Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

Purge server cache














































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

Deleted as copyvio. -- Hoary 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single Wife

[edit]

del a praise of a debut book. Original research. Notability dubious. `'mikkanarxi 08:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bastique

Myspace.com/carrizosa

[edit]

I really want to speedy this but it does assert notability, although spuriously... So. Anyway. The article fails WP:WEB, WP:RS, etc. Crystallina 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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



























































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

The result was speedy delete CSD G11, qualifies as spam even if article is a hoax -- Samir धर्म 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikk hope, Nikk Hope

[edit]

Obvious hoax. ghits: [2] NMChico24 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GROHOS

[edit]

Non-notable so violates WP:CORP Xiner 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Shouldn't be debating on this...-ECH3LON 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus after all that. Yomanganitalk 13:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classes in World of Warcraft

[edit]

Game guide, prohibited by WP:NOT. World of Warcraft covers the subject of classes adequately without the need for a indiscriminate list. Combination 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are many types of pages that describe things from video games (and movies and books......). I don't think that it is a game guide. A quote from our page on game guides: instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games. The exact meaning of a "strategy guide" these days is very vague, as most could be easily ranked as "walkthroughs" or "hint collections". It doesn't give hints, it just describes the classes. Cbrown1023 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a game guide, aside from a few iffy sections. It merely describes something that is characteristic of a game. The information is primarily an extension of the already existing WoW article, providing more details about the classes than can easily fit there. If you see anything that says something like "Taurnes make the best Shamans when they do this build" delete it, but the article itself isn't a problem. If it is...check the category for Character classes. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it appears to only list verifiable facts, and from the looks of the talk page, they've tried hard to keep it from becoming a guide. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet my encyclopedic threshold. Agree with nom that this is spiralling into a game guide -- Samir धर्म 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your encyclopedic threshold in regards to this article? FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guide to an online game -- Samir धर्म 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not very informative. I asked about your encyclopedia threshold, not for references to what is a very ill-defined standard. The page you cited doesn't describe the difference between a game guide and information about a game at all, and IMHO, is close to outright uselessness. So I ask, where is the threshold for you (or for anybody else claiming it is a game guide, I'm not addressing this to you in particular) as to what is a game guide, and what is encyclopedic content about a game? Where do you, speaking for yourself, draw the line? What would shift the balance of this article to encyclopedic? FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article is essentially a summary of the WoW site on character classes: [3] and the sub-pages of that page. In my opinion, that makes it analogous to a gaming guide. Suitable for a gaming wiki, not for an encyclopedia -- Samir धर्म 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree. While it certainly can be argued that this page is redundant to any number of pages on classes in World of Warcraft, that is not a reason for deletion. In fact, that's a good thing, since it means there are sources on it. Anyway, this is an article that has spun off from the main article about a game, and there's no question of deleting that. Nor does the information being about a game make it a game guide in the sense that I'd consider it inherently objectionable. So really, what makes an article about a game, or aspect of it a game guide? What do you feel would have to be removed or added to make this article encyclopedic? What do you feel about the other articles about character classes? FrozenPurpleCube 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't see much in terms of sources. The only WP:RS is the link I listed above and its subpages. This article is essentially a re-hash of that particular guide to the character classes. -- Samir धर्म 06:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lack of sources is not itself a reason for deletion, and if you want to tag it as unsourced, go right ahead. There's no shortage of informative books about WoW, that's for sure. FrozenPurpleCube 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, but this can fundamentally draw from only one source, right. In its ideal, it will be the players guide to the classes of WoW. That's what defines its (for want of a better term) cruftiness and non-encyclopedic nature -- Samir धर्म 07:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So in your view all articles not being the game/movie/book etc. should be deleted? Say example articles built on said main article; Homer J. Simpson, Gandalf, Mario, Excalibur etc. Havok (T/C/c) 10:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Fundamentally, almost all articles about an aspect of a creative media can only draw from one source. I don't think that means much. This article isn't existing in isolation, but is a daughter of the main World of Warcraft article. Since people what to know about that, this aspect of it needs coverage there. But wait, that article has become rather long. So a convenient section was spun-off. And while I suppose if you define ideal as "Completely exhaustive and informative about a subject" it might qualify as a game guide, but there's a difference between that and setting a goal as "ideal for Wikipedia" which would simply be informative to the extent appropriate for an encyclopedia. In this case, I'd say a sufficient description so that the uninformed person can understand what the classes individually mean in the game is what we should be shooting for. Where do you draw the line? Having no content whatsoever? Having one line summaries? Again, I ask, where do you draw the line? What should be added or removed? FrozenPurpleCube 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I don't see why this article couldn't be condensed into a few paragraphs in the main article. EvilCouch 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't really seem like a game guide, it gives no info about how to play the class, only info about the class. As said above, if there were talent trees or even links to talent trees, then yes, it would be, but the way it is it is only factual info. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Game guide, obvious listcruft. L0b0t 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The list of classes is kind of important to the World of Warcraft article, but including it all in the actual article would make it unreasonably long. Take a look at Professions (World of Warcraft), for example. That portion of the article has been pushed off to its own page. Seems sensible to me. But if this page ends up being deleted, we'll need to look at the other subpages off of World of Warcraft too. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Borderline game guide, but I can see how this could be useful information, not that this isn't avaliable in numerous other forms, however. wtfunkymonkey 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Wtfunkymonkey. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How about RuneScape? - jlao 04 02:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominated. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Neutral information for an obviously notable game, and the precedence is set by RuneScape per Jlao --Steve 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how it is of any use except as a game guide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Waddles like a game guide, Quacks like a game guide. Obviously a game guide. Fails WP:NOT. Bwithh 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain how this is a game guide? FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I hope you know that "There's better information elsewhere" is not a good reason to delete anything. Good reason to improve that part of Wikipedia perhaps, but certainly not to delete someting. FrozenPurpleCube 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the talk page and edit history for the article before opining thusly. It was a series of HIGHLY contested edits over several weeks that get constantly reverted by spotty fan-boys who don't seem to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. L0b0t 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My complete lack of reading talk and history aside (Sorry!), it still doesn't make much sense. Just because the editors of the page aren't that great doesn't mean the information is any less inferior. The article needs work, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. That's called being lazy. And it could still use a bit of touching up, but this is a great start. -Ryanbomber 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On page disputes should probably be resolved through means other than an AfD. Not that I'm seeing much from the people who participated in those disputes in this discussion here anyway. But maybe we'll get lucky and this will be an impetus to positive change. FrozenPurpleCube 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only on condition that article is cut down further. Very good work has been done to this article but there is still a lot which needs to be cut out, IMHO. --Hydraton31 20:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be improved instead of deleting. The article does need sourcing and some more game guide information can be taken out. However, there is enough information to keep it off the main WoW area. fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, or else Merge with World of Warcraft#Characters. How is any of this information actually of interest to non-players? What is so special about WoW's Warrior that it can't be covered in Warrior (character class)? Stances and rage are pretty common concepts. Unless there are some specific reasons why WoW classes are different enough from the generic classes articles to exist separate from them, this should all be merged with them. GarrettTalk 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of one reasonably convenient article, you'd rather have 9 to go through? Not that I really see a problem with having the information in both places, as that's helpful in its own way. I also seem to have a different perception of this article not being interesting information to non-players, since it provides a very basic description that's probably of little interest to actual players. FrozenPurpleCube 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm imagining is a quick list at World of Warcraft#Classes that summarises what WoW classes can do and how they are different from the same classes in the glut of other MMOs, and then linking to the generic articles for more in-depth comparisons of the non-unique features. GarrettTalk 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I see it the seperate article is meant to summarize what the classes can do, and exists because doing those summaries properly would contribute to an existing Article size problem. Sad to say, the WOW main article is just that big. I don't see it getting smaller. Thus sections like this which can be treated independently are created, with more detail added as the size issue is not so much of an immediate problem. Talking about differences between the WOW classes and those in other systems is certainly appropriate for a different article, specific to the class, but getting into the differences might be considered original research. In any case, I'd strongly oppose this article being treated that way. This article is supposed to be about WOW classes, and should stick very carefully to just that. But feel free to bring up the issue on the existing class pages. FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rage and Stances are common concepts? Since when? WoW's the only one I know of with them. How many other games have totems? Energy? Combo points? Heck, we can have a section based JUST on new class concepts and how the WoW classes are different from the archetypes.-Ryanbomber 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go into detail here, but all those things have been done by other CPRGs or PnP games, albeit under different names. More on that in a minute. Afd is first and foremost critiquing articles' current status, not their potential. This particular article needs a better focus on what is new or different from previous games and/or fantasy worlds rather than providing the current grab-bag of new and old concepts without identifying which WoW changed or invented. Doing this would strip much of the generic class handling content (thus removing the "game guide" argument) and would clearly indicate the real world significance of WoW's classes to fantasy gaming as a whole, whereas right now the information only demonstrates its importance to WoW itself (which doesn't count when it comes to overall significance). This revision isn't that, however, so I'm still arguing for deletion. GarrettTalk 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The World of Warcraft classes at one point all had articles each on themselves but many thought they should be merged because of "cruft" and "game guide" issues but I am not opposed to breaking them back down Derktar 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, No comment SSJ 5 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a basic list of the classes of the game, not a guide.
  • Delete The Paladin is a supportive, hybrid melee fighter. Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others. → WP:NOT a game guide. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Umm... that's not even remotely what "game guide" is. That's exactly what the Paladin class is. Game Guide is when someone explains to you how to play a class, that sentence does not. If that was the criteria, then we couldn't explain in the Mario article that he's a plumber. Havok (T/C/c) 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so Mario is a game about plumbing? I don't know, if the article tells me that Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others then it tells me that Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others, which is exactly what a game guide does. But if you don't think that's a sufficient rationale, I go with Delete unsourced and potentially original research. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, these informations are available on the game website. We could add links to all class pages but it wouldn't really be useful. -- lucasbfr talk 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Link to the website and delete this article then. An encyclopedia ≠ an extension of the corporate website. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mario isn't a single game, but several, and the articles on the individual games do include descriptions of gameplay. Check them out. List of Mario games. You'll find a lot about stomping and shooting fireballs. You may have a lot of rewriting in for you. And yeah, claiming this is unsourced is not substantiated. FrozenPurpleCube 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete them all then. WP:NOT holds for Mario too. Why should I rewrite other people's policy-violatingcrap? ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're going ot suggest deleting dozens of articles because they describe the gameplay of their respective game? That seems excessive. Especially since what does and what does not constitute a game guide is not well established on Wikipedia. I'd suggest working on that issue first myself. FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I just had this article pointed out to me Pokémon game mechanics. The AfD for it might be worth reading. FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You've never played WoW, have you? Yes, it's true that Paladins heal people. That is what we in the inside-top-secret-know call a "basic description of what the paladin class does." GASP! The wiki does not tell you HOW to heal, merely that it exists. Game guides generally have the criteria of "telling you how to do things." Seeing as this wiki page has none of that... As for sourcing, that's not anything to delete the entire page over. It can be easily fixed - heck, you can do it yourself, if you so desire immediate change. -Ryanbomber 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I desire immediate deletion, if that isn't clear from my comments. If it's sourceable and you want the article to be kept, follow our policies: WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and especially WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, immediate deletion isn't going to happen, this isn't a speedy candidate. I don't think you are making much of a case by just rambling off a bunch of policy links either. Especially NOR and NPOV, which aren't at all applicable to this article. And a lack of sources/verification isn't an immediate deletion problem either, and it's not a real problem here either, as it should be pretty obvious that the character classes in WoW are easily verifiable. FrozenPurpleCube 05:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked, it's even already cited! At the bottom of the page, external links, WoW site. What more do you want? -Ryanbomber 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was me who put the <references/> tag in because none of you Keepists could be bothered. Not that the single link actually establishes anything the article claims. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone so by the book, you're having a wonderful time forgetting WP:ATTACK. Not to mention you have yet to prove that there's actually anything wrong. I've got an idea, how about you put a "citation needed" for all these "controversial facts" that we need to cite? Because, unless you have some sort of grudge against WoW (which is my guess at this point) you have yet to actually say anything other then "THIS VIOLATES VARIOUS WIKI POLICIES." Saying what we need to cite would be a good start for improving this article, instead of just throwing away perfectly fine information. -Ryanbomber 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the article is almost two months old, 2000 words long, has gone through 500 edits and up to today didn't even have a References section. How much more blatant can it get? ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this is because a) nobody asked for citation and b) it was assumed to be obvious enough that we don't need to cite every single thing? Again, if you have such a problem with it, add "citations needed." And you're missing the point - this AFD is because it's a game guide, not because it's not cited right. -Ryanbomber 11:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable.--Josh 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rewrite so that all game guide aspects are removed, there, wass that so difficult? -Derktar 07:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, World of Warcraft is notable with over 6 six million players. The player class descriptions describe what each of the class can do however I think a bit of lore should be added to the description to keep it from being confused with a strategy guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.114.175.195 (talk • contribs) .
  • keep. 6M players means the main article probably needs to be broken into so-called "crufty" articles. that fools assume need deleted. Unfocused 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, I knew better, yet didn't stop. This article is clearly more than simply a list but I should remember that such views are not self-evident to everyone involved. Unfocused 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, game guide and haven for fair use images that are not necessary. I like the suggestion of linking to the general character concept articles from the WOW article section. -- nae'blis 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: People, HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE? You guys have yet to prove the entire reason this article is up for nomination in the first place! -Ryanbomber 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree this is not game guide material, and for those who suggested to remove the game guide material from this, I challenge you to find game guide material first. This is the same nonsense that happened when the instances page was deleted. It really stinks that people have a grudge against WoW and they keep trying to attack it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.7.52.17 (talk • contribs) .
The term is "common knowledge," but if you really want sources then we can add them. Nothing to delete the page over. -Ryanbomber 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. What exactly do we need to cite? Oh, and we've already referenced the WoW site itself... -Ryanbomber 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have a problem: List of characters in Naruto, Category:Fictional dragons, Charmander -- lucasbfr talk 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, those are problems and should be deleted as well. Pointing out other articles that violate policy is no defence for this article to violate policy. L0b0t 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I know it's fun to grudge against WoW or whatever your point is, but can you at least read the policies you're quoting? -Ryanbomber 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This isn't a list, it's a collection of different character archetypes. Even if they were fictional characters, WP:NOT makes it sound like they don't want a list of fictional characters if that is the article in it's entirety. If we outlawed any article with a list of fictional characters (even if the article goes on to explain them) then we'd have absolutely no content in the wiki on fiction. -Ryanbomber 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page couldn't fit in the main article, and if it is borderline, I tend to think it is not a game guide. It might be a bit too detailed though, but since it is in its own article... -- lucasbfr talk 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep Most people that know of wikipedia and get WoW will probably come here to look for information on the game. What will they think when they come here and find about 2 paragraphs saying which characters you can be and what they focus on. As a player of the game I know what people will expect and that is a detailed article telling them what to expect in allies and enemies. Just think if you got something then while it was installing you came here to look for information on it and you found some scamp article that doesn't even outline what you need. Think about it. Pariand29 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm think those people would be better off looking at the many, many, many sources of game documentation rather than a general purpose encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for game players to learn more about their games. L0b0t 15:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Games players do look at Wikipedia to learn more about games they have not played yet. For example, players of other MMORPGs may look to this page to compare and contrast how their games' classes compares to WoW's. I've used City of Heroes characters to learn more about that game because I don't play it. fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why should people LEARN things in an encyclopedia?! What a stupid concept! [/sarcasm] Just because it's about pop culture or entertainment doesn't make it any less notable. -Ryanbomber 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your comment. I was replying to Pariand29, who was talking about players of WoW looking in the encyclopedia for installation and gameplay information. They would be better off looking at all the official documentation for the game rather than the general purpose encyclopedia. However, people unfamiliar with the game would also be better off looking elsewhere as Wikipedia is not a gameguide, directory, or instruction manual, see WP:NOT. "Just because it's about pop culture or entertainment doesn't make it any less notable." No, it actually makes it easier for it to be notable and as such, the bar for inclusion into the general purpose encyclopedia is set that much higher. Start a fansite, start a WoW wiki if there is not one already, write a book about WoW, just keep this obvious fanboy cruft out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE?!?! (You're going to ignore this because I've asked other questions.) Besides, if I ever want to look something "trivial" up really quick, I use the wiki. If I didn't play WoW, then a description of the classes would be a "trivial" thing that I'd use the wiki to look up. Not "trivial" as in without merit, but "trivial" as in... y'know... trivia? If we start deleting things from the wiki because there are other places to look, then we'd have no wiki. At all. The wiki is ALL STUFF FROM OTHER PLACES! First you people yell at us for not citing, now that we say "we'll cite it" you're saying that the fact that we found other sources makes this article moot? Make up your minds... -Ryanbomber 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an interesting insight into a game. When I go to a museum, I do not personally "like" all the exhibits. But I appreciate the collection. I view Wikipedia the same way: a cumulative collection of interests.

