. Anna Svidersky is the first (though probably not the last) example of extensive MySpace mourning. She wasn't notable in life, and even her death itself wasn't notable. But as The Guardian put it: "The grim truth is that this tragedy has mutated into the latest internet buzz". By that criteria, she easily qualifies per WP:WEB. Rockpocket (talk)
  • Delete as per WP:NOT--Peta 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT is a broad topic. If you mean 'not a memorial', then by reading the latest version of the article you will see it is not that. The issue essentially being voted on here is whether the fact that this murder was the first (apparently) relatively obscure death to be spread by MySpace/Internet and cause the 'mourning after' grief syndrome for many thousands of strangers worldwide, as attested to by the Guardian article, supports sufficient notability to justify inclusion. Crum375 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable.  Grue  15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, what harm is it possibly doing being there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.162.134 (talk • contribs) .
  • keep please this person should have an article Yuckfoo 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find that this had some significance because her death did get a lot of attention. It was not what I would consider a memorial. Like I said in my vote above, I was searching for information on google a while ago, and I could not find the information. I found one site that was about the DELETION of the article I had been searching hours for. In the end, I never found the information I needed because someone considered the page a memorial (and it was an old deletion from over a year before I found it). Lots of pages that people would consider a memorial do have value to some people. Plus, what will it hurt to have one more article on wikipedia? Fiwtart 16:51 EST, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - now that this seems to have been cleaned up, I think it's important. I'm from New Zealand (note: nowhere near Washington) and I heard about her death, which is both unusual and notable for what would usually be an everyday American murder. There is a lot of talk about her on teenage websites, and IMO it's useful to have a reference to who she is. - Ktbaby 08:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recentism from sensationalist media. No one will remember it within few months. This is not memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 20:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although WP:NOT a memorial, the article is not a simple "a lived and a died and will be missed" she became a newsworthy topic carried by major media due to the circumstances of her death... if we delete this then we need to nuke Polly Klaas and María Elena Chávez Caldera and everyone in Category:Murdered children.  ALKIVAR™ 01:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we probably do need to clean out most of those as well. They are very sad but not encyclopedic. Rossami (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 Speedy delete per WP:IAR. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.teamnotomorrow.com[edit]

The website itself claims to be "coming soon". So this, for me, seems like a reason to fail whatever this website-notablitiy criteria we have in English Wikipedia. Talented Wikipedian 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well, let's see... it's advertising for a site that doesn't exist yet. The article is a big, rambling mess. Can this be speedied somehow? -- Kicking222 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Ardenn 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP not a crystal ball and this non-site is non-notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nothing to do here. An AfD debate isn't needed to merge something. Mackensen (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT Service Management[edit]

We don't want individual articles for all the various parts of the Information Technology Infrastructure Library, do we? The encyclopedia would get rather messy if it had articles for every vocabulary term that was defined by any notable government standard. -- Beland 22:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect this page back into Information Technology Infrastructure Library. But we probably will have individual pages because of the impact *COUGH*endless, time-sucking meetings*COUGH* this will have on business processes. ;-) — RJH 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with RJH. Merge the wikilinks to IT Infrastructure Library.
  • Merge them all, and dewikify the page before someone goes and creates more nn/copyvio articles. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITSM and ITIL are quite different in scope. Proof is in previous frameworks developed by many vendors and the effort undertaken by OGC in the ITIL 'refresh' to play catch up. ITSM is a valuable, separate topic. Separation would allow ITSM to mature as required by the market and ITIl along qwith any other best practice framework offering, to position accordingly and make its case for consideration. ITIL is NOT ITSM.--Itsmi 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T. Betz Agree with above. I am going to start being more active here getting this mess straightened out. The more experienced Wikipedians are within their rights to want more clarity, but the suggestions are way off base. I have added a substantial new intro. Charles T. Betz 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 04:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melody science[edit]