  • Strong Delete It needs to go as it reads like a blatent gameguide. Its also acting as a magnet for prats and as such reads differently every hour or so. Its just not a professional or well written article, never was and seems like it never will be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.185.59 (talk • contribs) .
Its specific information on a game, all of which can be found in far better detail on other sites and in the game manual. I realise you probably think you own this article Havok, but please let other people give there opinion and stop questioning everyone who doesnt agree with you. Also do not sign my posts for me. I dont band your details around the internet, dont do the same with mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.185.59 (talk • contribs) .
Welcome to the wikipedia. Policy says you have to sign your posts or we'll do it for you. If you don't like it, don't post here. Also, don't tell him to stop questioning people's opinions, because in doing so you are questioning his opinion. He's allowed to have an opinion just as much as you are. As for "specific information," not really. If you wanted specific information, we could list all talents and talent builds and whatnot. We give no advice as to what you should do as a class (which would be what we like to call "a game guide") but instead give a general overview as to what all the classes are - something perfect for an information depository such as the Wiki. As for "there's better sources elsewhere," if you applied that logic to the entire wikipedia it would not exist, seeing as everything in it is cited. -Ryanbomber 21:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, welcome to the real world. The point of this page is for people to voice an OPINION on what they think should be done with the page in question. I think it should be deleted, plain and simple. I am not "questioning his opinion" by asking him not to question mine. Your argument makes little sense. I am asking that people stop kicking off just because my opinion differs from their's. Do you walk into the voting booth on election day and start an argument with those who's choices did not match your own? I should hope not, though considering your apparent intellect I would not be surprised if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.185.59 (talk • contribs)
Please keep in mind that the debate is not a vote. And please stay civil and no personal attacks. Havok (T/C/c) 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem again. You keep arguing the people and not the actual argument. Also, your voting analogy is flawed, seeing as this is not a vote, it is a discussion. See WP:AFD -Ryanbomber 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move this to the WOW page or other sections its gamecruft. --Cs california 07:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hate WOW as much as anybody, but the classes deserve their own article. oTHErONE (Contribs) 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been compressed down from having a single article for each class. As it is, I see nothing wrong with it's content. PPGMD 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are trying to rewrite the article, please share your thoughts on the Talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it is currently written does not appear in the style of a game guide. Yamaguchi先生 05:16, 4 November 2006
  • Delete This article, along with the professions article, doesn't feel right at all. It's so deep within the Warcraft universe, I doubt it has any basis on the rest of Wikipedia. The best case scenario, I'm thinking, is to just hyperlink the nine classes, mentioned in the main article, to the generic concepts scattered about. So that's nine different articles, about warlocks in general and warriors in general, etc, but not specifically about these Warcraft classes. NB, I just got here, so I don't know the entirety of the situation/quality of other WoW pages.--Htmlism 18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general articles are just sections with summaries of different classes from different games with similar names and one short paragraph describing a rough concept that doesn’t even ably to all the class listed.. There's absolutely nothing in common with, say, a druid in DND and a druid in WoW except the name. Moving all class information into those articles would create 9 over sized articles and make navigation difficult. Seano1 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to other fictional archetypes of the classes is a good idea. Deleting the article over the lack thereof is not. Instead of destroying perfectly good information, why not just ADD the information you want to see, or at least suggest it on talk? -Ryanbomber 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not a horrible article, but it fails to provide any context outside of game-guide content. Specifically, most of the subsections are just descriptions which is akin to having a dicdef article. I might be persuaded to keep if the text explained how the classes compare to their real-life counterparts (where they exist), or at least how they compared to other fictional depictions of those classes. Of course, there's the "original research" problem, but at least it wouldn't be a generic list of classes confined to WoW. Sure, WoW is tremendously popular, but how far does that popularity extend? Should there be an article about famous landmarks in WoW? What about foods in WoW? --Alan Au 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that classes are probably the most important concept of WoW aside... Locations in the Warcraft Universe Pop culture references in World of Warcraft List of Warcraft characters. There's precedent. Next. -Ryanbomber 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you PLEASE give any sort of proof that this is anything you say? People just keep parroting eachother. Heck, I'm parroting myself because nobody will answer this freaking question. HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE?! -Ryanbomber 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article deserves to be kept in order to save space in the main article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first, this is far to much detail; it belongs on gamefaqs or someplace else. Second, it is all taken from primary sources, which is bad. Third, we already have far too many articles on WoW. Fourth, this does seem, per several comments above, to violate WP:NOT a game guide. Guy 15:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is hardly any detail. It's a big topic. This page could easily be almost a megabyte and still not cover all classes fully. Second, how is it bad? Third, we have too many articles on elements, Richard Nixon, and the wiki itself but you don't see anybody complaining, because there's no such thing as too much information and I'm using this as an example. Fourth, STOP PARROTING AND TELL US HOW THIS IS A GAME GUIDE. There have been plenty of examples as to how this is NOT a game guide, but none on how it IS. Until someone shows an example I can't see how this will be deleted. I'm amazed there isn't a speedy keep clause for times when the deleters have no proof of their claims. -Ryanbomber 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article undoubtedly has problems, but it is being constantly improved and is definitely not a game guide according to the definition under wikipedia policy (if you don't believe me then check). I find some of the comments on here ridiculous e.g. "dubious external links" (this is the official website we are talking about here), "we already have far too many articles on WoW" (this is better than having one long article which would take ages to load on slow connections and be very difficult to find information in), variants on "there are no citations" (they can be added, why delete the article?), etc. Raoul 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why improve articles when it's easier to just delete them? Who needs information anyway...Ryanbomber 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just picked my nose. That's information, therefore encyclopedic. Go ahead, start the article here.
Nice strawman. Firstly, that's an announcement, not information for an encyclopedia. Secondly, I meant information that has any merit at all. Thirdly, the comment I was refuting had nothing to do with it being useful information or not. -Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that geek nonsense like this survives on Wikipedia, and lots of interesting real world stuff is deleted is the best example of systemic bias to be seen on Wikipedia. Delete, delete, delete, delete. Delete. Delete. --SandyDancer 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Delete.[reply]
What excellent logic. "Other topics get deleted so this should be too!" Why not delete the main page while we're at it? -Ryanbomber 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost as good as the logic which says, "there are other game guides which haven't been deleted so..." And delete the main page ? I would vote delete as I missed the first vote. Jcam 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrrrrr. This isn't a game guide and saying "it is" over and over is just ad nauseam. You have yet to make any sort of example as to it actually being one.-Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this article must be deleted as vengeance for an article or articles you like getting deleted. Seano1 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make personal attacks against people, I make personal attacks against hilariously terrible arguments. Which there seems to be a lot of. And it's sarcasm, mostly, not personal attacks. PS: even if I am a sarcastic jerk (which I very well may be,) calling that out to say my argument is flawed because of it is flaky logic. -Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-imposed recusal/abstention, due to comments made in Rfa, yet still exercising my rights to comment here:
    • It's Afd's like this which make the World of Citizendium a very compelling place to many of us who are adults (or at least aspire to act like adults). You have a user who strongly favors keeping the article voting oppose in a request for administrator based on another user's vote to delete, not because the user said something like " 'cause World of Warcraft sux" or the such, but because they gave their opinion (which was well thought out, logical, and based on what many would say is a consensus interpretation of Wikipedia policies). A user should not have to worry about a good faith vote(and there is no other way to look at that vote) in an Afd being one day used against them in an Rfa.
    • Look at the edit summaries on the history page. Yes, occasional "cute" edit summaries are OK, but when the page looks like a myspace-page, it tells me there might be something wrong with the maturity of some of the users. This is an encyclopedia. And yes, while many of us did not have the benefit of new math such as AOLgebra, we understand that "CAPS LOCK AND BOLD = SHOUTING". Many of us even understand the corollary to the above equation which is SHOUTING ≠ WP:CIVIL.
    • For reference, there is a World of Warcraft wiki here. The reason I bring this up is this- a year from now, are there going to be less, more, or about the same number of WoW articles ? I would bet my next paycheck that there will be more, possible 5 times as many articles. Some of you WoW fans might find this frustrating as 99.9% of the articles which need to be written about the subject have already been written. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, it's not designed to be the encompassing source for all things WoW, and if you're likely to get bent out of shape over a WoW article you expended much effort in writing, your talents may be better utilized here.

Jcam 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 1; no comment. Paragraph 2; Yeah, okay, some of my edit summaries are stupid. The problem is that people aren't listening at all, and it's REALLY starting to annoy me. I guess I'm taking it out on the edit summary. I'll stop now. And I was e-shouting because people have yet to answer my question, which is the entire reason the article's been nominated in the first place. Paragraph 3; This argument would have a point if it were a 5-page biography on some obscure WoW character. The problem is it's not. Classes are pretty much THE most important topic in the game. It's too big for the main WoW, which is why it was moved here. -Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you let this AfD lie Ryanbomber, I'm not telling you to not read it and/or comment on anything. But it might be prudent that you don't comment on every delete comment as you say the same thing; The closing admin will see your first argument about what you have said. Even if it is frustrating it might be best to let things just sail. Havok (T/C/c) 07:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep Read the secton on instruction manuals a bit more carefully. Yes, this article needs some serious work, but everything it contains is descriptive. It describes information from the game, and does not prescribe how to do things. It may contain some advice or instruction, but it could easily be fixed so as to not contain said elements. Also, as a gamer, I often use wikipedia to research games I am considering buying, and have often found pages like this useful. --Falard 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentWikipedia isn't a resource to review video games. And just because an article is descriptive does not mean it should be on Wikipedia - here, the article is descriptive of information that doesn't in an encyclopedia. Aren't there fan websites to do with this game, if its so notable?
      • When I was a kid I was into computer games too - but I didn't expect to open up an encyclopedia and find details of every nuance of them... --SandyDancer 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is hardly "every nuance." Again, classes are one of the most important things in WoW. Second of all, what's your point? Times are changing. The wiki isn't just for boring research. Interesting, pop-culture-y stuff is here too. -Ryanbomber 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In his time Shakespeare was considered unimportant cuff. Seano1 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously not a game guide, which offers hints or solutions to the game, but a mere description of an existing set-up. I would like to emphasize, that it is of a purely descriptive nature, and not a guide. If how-to bits appear, they need to be removed, but the article itself should be kept. Gimlei 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though has a "gameguide creep" problem and can be difficult to manage sometimes, it's certainly an article that deserves existence. If it didn't exist, then it would be necessary to increase the size of the World of Warcraft article to accomodate information on its classes. And I'm talking like 250-500 words per class, which would bloat the article significantly and it's large enough as it is. RobertM525 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? Why would we need 250-500 words "per class"? Why is that information notable in the context of an encyclopedia at all? Wikipedia doesn't contain, for example, a 500 word profile of every character in Doctor Zhivago, and that is considered one of the greatest movies of all time - so even if this WoW thing is considered one of the greatest video games of all time, why do we need all this in depth detail? Couldn't we just provide an external link to the dedicated WoW Wiki for those who truly want to be immersed? --SandyDancer 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with SandyDancer, why so detailed? What makes WoW so special that it demands that much information while more mainstream notable articles can get their information across in far less. The Kinslayer 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't so special. The difference is that people have written 500 words on WoW and not on, say, Doctor Zhivago. If you want an article to go into more detail about something, then write about it. That's the entire point of the wiki. -Ryanbomber 13:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choronzon (Band)

[edit]

This article does not meet the criteria for notability in a music article, as the only label the band has ties to is a non-notable one. Additionally, the article was written by one of the band members; User:Psychaotic is the vocalist/synthesizer player. EvilCouch 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe you are misrepresenting some of the facts. They are associated with at least two indie labels: Nocturnal Art (the one that is likely a borderline notable label, been around for at least 12 years) and Earache Records (one that is definitely notable, and has been around for about 20 years). They have at least two albums out through NA, and at least one out through ER. They have other albums out in addition to those produced by the two labels above. As for the article being written by the band, that is a possibility. It is also a possibility that it's just a fan of the band. Unless we have proof positive otherwise, we must assume good faith on the part of that editor. It might be more productive for people to go and edit the article than to just AfD it without even trying to clean it up (more than it already is, as it was cleaned up due to a previous AfD in January 2006, and one for an article that was eventually merged into this one in February 2006. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are not associated with Earache Records. I believe you are confusing Choronzon (album) by Akercocke (which is under the Earache Records label) with Choronzon (Band). Additionally, the user name Psychaotic is used in several dozen websites by someone proporting to be a member of the band. I find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that the same user name was the original author of the article. EvilCouch 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I hadn't caught that before. In that case, Delete'. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian wikis

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Furthermore, none of these wikis are particularly notable as websites. BhaiSaab talk 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOLz, people do have crazy ideas. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relational Dialectics

[edit]

A POV essay of sorts, or something of a contextless bullet list. Certainly not an article, and would need a complete rewrite if it were to stay, so therefore delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Relational dialectics is a communication theory taught in interpersonal communication textbooks, it's notable. A very quick google search yields a page that lists 8 textbooks which include the concept here. The article is a badly-styled stub that's a bit low on context for people not at least briefly acquainted with the subject matter, but it's not a POV essay. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contingent on rewrite-- I agree with points from both comments thus far made. The article is more of an essay right now, with the first paragraph just a quote that is the thesis of the argument, not an objective introduction to the argument as a whole. Yet Google shows that this concept is notable, as tjstrf points out, so it should be fixed. Dar-Ape 01:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it isn't rewritten. What's this nonsense about centrifugal forces? I don't see what the physics of rotating objects has to do with this article. eaolson 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author means forces analogous to the physical forces. He uses the word centripetal as an analog for emotional forces tending towards unity and the word centrifugal for emotional forces tending towards divergence. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Philosophy for most people is always borderline, that is no reason for exclusion. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Repost G4. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol Finalists Album Sales

[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to American Idol. The album sales of each Idol finalist is listed on the individual pages, there is no reason for a page like this on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. EvilCouch 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article does categorize something that is significant and relates to a major TV show (business) and so in the spirit of an encyclopedia cataloguing human knowledge, something like this is indeed much warranted. I am in agreement that the article can be improved, as some have taken steps to do, but definitely keep this valuable article. --172.149.149.117 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note This was 172.149.149.117's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note This was 172.163.162.176's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note " Hús tends to go after Wikidians at a whim.
  • Speedy Keep You heard right! Screw all this speedy delete crap! Let's start keeping more articles as many of these are indeed relevant and interesting to a variety of Wikipedians and we shouldn't just cater to a minority. --172.128.93.144 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note " --172.128.93.144 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) has atcually made hundreds of contributions to Wikipedia, just on many different computers in different cities! He's also right! :)[reply]
Note This was 172.128.93.144's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note WHO CARES?! --172.131.213.162 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin cares - a well-explained comment from an established user is more likely to swing the decision than an offhand sarcastic comment from a random IP (and while I won't cry sockpuppet right away, may I point out that almost all the keep votes come from a similar IP range?) Confusing Manifestation 10:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (Edit: Ah, of course, AOL. Still, I'd say there's a fair amount of similarity in the votes, sockpuppet or not.)[reply]
  • Merge Very fancrufty, and the precedent it sets isn't necessarily good. Merge relevant info onto finalists personal pages, album pages and on the American Idol page where it belongs. This information is superfluous, it should be on the other relevant pages. --The Way 05:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we AOL and public computer users might have made AS MANY changes as registered users, but you guys won't know that because of using different IPs. Most of these reasons for deletion are hardly well-explained or non-sarcastic. They tend to insult users who try to create articles that are helpful and interesting to various readers. I really do think that some users are getting too quick to delete articles, when it would be far more useful to maintain as many articles as possible so as to best catalog human knowledge. --172.163.63.151 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Keeper! --172.131.213.162 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are a LOT more reasons to keep than not to. --172.135.150.253 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note = Happy Halloween! :)
  • Delete per WP:NOT a collection of indescriminate information. This should be in individual artist articles. Anon flood largely lacks a coherent inclusion argument... Could even go speedy per Daniel...--Isotope23 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A collection of relevant and useful information that would be cumbersome for users to locate if dispersed throughout all contestants' articles. This article is convenient and useful and if anything should just be revised and expanded upon. Most arguments for deletion lack a reasonable argument. To be simplistic, the article isn't hurting anybody and nor does it detract from Wikipedia in anyway. If anything, it adds to Wikipedia and therefore would be a shame if taken down. And, I'll echo the Happy Halloween wishes! I don't know how old all of you are (some appear to be pretty young), so be safe trick or treating! Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and ignore silly anon sockpuppetry. Danny Lilithborne 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Edison 18:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - the proposed merge target doesn't exist, but if somebody wants to write it I will copy this article to their userspace for source material while they are doing so. Yomanganitalk 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reman Mythology