I can't find any confirmation of the rather extraordinary and controversial information in this article. The author mentioned in the external links section did write a book titled "The Secret Melody", but the reviews on Amazon.com don't indicate that it has anything to do with this topic. That is true of all the external links: they relate tangentially to the topics of hypnosis, but they still don't support anything that is in this article. Because of this, I'm afraid I have to call the veracity of the entire article into question. The article's creator has blanked his user page, but hasn't responded to notification of the "hoax" tag on his discussion page. Joyous! | Talk 22:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: clear hoax. Tearlach 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I guess it should be removed, I suppose I don't have enough evidence for it to be in an encyclopedia. Merge87
  • Delete: questionable content with insufficient evidence of the subject's significance. Cedars 06:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected (again). Melchoir 06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1002 (number)[edit]

De-prodded by User:Kmweber, who is on a de-prodding-without-giving-a-reason spree. This is numbercruft, pure and simple. The number has zero unique or interesting properties. Delete. -- Kicking222 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since the redirect is done, I change my vote to Speedy Close. jgp 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above, although I would rather it weren't there at all.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Done I did the redirect. If you all want to close this out and remove the afd tag.... jbolden1517Talk 01:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. I wish people wouldn't redirect before others have finished looking it over. :-/ — RJH 16:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still there. History is intact [39]. jbolden1517Talk 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Since merges and redirects can be done by anyone and preserve the page history, such discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not AfD. And with that, I think this should be closed now... jgp 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close article has been redirected, old copy available in page history. (~Kylu) 207.145.133.34 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G1 and A7. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Zoydbergh[edit]

...appears to be a vanity page. Peter Znamenskiy 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. The article makes no attempt whatsoever to assert significance. It's a shame too, because the band is well-named. -- Kicking222 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know my Polish alternative music all that well but google is turning up a lot of links in several languages. I think this band is legit. jbolden1517Talk 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though a complete change of pace for the aritcle: redirect to Doctor Zoidberg as a possible misspelling. Cburnett 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Agree that userfying is probably futile. Mackensen (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Holden[edit]

Vanity page, reads like a press release. cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy and delete as nn vanity. -- Kicking222 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Carlholden's only contribution was this page. No reason to permit this kind of vanity article. jbolden1517Talk 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seeing as it's his only contribution userfying it would be futile. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 04:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poon-Toun[edit]

I believe this is a hoax. Joyous! | Talk 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not even a good hoax. It's a bad joke that isn't worthy of BJAODN. For the record, I did do the Google search of "Poon-Toun", which gave me 8 hits- all of which were WP and answers.com. What trash. -- Kicking222 23:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete If the expression isn't real we should ditch the article fast. jbolden1517Talk 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mindnumbing hoax. Creator didn't even bother to see if Vietnam had a 2000 census (which it didn't). —Zero Gravitas 02:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already userfied; so delete. Mackensen (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Andras[edit]

Vanity page (author admits as much at the bottom). cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Carmen did the userfying herself and beat us to the punch of doing it for her. -- Kicking222 23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its her user page as well. She knows a lot but this page has to go. I emailed her btw so she should be aware of this jbolden1517Talk 01:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jgp 01:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already userfied. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Drini. Kotepho 03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JMU Party Posse[edit]

A group of friends hardly seems notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I would love to have this speedied, but the user continuously removes the tags before admins can respond, so I figured I may as well put it up for AfD. (Delete / Speedy) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete by G4 and A7 - basically a club, and maybe WP:NOT (for things made in school one day). -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{db-club}}. It's four friends who hang out a lot- whoop de do. There's no notability, and the article doesn't try. -- Kicking222 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Burninate this crap. Danny Lilithborne 23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As the "author" of this "entry", I admit that this was just a result of boredom. Go ahead and delete this. Apologies for any inconviences. NoReality5911 19:27, 21 May 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.219.117 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. This user has removed my "unsigned" template, and replaced it with an even more convincing false signature. I'm confused. The time is even wrong. Why? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, even though the article made me smile. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definition of a vanity article. jbolden1517Talk 01:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom (and removing the speedy tags constitutes bad faith). jgp 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for obvious reasons... --Strothra 02:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to user page; redirect deleted. Mackensen (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine David[edit]

Vanity page. cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and userfy as immense vanity. Even if it wasn't vanity, she would still be highly non-notable. -- Kicking222 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and hit the Speedy button per A7 right after that. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy--Peta 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy - per Kicking222. Zaxem 00:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newsies Mailing List[edit]