[edit]

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok Wisdom

[edit]

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for the reasons Torte listed. Pyro1588
    • Comment. Wait a minute, how am I a single purpose account? I didn't register just to vote on this AfD. I've written the articles Samkin_Aylward and Hordle_John. My account was registered some time before this AfD. Pyro1588 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, removed. I was suspicious because you've only had two other edits ever, both of which were nearly a year ago. Also, judging from your rationale to keep, I figured you weren't really an experienced editor- you're basing your opinion on a completely subjective statement that doesn't really hold its ground. I was under the impression you were "called" to the discussion and remembered you had an old account you hadn't used in a while. --Wafulz 16:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and because it's cruft. As for the keeps based on what Torte wrote, that's invalid. Simply because we haven't gotten around to deleted every un-notable article is not a reason to keep an unnotable article -- otherwise we could accomplish logic. Circular logic is neither required nor desired. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I said above, of course one can't be expected to do that :P. But what I really meant was that it was still notable enough on an "average scale" to be kept... I should just put that argument in my ctrl+C, shouldn't I? =P. Torte 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand your argument at all. What exactly is the "average scale" youre referring to? --Wafulz 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. There is no such thing as "average scale" of notability. An article is notable, or it isn't. Have you read WP:WEB? Use that, and not this "average scale" theory that you made up, to make your argument. ColourBurst 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Nyah, sorry about not being clear, I was tired at the time of writing and probably didn't make it much clearer, or possibly worse. My apologies. I still stand with that I think it's notable enough to be kept. Also, what I meant with "average scale" is that there are things that, as far as my knowledge goes, are less noteworthy but are considered notable. Once again, my apologies if I wasn't making much sense. (P.S. I'm not very well versed with the policies on the site either, so thanks for linking it to me, I'll read it as soon as I have time available.) Torte 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources, failing WP:WEB, WP:V. Wickethewok 18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB, and hopefully we'll get around to deleting even less notable articles in due course! --Steve 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the comic may not have a significant Alexa rating, I believe it has been an influence in several similar gaming comics, and is highly unlikely to cause a cluttering effect on anything in particular. It may be helpful to trim the article to a somewhat reduced state, such that it shows the history of the webcomic rather than a high level of fluff (such as detailed character listings), but deletion may be over the top. Theogrin 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fairly certain that sources exist that would make this article pass WP:WEB. I personally don't know them, but I encourage anyone who does to add them to the main article now. Once the article passes WP:WEB, any claims of notability are nullified and this article will survive AFD. Inmatarian 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I spoke to the author of the comic, and he gave me some links which might satisfy WP:WEB. If anything, these do at least demonstrate that the comic exists as an important part of the fan-based community of Ragnarok Online. [10], [11], [12], [13]. I again stress that if these links help satisfy WP:WEB, that someone make sure they are incorperated into the body of the article. Inmatarian 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, unverified by reliable third-party sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Tone 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive Panda

[edit]

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems fairly notable to me. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We got hundreds if not thousands of similar cases. Indeed, it seems notable and well structured article. -- Szvest 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®[reply]
  • Keep - Per comments of above keep nominations. Chris Kreider 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict). So far I have seen no rationale as to why this comic is notable. Two people have said it "seems notable" with no evidence to back them up, and one person has opted to keep because the previous two did. AfD is more than a vote. If it seems notable, I'd like to hear why. I see the author has published one book, but I can't find any information on it, leading me to believe it might be minor or self-published. Most of the links to it are from private blogs, it has a traffic rank of around 450k, and I can't find any third party sources to verify anything. In fact, the only two sources in the article are both primary- we have one from the website, and another from a forum. If someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary of what I've said I'll consider changing my opinion. --Wafulz 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! AS PER ORIGINAL NOM. Look, this is about consensus, so you have to give VALID reasons why we should keep an incoherent article about a trivial webcomic. Saying that Wikipedia has a long list of other things that should be deleted is NOT a reason to keep it. WP:WEB clearly sets a stadard this does not meet. IF you can come up with a reason to keep it that answers the statements in WP:WEB, great. If not, then please don't spam keep votes just to keep your article up.In ur base, killing ur dorfs 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - delete - the rebuttal of the keep advocates, to which the keep advocates often did not respond to the notability question, as well as one vote, push this over the line. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Beetle

[edit]

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm basing my idea that Digger is the most notable Graphic Smash comic on Digger being discussed in The New York Times and Ursula Vernon being nominated for an Eisner Award. Unless I've missed something, minor webcomics like Fans are far from that level of achievement, and this webcomics is even farther still. -- Dragonfiend 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added an assertion of notability: It picked up a nomination in the Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards in 2001 for "Best Superhero Series". Ordinarily, WP:WEB requires multiple nominations, but considering that the majority of the comic's run (including its salad days) occurred before the award had been founded, I think that can be reasonably waived in this case. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure if this would be a case in which we'd want to follow past precedent, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Dementia was deleted despite having an award nomination. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winning this award is not a notable achievement. If it were, reliabel sources would cover the award winners. Being simply nominated for this trivial award is definitely not an indicator of notability. It's just an award some people made up one day on the internet. My high school perfect attendance award is more notable. -- Dragonfiend 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with this viewpoint, since I believe that the WCCA awards are the most prominent awards within the field of webcomics. If you are able to provide a more prominent example, I would of course be willing to re-evaluate that position. Furthermore, WP:WEB states that the award may come from either "a publication or organisation", which demonstrates that the award need not have a connection with print media. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already mentioned the much more prominent Eisner Awards; the Ignatz Awards are also much more prominent. The Lulu Blooker Prize is also more well-known. There are probably several more, like the Webby Awards. What WP:WEB requires is that the site or webcomic win a well-known and independent award. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are neither well-known (that's why we have a dearth of reliable sources about them and their winners) nor independent ("The WCCA started in 2001 being hosted by ... Keenspace"). Also, this webcomic has never won this award. It's just an award some non-notable webcomic artists decided they were going to give to each other, and reliable sources have largely ignored it. The awards themselves are dripping with non-notability, and their 125 nominations a year (over 25 categories, 5 comics nominations in each category) are no sign of notability at all. -- Dragonfiend 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Eisner Awards are exclusively for print comics, and as such, would not apply here. The Lulu Blooker Prize is no more notable than the WCCA awards, and if you're concerned about conflicts of interest, you may want to consider that Lulu Press is pretty much the printer of choice for print-on-demand bound collections of webcomics. The Ignatz awards seem significant, so I would accept them as evidence of notability, in addition to the WCCA awards. I'm also having trouble understanding your rationale for rejecting the award based on the voting body. Many of its members, such as Jeph Jacques, Lee Adam Herold, Eric Burns, and Paul "Pablo" Taylor are notable within the field, but even if they weren't, that still wouldn't be enough to discredit it. Participants in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game are determined through voting by fans, a group of non-notable individuals with no tangible connection to the industry whatsoever, but status as a starter in the All-Star game is still quite highly regarded among baseball players. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Eisner Awards are not "exclusively for print comics." For example, "In 2003, Justine Shaw was the first webcomic artist to be nominated for an Eisner Award when she was nominated for 'talent deserving of wider recognition' and her Nowhere Girl was nominated for 'best new series.'" This was covered by reliable sources, including daily newspapers in Oklahoma, as referenced in the article. Other webcomics have been nominated and have won Eisner Awards since. Nominations for non-notable awards like "Japanese Beetle has been nominated for a WCCA," are not covered by reliable sources, which is probably why there are no references to sources in the Japanese Beetle article. Your comparison of the WCCAs to a major sporting event makes little sense to me, and I'm not sure what your list of "members" is, as it includes no one listed on their committee roster [14]. And again, WP:WEB has a criteria for sites that have won well-known and independent awards. You seem to believe that these WCCAs are well-known and independent, but surely we can agree that this comic has never won one. If you're still trying to make the case that being nominated for a WCCA award is a notable achievement, then just please cite a reliable, third-party source saying so, as I did with Nowhere Girl's Eisner nomination. -- Dragonfiend 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --64.12.116.9 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article provides useful information to Wikipedia users, with no downside whatsoever. Verifiable, encyclopedic, notable, not a copyvio, and so on. Again, having this useful information does not harm the quality of Wikipedia in any way. Factitious 10:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it notable? I can declare an article on my pet cat and it declare it, useful, notable, verifiable, etc... but it doesn't make it so. As someone who is advocating to keep the article, you must show proof of its Notability. Finally, on "harm".... it dilutes the value of other articles on the encyclopedia. To quote Wikipedia's founder: "Notability is important because we exist here to serve our readers. We want to give them useful, relevant information, not just a complete data dump.... It serves to give readers a quick essential summary of what they want and need to know. In order to do this effectively, we must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" --Kunzite 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that we want to provide useful, relevant knowledge. This article provides useful, relevant knowledge to people looking for information about The Japanese Beetle. Therefore, I think we should keep this information. Factitious 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do we know that it is useful or relevant information? Because someone declares it so? What reliable third party sources do you have that indicates this as relevant or useful? --Kunzite 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know what sort of information it is because I read the article. I don't think you could with a straight face claim that the information in it is not relevant to its topic. Factitious 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look at it this way: Suppose you had heard of The Japanese Beetle, but didn't really know much about it beyond the fact that it's a webcomic. When you type its name into Wikipedia, what sort of results should you get? An article about the subject you're interested in, or no information? Is there any advantage at all to giving users no information about the subjects they want to learn about? Factitious 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia is not meant to be a collector of all human knowledge. There are many items that fall into this category of thing that usually do not meet notability requirements--fan-fiction, most web forums, the vast majority of self-published books, unrecognised web-comics, the majority of doujinshi titles, amateur movies, internet memes, game guides, your neighbor's garage band, etc. These things are relevant to a limited number of people. Including an article on every piece of fiction ever written would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia determines what should kept by its very loose notability guidelines. i.e. Has this work been recognised and written about by someone other than the creator or people affiliated with the creator? If there are multiple, non-trivial sources of recognition then, yes, we should have an article on the topic. No one has presented any information in the article or in this AFD that the subject of the article merits keeping other than the "I like it" or "It's useful" defenses. --Kunzite 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. One nomination for an award with questionable merits does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion of web content. --Kunzite 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkcity

[edit]

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349'''Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of wikipedia
  • Delete because this way Brad will finally get to be hall monitor. Xihr 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jerkcity 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails swedish meatball test. Quatloo 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even I've heard of this, and I hardly read web comics. Richard W.M. Jones 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - long standing notable web comic Gid0ze 19:31:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If those asshats at User:Jerkcity want to delete it, then we should keep it. Galexander 19:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a no-brainer. Long-standing, well-known webcomic. -- Rynne 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy, it's a guideline made up by the "consensus" of a population of certain wiki editors who get some sort of weird thrill out of imposing their judgements on others. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no credible reason to delete entries based on notability... other than that wannabe administrators simply enjoy doing it. Ariochiv 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Right at the top of WP:WEB it says this. "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how the authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.". I'm pretty sure that means it's official. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • False. Policies are official. Guidelines are not. Quatloo 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Guidelines are made up by the community, and can be edited by anyone; they are not official policy. Verifiability is policy. Neutral point of view is policy. Notability is a guideline, not policy. Nowhere in WP:DELETE is Notability listed as a valid criteria for deletion. I realize that you guys do it everyday anyway, but that doesn't make it right. Ariochiv 08:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB isn't a policy per se, but it's nevertheless cited by many people as a keep/deletion rationale. The very outcome of many deletion debates may hinge on that. I'd say if you want to reject specific notability criteria, you have to then explain what other criteria you use to explain to keep the stuff; if you reject a long-standing guideline that's cited by a lot of people as it is, you have to find other footing to stand on. We're open to ideas, of course, it's just that WP:WEB happens to represent a bunch of rather well-tried ideas. So I'd like to ask is this: If you reject notability criteria, what else do you propose we do to stop us from being flooded with completely insignificant content? How do you help people from telling apart wheat and chaff? How do you help people find the remarkable content? If you yank the carpet from under our feet, you need to put another carpet in its place or people will keep slipping around on the bare floor.
      Also be aware that AfDs that manage to change the established procedures are few and far between - you probably need some excellent deletion-lawyering to wriggle out of this one... meanwhile, I propose you edit the article to say how it fulfills the current criteria for inclusion. You won't change people's opinions overnight - or within timespan of a single AfD debate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, I've heard of this, too, I think it's a wonderful comic, but we aren't building an encyclopedia of wonderful things we've heard of. No, this does not meet WP:WEB which is a guideline. It also doesn't meet our official WP:V policy "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It also doesn't meet our official policy that WP:NOT and internet guide, and articles about websites should "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." So, if we want to keep this article, find some verifiable info from reliable sources talking about the topic's significance. -- Dragonfiend 04:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nom Stormscape 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep but if you decide to Delete, get rid of Penny Arcade too. --timecop 05:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- well-known webcomic. Also, I agree with Stormscape -- may be a bad faith nom. Haikupoet 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your accusation of bad-faith, malicious editing seems entirely unfounded. -- Dragonfiend 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This nomination is honestly in good faith. I took a look at the article, the external links, etc and didn't see any claims of notability. Take a look at other highly notable webcomics; Megatokyo for example states in the first paragraph that it ranks among the most popular webcomics, and is the best selling original English-language manga. Jerkcity, on the other hand, makes no assertions of notability. That's why I nominated it. To clarify, I'm not saying all articles need to be as notable as Megatokyo, but they need to assert some form of notability. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why not add a note stating that it should reference its notability, rather than starting a vote to delete the article entirely? Xihr 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I brought it to AFD as I honestly believe it comes close to WP:CSD#A7, which states that an article is subject to speedy deletion if it does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this site doesn't meet WP:WEB, then our guidelines are failing, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生 07:09, 1 November 2006
  • Delete - Non-notable. Notable things say that they are notable as per WP:NOT. Reccomend to "Jerkcity" author to assert notability in similar manner as "Megatokyo" author to achieve req'd notability level. SUNSHINE INCARNATE — SUNSHINE INCARNATE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Very very weak keep - Meets the "I heard of this from outside Wikipedia" gut feeling, is pretty long-standing, has had (apparently self-published, limited-edition) book; 227 distinct Google hits for the term (shows 202000 (!) at first), so there's probably some name-recognition. That said, probably far from being the most important web comic in the town, and there's no solid evidence of otherwise meeting WP:WEB... If there's any evidence to contrary, I'd be more enthusiastic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 15:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. clearly more important than a CD that sells 5,000 copies. Unfocused 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screaming WTF DUH Keep i cannot for the life of me understand why the hell this was nominated for deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have not heard of Jerkcity myself, but from the little research I did it seems to be fairly well known and as it has been around for so long it should be kept. bbx 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like it fails WP:V (which is policy), which would trump any claims of notability. No independent reliable sources coverage. Wickethewok 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:IAR. I think it's rather obvious that any policy ever written will encounter an unanticipated situation that invalidates it, that is, except WP:IAR. Given the other responses here, I think it's pretty clear which policy is more important in this case. Unfocused 22:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least six other editors to date have either strenuously objected to deletion or considered this a bad faith nomination and you think Wikipedia is still better off deleting it? This is the kind of pedantic policy-worship that pisses off good editors and drives them away. Unfocused 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how "Wikipedia will be worse off if this is kept." Ariochiv 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to nitpick, but this is the entire part of the article about JerkCity: "Exploitation Now and Jerkcity mix pop-cultural criticism with dark, often sexual humor." It doesn't even have its own sentence... seems pretty trivial. Wickethewok 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's a trivial mention, but even a trivial mention in a major media source is enough to demonstrate that the article's subject exists, which takes the "delete it, it's unverified, violating WP:V" idea out of bounds. That mention isn't enough to establish notability, of course, so you could still advocate deletion on those grounds, if that's how you feel. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm seriously shocked anyone could think Jerkcity isn't notable. It's been around forever, is pretty much universally known in I-spend-too-much-time-on-the-Internet circles, ranks huge in a Google search (I'm getting 137,000 hits after I prune out jerkcity.com and other sites connected to Jerkcity and its creators), exists in a print format, and is produced by the same shadowy cabal that's behind Rotten.com, Leisure Town, and Rands in Repose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.194.180 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Massive google search result, and not only that, this was one of the first

webcomics I ever heard about.ABigBlackMan 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request - Could someone present some non-trivial reliable third party sources? Wickethewok 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ariochiv. Reliable sources also provided in sufficient number, facts are uncontested anyway. --Kizor 13:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most popular comics published on the web, it's been around for a number of years, still manages to publish daily after thousands of strips, and is pretty much the only place to find any insightful commentary about the internet era, in my opinion. Plus I like the jokes about sodomy.172.166.72.120 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm late to the debate, but this is a no-brainer. Verifiably notable, long-running webcomic that is, dare I say it, a part of net history. And I own the book. Polpo 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeutralConditional keep (as long as it passes WP:WEB's first test. WP:WEB guidelines specify three criteria. If any one of these is satisfied, the article passes the WP:WEB test. My feeling is that to resolve this debate in favor of keeping the article, we should focus on (1), as this is Jerkcity's strongest case for notability. I think Jerkcity will have trouble passing /2 and /3, the former because I have not seen any mention of awards for the site in this discussion, and the latter because of the requirement that sites that show the work be independent of the creators of the work. --Zippy 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. By the time you're selling hard copies it's a little late to start questioning notability, and nominator admits that this was part of a blanket listing. This should be a no-brainer. Chris Cunningham 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Tone 23:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Box

[edit]

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Neuberger

[edit]

Contested prod. Article gives little assertion of notability, and no sources. What little is here does not satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She was divorced from LaRouche many years before he ran for President. She is briefly mentioned in the article on LaRouche. There is nothing notable about her. There is no reason to have a separate entry for her. Rentir 03:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. Note the citation that I added; in a 350+ page biography of LaRouche, she is only mentioned on pages 8-9. Helga Zepp-LaRouche she isn't. But I'm leaving my !vote as weak keep because of the NOW claim, which I would like to see sourced and expanded if accurate. ergot 14:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did web searches for "Janice Neuberger" on Google and Ask. Looks like almost all of the hits are for sites that Wikipedia or repackaged Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like there is anything notable about her. The NOW claim isn't substantiated. Rentir 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my !vote to neutral since the NOW claim is questionable (and is a very vague claim in the first place). She certainly can't be described as a leader in the LaRouche movement (see my comment below). Perhaps this could be deleted on the grounds that it can't be expanded beyond a stub? Incidentally, looking around for precedent didn't provide anything useful. We kept an article on this girl (VfD discussion), whose only claim to fame is having dated a much less notable political extremist than LaRouche. We seem to have kept the article on Al Gore's youngest son five times now (see Talk:Al Gore III), but Gore is notable for reasons beyond his candidacy. We do seem to have an article on Ralph Nader's sister, who I'm not sure would pass the prof test and perhaps should be AfD'd. ergot 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because notability is established on two separate grounds: 1) leading member of LaRouche movement 2) leading member of NOW. I, too, would like to see this article fleshed out more and would reconsider my vote if, in a year, the article remains as is. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • "Leading member of the LaRouche movement" is inaccurate because they divorced while she and LaRouche were still in the Socialist Workers Party. ergot 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above about Janice Neuberger web searches not finding much except for her Wikipedia entry (repackaged on a few sites). If Neuberger really is notable, shouldn't there be clear evidence of her being a leading member of the groups you mention? If there is evidence then it would be good if someone could bring it to this discussion because it might change peoples' views in this discussion. Rentir 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 budget games

[edit]

Completing malformed nom from Ceros (talk · contribs). No vote from me. Daniel Olsen 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional military operations

[edit]