This is vanity, pure and simple. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is free web space. Delete Ardenn 23:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I completely disagree with the nomination. This article is not vanity, and it is not an attempt to use WP as freeweb space. It's a completely (well, almost completely- some parts are a bit eh) encyclopedic article. The problem is that it's a mailing list. The subject itself is non-notable, and not worthy of a WP article. -- Kicking222 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per either of the above. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Zaxem 00:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Burns (age)[edit]

This article is an expansion of a section in "Montgomery Burns," a character in "The Simpsons." Speculation about the age of a character in a fictional animated sitcom doesn't deserve it's own article. The section in the main Montgomery Burns article (which is by itself is spectacularly long for a fictional character) already makes it pretty clear that there are some inconsistencies regarding his age, which is not terribly surprising for an animated satirical show such as this. What this article seems to do is expand upon these inconsistencies by saying, "Well, in this episode he's 83, and in this episode he's 104, and this episode seems to imply he's 90." Totally unncessary. Aplomado talk 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FICT and per nomination. I don't even see a reason to believe that this miniscule topic gets much discussion among Simpsons fans. Google "Simpsons Burns age" (without quotes) gives only about four related hits out of the first thirty, and none meet WP:RS as far as I know. Barno 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete - the content of this article belongs in Montgomery Burns. jgp 01:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: On second thought, nix the merge. This whole article smacks of original research. jgp 00:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well reasoned nomination. No need for a separate page for this. --Joelmills 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Strothra 02:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an article solely dedicated to discussing an fictional character's age is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cedars 06:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete as this analysis is of value for those interested in the subject. Tyrenius 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Montgomery Burns. - CNichols 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Pleeeeease don't vote for a merge. This article is the cream of the cruft. Why do we need such a huge section elaborating on a fictional character's arbitrary and obviously nonexistant age? If you asked the writers of the show how old Montgomery Burns is, they would probably say "I don't know, we never thought about that." Aplomado talk 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, surprisingly enough. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge useful information.  Grue  15:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. -Sean Curtin 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative perspectives of the iranian revolution,Invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution[edit]

Delete - isn't this the definition of a POV fork? Seems inherently POV to me. Wickethewok 23:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I'll add the other one up there, too. If anyone disagrees, you may of course change your vote. Nominated for same reasons as the other article. Wickethewok 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Burns (biography)[edit]

Outrageously long biography of fictional "The Simpsons" character Montgomery Burns that appears to contain no more information than the section on it in the main article. Aplomado talk 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The main article on CMB contains more than enough information. This article is unnecessary, and its depth- while somewhat admirable- borders on fancruft. -- Kicking222 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Upon closer examination, this appears to be an exact replica of the section in the main Montgomery Burns article. It's possible that someone has already merged the information as requested. Aplomado talk 00:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. It looks like it was split in its entirety from the main article three weeks ago, but the original text was left in the main article. No need for this exact copy. --Joelmills 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing that isn't already covered in the main Burns article. --Impaciente 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if it contains information not found at Montgomery Burns. Otherwise, Delete. - CNichols 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball Champs[edit]

Proposed for deletion earlier, but tag was removed. The article seems to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. See [40] and [41] for example. There is no IMDB entry, either. Chaser (T, C, e) 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Longhair 04:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron pit gym[edit]

I came across this article while copyediting articles, and I am not convinced that it is notable enough for Wikipedia. It reads like an advertisement, and does not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's notability standards (for companies). It only has 904 Google hits, but I haven't looked extensively into the matter. I am not, however, lobbying for its deletion; if it is notable, then I'd be happy to try and clean it up. Keitei (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally insignificant local gym, only claim to important is being Bloomington, Indiana's only 24-hour fitness and gym. Not notable enough for inclusion in a general encyclopedia.--Sean Black 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to keep a record of every institution this unnotable in the planet. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7 non-notable. Maybe drop a mention in Bloomington, Indiana (Home of Indiana University, btw). (~Kylu) 207.145.133.34 21:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 —Mets501talk 00:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate to break it to you, folks, but "non-notable" is not a criterion for speedy deletion, and A7 applies only to people and groups of people. That said, delete per Phaedriel. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --Dakart 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete its not notable. Its a gym thats open 24 hours a day. Roodog2k 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_21&oldid=1081096959"