The tiny amount of meaningful information this simple list presents is original research. (Contested PROD) ➥the Epopt 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I really I don't concur with the reason for nomination (I don't see any original research in this article), though I do think this article is poorly organized and probably needs to be rewritten. Perhaps seperated into individual fictional works in some cases. Still, it's no worse than List of military operations FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list too far. This list doesn't define its parameters: so far it appears to include only recent movies, but the title would imply that it could include other media, such as books and computer games. There must be thousands of films which would qualify, and tens of thousands of books, so the list will either be absurdly selective or impossibly huge. There's also a boundary issue, a lot of fiction using fictionalised derivations of military operations; how heavily fictionalised must an op be for inclusion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it already includes things besides movies. There's several books, computer games and TV series mentioned. However, I do agree with you that this list needs some explicit specifications. It might even be worth breaking into sections based on TV/movies/books/computer games as media. FrozenPurpleCube 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not jsut from TV, but also collected from video game manuals, books, and references. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopeddic value is that's it a rather quick reference. Ever tried looking up a certain type of Hydrania? Wikipedia tends to have it kind of hard looking for specific types of things. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone elaborate why it is listcruft? --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the there will be several smaller lists going around Wikipedia --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very pointless list. Sandstein 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- list lacks the Scouring of the Shire, World War III from Red Storm Rising, the Dominion War, and, I dunno, gazillions of other fictional military operations. Category is far too broad; even a reasonable threshold of notability would probably bloat this page beyond the point of maintainability. Haikupoet 06:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, the Dominion war and World War III, is a WAR, not a specific military operation. There is a difference. The Scouring of the Shire is a sepcific event in the Lord of the Rings, not a planned overall assualt with stragetic objectives. The page is quite maintaianable, since there are not too many "Fictional Military Operations", and most can be verfied quickly if it is relavant to the plot or not. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then if someone is searching for a specific operation, how will they know when and who and what series? --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no corresponding category possible, as no one would suggest creating articles for these operations. The list currently lacks structure and is only alphabetical. Suggest that the topic is approached at a smaller level, such as overview articles for specific areas (such as military operations in computer game series X), and then create a category for those overview articles. Carcharoth 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the List is structured enough. If you have issues, make recomendations to the talk page. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --Eldarone 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fictional Military Operations is perfectly relevant to the many science fiction universes, books, RPG's, etc. It's a quick and easy aid for one to find a group from a stroy and look up the right series. And the ,list is maintable, and has been maintianed well. Also, this list is relavent due to the imporantce of the Military Operations to the plot of many stories. Instead of creating many useless pages that just deals with the oneoperation, a single list will be able to maintian any and all plot relevant operations. --Eldarone 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cbrown1023 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly Strong Keep Lists are legitimate and useful parts of encyclopedia. There are lots of lists in Britannica, Compton's and others and so here is what could be the largest encyclopeia in the world, these sorts of things are essential as part of the ongoing quest to catalog human knowledge. --164.107.92.120 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an ongoing quest to catalog human knowledge. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia meant to be accessible to the general reader. This list is useless for the general reader. Detailed and unencyclopedic lists like this belong on a specialist wiki. Carcharoth 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uselessness is only in the opinion of the editor. There are a variety of Fictional operations ranging from modern day stories to the fantastic. It is useful for anyone researching stories or doing literacy reports. --Eldarone 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And for specialist information and trivia, go to a specialist website or wiki. Not to Wikipedia. Carcharoth 10:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And who appointed you guardian of Wikipedia's policies and content? Because it's your opinion doesn't make it the one true way you know. -- Necrothesp 11:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. How do you suggest this debate moves forward? Carcharoth 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about that this list is not speicalized in any way? It covers a broad range of fictional operations from many types of series and games, that it's not speicalized to fit in any sort of speicalized Wiki. Tell me one Wiki that can take every single operation as one single list? --Eldarone 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not paper.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete completely open-ended list per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually like the idea of this list, but it's simply not sufficiently defined in terminology and thus excessively broad. A comprehensive list would probably include hundreds of thousands of entries from books, games, movies, songs etc. -Kubigula (ave) 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because I don't think depictions of military operations per se are that substantial in fiction, as opposed to battles or wars. This will inevitably be little more than a list of military operations that are referred to in fiction, which is trivia. Postdlf 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of information (like the other two). Do we want any list which can grow indefinitely? Also, Object because the threesome wasn't merged into one AfD. Duja► 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - due to OR concerns as to the criteria, and there being no properly defined criteria for inclusion. Aside from that, all the IP "keeps".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional wars

[edit]

The tiny amount of meaningful information this simple list presents is original research. (Contested PROD) ➥the Epopt 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Again, I don't see the original research in this article. (Perhaps you could specify the parts you claim are original research??) It's a bit better than the fictional military operations one, but it could use a little reorganization. It's just not well-presented. Still, that's a clean-up issue, not a reason for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly ill-defined WP:OR (actually non-defined), and impossibly wide in potential scope (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). Does it include movies, games, novels? How heavily fictionalised does a war have to be to be included? the list includes fictionalised versions of most of the major 20th century wars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this list includes movies, games, novels, comics and tv shows. I agree though, there should be some criteria for belonging on this list, and it should be at the top of the page. I'll bring it up on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compiling information doesn't equal original research. Especially since in many cases, the compilation can come right from Wikipedia. And there are people who do care about various fictional wars, otherwise they wouldn't talk about them so much. FrozenPurpleCube 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want though, this could be added as a source [16] for at least part of it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was trying to think of a polite reason. How about this: it's total, absolute crap, and it's not fit to be printed on a roll of toilet paper as trivia for someone taking a dump. It's not only pointless for the African dirt farmers who can't afford textbooks for whom this encyclopedia is ostensibly being written, but it's pointless for all but the White and Nerdy set. I'm sure there are a few geeks out there who care about fictional robot wars of the 24th century after the show is over, but I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to cater to their fetishes. Mr Spunky Toffee 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not a valid argument, as demonstratable by the uncivil nature of your remarks. You may well not find this interesting, but so what? Not all Wikipedia articles are going to appeal to you. Perhaps it would be helpful for you take a step back and realize that your personal attachment to the information in an article is not necessarily a good guideline for us to follow. FrozenPurpleCube 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just ignore Mrs. Spanky Toffee. She's a no good delete hound for practically every article list she votes on! Too much of Wikipedia is being needlessly deleted as is. --64.12.117.5 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comprehensive version of this list would be too unwieldy - would have thousands of entries. Even with this list, it's got out of control - we've got entries like "World War III (occurred in The Simpsons)" which probably refers to a few scenes in a 6 or 7 minute story in one Halloween episode of the Simpsons. Plus, apparently they're trying to list every fictional conflict in video games which are often shallow plot backdrop ("The Kremean Wars (Donkey Kong Country)"). Next up will be comic books, anime, thousands of years of fiction, every entry from the nuke war simulation list from the War Games movie etc etc Bwithh 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a clean-up issue there, with a mind towards specifying which fictional wars qualify for list membership. I agree, there are some things that are too sillly to belong. And now that you bring it up, I do think World War III deserves an article of its own. Oh wait, it already has one. Probably worth pruning those bits out, and adding it as a See Also link. FrozenPurpleCube 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got not problem with World War III as an article. I have a problem with WWIII from one-third of a Simpsons episode being on this list. 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've got no objection to that, and I'll tell you what the solution is...remove it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all wiki-legalese aside, this topic is so broad as to be meaningless and to make the article laughable. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete s above; not really OR, but it is unencyclopedic listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree it is not a orginal research issue, but rather requires clean up. I also disagree that the topic is not too broad nor laughable. There are few mentions of fictional wars. Perhaps we can limit the list down to wars that have importance to the plot of stories. --Eldarone 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Limitations would have to be in terms of clearly defined criteria. "Importance to the plot of [the] stories" is not such a criterion; it invites original research. Also, I think you may underestimate the number of fictional wars, even including those that ARE objectively a major element of the story. My shelf of science fiction books probably includes a hundred alone. Serpent's Choice 05:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, importance to the plot is not a good criteria, but the lenght is itself not a problem. There are plenty of long lists, and this could be broken up into several smaller sections. For example "Lists of Fictonal Wars in Science Fiction" and "Lists of Wars in Fantasy" for easy, if not optimal, choices. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly broad. There have been thousands of works of fiction that depicted fictional warfare--if the work has an article in wikipedia, we can mention it there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Original research, unmaintainable, and unencyclopedic. Most fictional works (especially those in the science fiction and fantasy genre) have some sort of war or conflict, thus listing all of them would be unreasonable.--TBCΦtalk? 06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In what way is it original research? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. People seem to be throwing around the term "original research" more and more these days without reading Wikipedia policy on the subject. OR is "unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories" according to the definition, and these entries do not fall into that category. Please stop invoking OR when you actually mean "I don't like this article". It's a perfectly valid list. -- Necrothesp 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information - and a list of fictional wars may be considered unencyclopedic by some. --SunStar Net 11:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be a proliferation of listcruft going on, and this is part of it. BTLizard 12:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless list, unfocused, not encyclopedic. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It at least goes back to the 18th century in its selective coverage of a broad topic, and I found some interesting fiction I would not otherwise have encountered. Keep and expand. Edison 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split content into more manageable articles by medium, e.g. List of fictional wars in literature, List of fictional wars in film. The same could be done with List of fictional battles. --Vossanova o< 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) On second thought, Delete. Separate lists would still be too hard to maintain , and Category:Fictional wars is enough. --Vossanova o< 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is an indiscriminate collection of original research. Sandstein 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unmaintainable even within the currently rather limited scope of the article (i.e. SF and alt-history). There is simply no way this could ever hope to be complete. Haikupoet 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete provided someone checks that all the linked articles are in Category:Fictional_wars. Carcharoth 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give it some criteria to keep it from spiraling out of control. Some entries not being suitable is not a deletion criterion in my book, it's an editorial issue. -- nae'blis 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. This is the sort of thing best handled by categories. Unfocused 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure we should encourage stubs on each of these wars just to make them categorizable (yes, we can technically categorize redirects, but that's not well-known). Lists are good at compiling groups of data that would not individually rise to the level of encyclopedic worth; see List of Bundestag Members for an example. -- nae'blis 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also asked for categorization, but just to be clear, I asked only for those battles considered worthy of having an article to be categorised. Anything else should only be mentioned in the relevant article. If people might search for this fictional war, then create a redirect under that name pointing to the relevant article, and categorise the redirect in the appropriate category or, better still, create an anchored link to the relevant section of the relevant article, and put this anchored link directly on the category page (in the bit at the top), effectively creating a list at the top of the category page for "fictional wars without an article is still covered by an article". This workaround is needed because redirects can't point at article sections. For example, the list currently has "Centauri-Narn war" in the Babylon 5 section, but no article. Now, have a look at Category:Babylon 5 wars, where I've added Centauri-Narn war in the way described above. I have also added the redirect to the category to show how that could work (but it currently doesn't because redirects can't point at sections within articles). Wars without articles or sections can still be listed in the category. Carcharoth 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any work of fiction might reference dozens of fictional wars, especially a work in the science fiction and fantasy fields. If the wars referenced are important enough to be cataloged in a list rather than merely mentioned in the article about the work they appear in, they should be important enough to have a stub. Whether a stub is worth having or not is a good measure of whether they're important enough to be here in any form greater than as a footnote of the work where such war is fictionalized. Using a category for this would function as a sort of self-regulating "importance" test in place of an unmanageable article, yet offer this particular article's authors another method of proving their contributions valid in this particular marketplace. Further, the category page itself can contain some of this list without creating individual stubs for them, and they could be linked to the parent work of fiction. Unfocused 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our Wikipedia:No original research policy was designed to discriminate against originally researched ideas, not useful lists of information. Yamaguchi先生 19:39, 1 November 2006
  • Keep per above and Yamaguchi. Cbrown1023 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly Strong Keep Lists are legitimate and useful parts of encyclopedia. There are lots of lists in Britannica, Compton's and others and so here is what could be the largest encyclopeia in the world, these sorts of things are essential as part of the ongoing quest to catalog human knowledge. Plus, this and the other ones on fictional battles and the like are among my favorite articles! Please keep! Too many Wikipedians seem delete-happy these days and while plenty of these list articles are incomplete and can be improved, this should not diminish from their usefulness and interest-factor. --164.107.92.120 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:List, Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, and some of the examples at Wikipedia:Featured lists for what a list should aspire to. Carcharoth 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I still find that a lot of these lists do indeed meet those standards. Cheers! --164.107.92.120 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown to Degrassi

[edit]

Non-notable clip show used to promote the American syndicated rebroadcast of a Canadian television program. fails WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE L0b0t 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Brothers Gun Shop

[edit]

Speedy deleteion for advertising was vociferously contested, so I'm sending this here. Gush article about a gun store, 302 Google hits and a smattering of mentions on Newsbank, although some of them are in NY Times and WaPo. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - consensus that she fails WP:BIO, Seraphimblade sums it up nicely. Yomanganitalk 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calley Anne Slagle

[edit]

This was put up for proposed deletion with the following reason: "Reads like CV, no assertion of notability, Google doesn't know this one too well." I disagree with all these reasons, but I think the article may be a good candidate for deletion based on how unimportant the subject seems to be in the grand scheme of things. However, she is a real person, and I tend to think real people are worth keeping, much more so than the many minor fictional characters that litter the encyclopedia. Mr Spunky Toffee 02:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what's with calling the contest "Miss Potatoland"? That is rude and uncalled for. She might have been the runner-up but regardless, she did hold the title. Another in a similar position is Ashley Litton. Conflict of interest? Well you haven't told us what that is. Slagle appears to have started the article, but had she been a more recent titleholder I would have started it myself (again, see Ashley Litton). I didn't because I don't have time to right articles about titleholders from 1997 as what little time I have is spent on more recent ones. As for the ghits... this is extremely obvious. She reigned in 1997, when the internet pageant scene was in its infantcy. Had she been a few years later, I would have been able to gather information from Turn for the Judges but that site only starts from 1999. Similarly to my earlier point, if she was more recent there would undoubtedly be some news articles on her but we are going back 10 years and its unlikely there's anything on her still available on the internet now. As for the name thing -- check out any list of pageant titleholders and you'll see most include (often multiple) middle names. I generally get rid of them per the naming conventions. However some do go by their middle names as well and I assume I'm not expected to remember all of this. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "Miss Potatoland" wasn't called for. As to Litton-I'm not sure she's even really notable enough to stay, but at least with the one writeup as the winner she's at least much more borderline. Still very few ghits though. This one, however, is even less notable then she is. Unfortunately, the argument seems to be "She was a state titleholder", but I don't see anything in the bio qualifications that winning a state beauty pageant (especially not even really winning it) makes one notable without any further consideration. If this were Miss America, that would be quite different-even the finalists in that would be likely to achieve notability. But state competitions? Should we include the winners of state spelling bees? Little League championships? There are lots of state competitions, winning one doesn't by default make one notable. At a national or world scale that's likely different-a Miss America winner would be notable just by virtue of winning. Since there's generally little information beyond the short winner-bio on many of these, perhaps a list and short bio of winners would go better on the state pageant's page, and link to the winner's page if one does become notable? Seraphimblade 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Hearts (game) - Yomanganitalk 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bitch

[edit]

Appears to be a neologism as well as a very short article. MAYBE redirect. i kan reed 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Matadors

[edit]

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. No citations for any of the info. StumpyRaccoon 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seekipedia

[edit]

I know there's various games that can be played with WP, but "Seekipedia" does not appear notable enough for its own article. I could find barely anything but Wikipedia and its mirrors during a Google search. Perhaps this is known under a different name, but if someone wants to keep it on WP my suggestion would be to find a way to fit it on WP:FUN, or possibly create something like list of Wikipedia games (but ONLY if references exist). JayMars 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Chick Bowen 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Strain

[edit]

Contested speedy deletion candidate. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The importance is, after one of the worst catastrophes in human history (Katrina), happened in New Orleans, the sheriff of a near by parish said in so many words that black folks weren't welcomed there. It was major news. I was surprised that the page didn't exist to begin with. This is a government official being openly racist towards poor black folks who had just experienced one of the worst disasters in history - not only the hurricane, but the criminal lack of action by the federal government to help the victims.

I don't understand what the problem is? Clearly this guy isn't some "nobody" that no one's ever heard of. There are entries on much more insignificant people here. Redflagflying 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Redflagflying 08:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just need to say it: despite Redflagflying, I vote delete unless the article is expanded to cover more about his post-Katrina notability/notoriety. The quote just isn't enough to make it seem worth an article for me. "Said something once" doesn't fit "involvement in notable events" in my book. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender/Feminist archaeology

[edit]

Though I can see the worth of having the articles gender archaeology and Feminist archaeology, and usually have no complaints about disambiguation pages, this one... well, why do we have it? Do we need it? I'd say we don't, and this can be quite safely deleted. Grutness...wha? 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korak Day

[edit]

Non-notable film maker and author, created by Korak Day himself, removed speedy deletion tag. Main website referenced in the article [20] is dead Steve 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Mike McGee

[edit]

Vanity Green hornet 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All due respect to Mr. McGee, but Wikipedia:Autobiography strongly discourages autobiographical articles, and lay out appropriate criteria for notability and verifiability which also are not being met. Under these circumstances article is defined as vanity per WP terminology. Green hornet 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable and the information is verifiable. Editors other than the original author have made significant changes to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Editors other than the original author have made significant changes to the article. No they haven't. There have been some cats and some bot edits and that's it. Right now I'm neutral- he seems to have won some championships but I have no idea how important they are in the scope of poetry. --Wafulz 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough; the article could use some formatting and editing... and, um, does the world really need to know how he solves his personal sanitation issues? Needs, uh, cleanup. --Brianyoumans 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity and as per nomination. Dwain 22:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets basic standards, "vanity" isn't a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up if there's an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- At Wikipedia: Vanity: "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." So Badlydrawnjeff is technically correct that vanity is not in itself a reason to delete. I should have more exact in the word I used as primary reason to delete. It is non-notability...in the form of autobiographical vanity. In this case vanity is a valid reason to delete insofar as it is an autobiographical article about someone whose notability is not at current on an encyclopedic level. Article therefore does not and cannot meet basic standards. A clean up may make article itself more encyclopedic, but has no effect on lack of notability. Green hornet 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Clearly a valid article. Unfocused 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^Delete Not notable w/ 100 google hits.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Top google hits are for myspace and wikipedia.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete due to OR and NPOV unsalvagability. Also, anything here would already be in the OBL page if necesary, so nothing is lost by deleting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

[edit]
1. There are no pages on Worldwide Perception of George W. Bush or Worldwide Perception of Winston Churchill, and it would be completely extraneous to create them. A person's article should cover their public perception insofar as it is notable and important to their lives and to history.
Comment: Public_perception_and_assessments_of_George_W._Bush#Global_Views_of_Bush
yandman 07:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then I'll get that one, too... -Thesocialistesq 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. This kind of article will do nothing but cause arguments and lend a platform to unsubstantiated POV garbage. (See the argument about Osama being an "Anti-American folk hero" on the talk page.) "Worldwide perceptions" is so vague a title that almost any set of morons with an opinion can be included. I can see no real benefit to Wikipedia by maintaining articles like this, and therefore I submit that it be deleted. -Thesocialistesq 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at the least merge but do not delete- worldwide perception regarding OBL is varied and reveals a lot about the society that perceives him. He continues to be the symbolic leader of worldwide Sunni terrorism, and a great deal of terrorism is fueled by how certain societies view him as a hero, rather than by his direct action. On the other hand libertarians can argue that Western perceptions of him make him a larger than life force of evil that has resulted in a loss of personal liberty due to the militarisation of government. Whatever your own perceptions of him are, it can be shown the varied perceptions of him are an important topic of study. Green hornet 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The OBL article itself should encompass the worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden per WP:BIAS. Rockpocket 06:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Current article is functionally a content fork of the main OBL article. Verified, cited material should be included there instead, giving due weight to varying points of view. Serpent's Choice 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Delete. I started to examine this article with the intention of practicing what I preached and beginning a bold merge (or, at the least, a bold comment on the main article's talk page), but reached the same conclusion noted below ... this page is devoid of actual content. Even the quotes in the fatwa section, from major speakers whose comments can surely be verified from well-established responsible sources, are largely message board posts. I stand by "Merge" as the typical approach in cases like this one, but here, there is simply nothing of substance that will be lost. Serpent's Choice 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-uper-dooper Delete While I understand the above points of view and don't generally disagree, this is a special case.
Please read the article in full to see what I mean. Six cites total. 3 (half) that support the 'OBL is in love with Whitney Houston' (FOX, etc...). A fourth cite is to a Chomsky editorial. A fifth cite is to support claims of jokes about Osama bin Laden.
I mean, REALLY. (RECAP, again, please review the article)
6 cites total about the 'worldwide perception of OBL' of which
3 are about OBL in regards to Whitney Houston (?)
1 is a Chomsky editorial (argh, editorials)
1 is about OBL jokes (?)
The remaining one is in a sentence that 3 times asks for citations in regards to his tactics.
IMO, this article is a complete embarrassment vs Encyclopedic value.
I should add that this material will never survive (IMO) a merge into the OBL article. I have edited/watched the OBL article over a long period of time and I assure you that this is the case. This stuff will not be accepted by consensus in the OBL article in the foreseeable future unless hell freezes over and we get free ice skates due to it being complete primarily speculation and/or editorial matter.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Please, folks, AfD is not the place to discuss the poor state of the article. Whining about how bad the sources are is silly when you're talking about a topic like this one, since it could easily be the topic of a serious and straightforward article with better sources. Poor sources is not a reason to AfD unless the sources are inherently poor due to the topic. This is quite obviously not the case here; this topic is written about in a variety of sources and has been for years. Anyway I don't think this is the best topic for an article, I'm for merging whatever might be here that isn't already on the OBL article, or for having an article on this but with a different title and focus. There is plenty to record about how OBL is perceived worldwide (in fact, a list of polls on the matter would be extremely helpful), but I'm not sure this is the way to do it.--csloat 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I broadly agree with the reasoning behind the delete motions, however to my understanding a merge is the correct process to use (as the article has the potential to be informative, even if it isn't currently). However if during the merge process there is little new content to add (as seems to be the case here) then, for all intents and purposes, you are left with either redirecting or deleting. I have no problem with redirecting the title to the OBL article in situ. Rockpocket 08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - there's not much content to merge here, other than the topic itself. A topic section on the OBL article about polls or perception of him would be useful.csloat 10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. csloat said: Please, folks, AfD is not the place to discuss the poor state of the article. Whining about how bad the sources are is silly when you're talking about a topic like this one, since it could easily be the topic of a serious and straightforward article with better sources.
While I do agree in the majority of cases (normally I don't comment like the above in an AFD!), I do believe that in light of no improvements since the last AFD, it is not likely to be salvageable. Hopefully, someone will prove me wrong and make something of this article before AFD is over and I can reconsider my view.
Your input is appreciated, -- That Guy, From That Show! 09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not likely to happen during the AfD. Five minutes of research would make this a better article, but I don't care to do it myself at this moment, and particularly not under the pressure of an AfD. That's why it's bad to use AfD to try to improve an article. When an article is poor, the answer is to improve it rather than AfD it.--csloat 10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the wholesale piece of original research based on a couple of random publications plus a collection of chaotic facts taken from who knows where. There are no references here that specifically discuss and classify Worldwide perception. `'mikkanarxi 08:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Tbeatty 09:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to OBL with redir. There is absolutely no reason not to have an article of this title. We have many sub-articles on all sorts of facets of notable people. However, it's poorly sourced and basically original research. So, what's left can easily fit in the Osama article. I oppose deletion because there's nothing wrong with an article in principle, yet an AFD vote would effectively preclude ever re-expanding this out to a full well-sourced article. No reason that couldn't be done if someone cared enough to do it. Derex 10:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A delete for no present salvagable content does not preclude creating a new, clean, article. (Written without looking at the article — just a general comment on the deletion processs. Even if an article could be placed at this name, deletion is appropriate if none of the article is here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, you're right. In practice, you're wrong. People routinely ignore the rules on when they can speedy a re-creation. When admins get that right, then maybe we can delete without fear. Derex 05:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life Of Riley (Webcomic)

[edit]

Non-notable web comic, CSD contested with its notability based on it being on a faulty server and disappearing for a period of time Delete Steve 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Vegaswikian. MER-C 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Veterinary Sciences

[edit]

Borderline ad, article previously speedied as ad, no references or notability assertion Seraphimblade 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Edge (company)

[edit]

Never heard of these guys. Notability needs to be established, otherwise this article is hard to justify. The link to about.com and the BBS really says nothing. Egil 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED by User:Nihonjoe. JIP | Talk 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astor Group

[edit]

Borderline ad, no assertion of notability. Previously speedied as ad. Seraphimblade 05:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crownarita

[edit]

Non-notable drink. Article claims some kind of notability but there are no sources, so it's original research and unverifiable to boot. No love on Google. Melchoir 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAM (Yet Another Mailer)

[edit]

Yet another mailer. Literally. No evidence of significance, user base or being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. I will redirect, anyone who wants to merge over content can do so. W.marsh 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goon Show trivia

[edit]

Seems like cruft to me. I suppose a rename to running gags of Goon Show would be fine, if the page does need to exist. RobJ1981 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility

[edit]

The content reads more like a diatribe, is very POV, and the sole contributor has a similar name to the (previously) only source on the page (after raising that objection, the source was changed from "Jayanta" to "J." and another source added, but no content). All efforts to clear up these questions with Jayantaism have yielded no response on his/her talk page. Some content could be salvaged and merged into Corporate social responsibility. It is unclear whether or not this is a vanity page, but this user has only been adding content with Jayanta Bhattacharya as the sole source. Rkitko 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Conflict

[edit]

Non-notable videogame competition. --Nehwyn 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete'Blnguyen' (bananabucket) 04:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Wilson (Entrepreneur)

[edit]

Non-notable biography about the creator of a bargain hunter website. Article created by a single-purpose account. --Nehwyn 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Disagree: Website, work in education is notable. — Possible single purpose account: Thepose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Note: the comment above is from the author of the article. --Nehwyn 07:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further references from Wall Street Journal, ABC News, E-Commerce Times and others proving that "notable" is not at issue:
User:Thepose has stated he is a coworker of the subject of the article. This woul qualify as WP:VAIN, I believe. --Nehwyn 10:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy delete per nom and WP:SPAM.Tubezone 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article will benefit greatly from expansion, but already meets criteria of WP:BIO, notably that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Any delete vote that includes the word cruft or any form of the word is usually enough to convince me to keep the article as a sign that people are submitting knee-jerk deltion votes. Alansohn 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Responding to a supposed "knee-jerk" vote with one of your own? Nice. Danny Lilithborne 17:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Let's see. I looked at the article, read the sources and reviewed relevant Wikipedia policies, making reference to the criteria by which the article deserves retention. Then I did some additional Google News Archive searches verifying the information, and expanded the scope of the article with references. You came up with "vanispamcruftisement". I'd say knee-jerk is pretty accurate. Can you refer me to a Wikipedia source for "vanispamcruftisement" as a justification for deletion? Alansohn 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment whose source is independent of the person is the key phrase, the articles cited here are almost all puff pieces that depend on Brad for the contents. This major electronics distributor and this hot dog stand have both gotten more press than Bradsdeals, but don't have WP articles. I guess the question here is whether publicity = notability. Tubezone 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment WP:CSD G11, smartypants. Danny Lilithborne 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment 1) Tubezone - The individual in question has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, a source that is independent of the person and is not a puff piece (Are you familiar with the Wall Street Journal?) and has been covered by several other independent articles in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V The fact that you can supply other articles that you feel are less notable is completely and entirely irrelevant, either to support the article or to oppose it, it simply is not a valid argument. The question is whether we observe the fact that this article meets WP:BIO, that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. or to use Tubezone's imaginary standard of does it have more coverage than some arbitrary hot dog stand. 2) Danny Lilithborne - I don't see "vanispamcruftisement" at WP:CSD, nor is this article a candidate for speedy deletion. Please make an attempt at justifying your vote, above and beyond concocting "vanispamcruftisement" by reference to relevant policy. 3) Will anyone address whether the individual meets WP:BIO using sources that fully satisfy WP:RS and WP:V? Alansohn 18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Do you have a subscription to WSJ? Because without one, it's impossible to verify the "Wall Street Journal" link to provide (really a BradsDeals page which ostensibly reprints the article). And that's all this guy has so far; even then, I still don't buy the relevance of the other (local) sources. And just because an article is up for AfD doesn't mean it can't be speedied. In my opinion, it meets the G11 speedy standard (which is sometimes called vanispamcruftisement) and should go. A "strong keep" vote, on the other hand, has zero justifiction given the tenuous sourcing. Danny Lilithborne 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Tenuous, like WP:VSCA? While it means that you will actually have to do some work, the full text of the article is not available online to non-subscribers. That it exists, refers to the individual in question is undeniable, and there is no requirement of WP:V that requires a link that will pull up the article in its entirety (nor has anyone ever provided one of those concocted sources that says so). The link provided in the reference is an accurate copy of the full article as it appeared online and corresponds exactly to the article that appeared in the Eastern Edition of the Wall Street Journal on page B8 of the January 4, 2005 issue of the paper. If you can demonstrate that this source does not pass both WP:RS and WP:V, let's hear. WP:VSCA is a cute little blurb, but we don't pay attention to things someone made up in school one day, we use actual Wikipedia criteria, such as WP:BIO. Please stop using imaginary, made-up criteria and deal with the issue at hand: the Wall Street Journal article fully satisfies WP:BIO with a source that meets WP:RS and WP:V. Alansohn 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd say knee-jerk is pretty accurate. I'd say it's mind-reading on your part, actually, to proclaim that you know the thinking and methodology of someone else using the thin evidence you have, Or perhaps "projection" is more apt. --Calton | Talk 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Are you implying that "vanispamcruftisement" is a demonstration of "thinking and methodology" on anyone's behalf? And aren't you projecting what my thought process was? Please address the issue at hand with reference to Wikipedia policy, not with what you think I thought someone else meant. Alansohn 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's called a "conclusion": the mere conclusion of something says nothing about how that conclusion was reached. And as for your thought process, that's in evidence. Your possible projection issues I leave to those more qualified to analyze it. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment WP:BIO repeatedly says in its texts that multiple non-trivial sources are required. All the articles here, including the WSJ article, are fluffy "next big thing" pieces of little importance. (edit: I'm getting too heated and I don't even care about this topic. I'm not withdrawing my vote, but I'm not going to defend it.) Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment I'm glad you're referring to WP:BIO, which does not define "non-trivial". WP:CORP provides the definition of trivial coverage as Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. [or] Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. This standard is more than satisfied by teh sources provided. The article in the Wall Street Journal and the coverage on WLS-TV (the ABC flagship affiliate in Chicago) far exceed the non-trivial standard required, as they cover the individual, his business and the industry at length and in detail. I'd suggest taking a look at a print copy of the Journal, which does NOT print "fluffy" articles. You can use that argument if there was only one article in one local publication, but the pattern of coverage in national publications demonstrates full compliance with WP:Notability, using non-trivial sources from major media that meet the WP:RS and WP:V standard required by WP:BIO. Anyone else want to defend thair delete vote? Alansohn 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment JMHO, you're WikiLawyering. The items cited including the WSJ articled are non-critical (and, yes, IMHO the WSJ has a POV to push, and can be as gullible as any other media outlet). Like the hot dog stand guy, this fellow obviously has media friends to get this much coverage on what amounts to yet another coupon/referral site that gets most of its business through paid search-engine advertising and doesn't handle any actual merchandise. I don't think skillful media manipulation should necessarily equal notability. Tubezone 22:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment JMHO, but your WikiLawyering charge is offensive and ignores the facts. All you can come up with is an appeal to WikiLawyering, which the article itself defines as "pejorative". My definition is that stooping to charges of WikiLawyering is what individuals do when Wikipedia policy does not fit their own arbitrary personal interpretation of what they have decided, based on their own personal research, to be the "right thing". While I have pointed to multiple major media references and explicit Wikipedia policy, all you can come up with is your entirely unsupported supposition that there has been "media manipulation", skillful or otherwise, of the "media friends" that he "obviously" has. As to your utterly pointless concern regarding the fact that it "doesn't handle any actual merchandise", isn't that sort of like the EBay business model? When will you be opening the EBay AfD? Alansohn 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that one of the strategies suggested by Wikipedia guidelines for trying to understand whether web-based sources, such as GHits, are inflated by publicity is to do a newsgroup search. I've tried that, and there's pretty much nothing. --Nehwyn 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I should also add that some of the content of the article tries to establish notability for the website, not for the person. These are different things. There was an article about the website, by the way, only it got deleted as g11. --Nehwyn 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this link, providing coverage on Mr. Wilson and his business from WLS-TV, the local ABC flagship station in Chicago? This is one of several such articles listed in the articles. That reads "multiple" and "non-trivial" to me. Alansohn 02:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WLS-TV did a nice bit on this hot dog stand. The same hot dog stand just got a front-page writeup on the Chicago Sun Times food section. Yet, no WP article. I won't write it, I don't think he's more notable than Superdawg.
  • Keep The fact that he created his own article isn't enough of a reason to delete. There's good evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources. This could be developed into a perfectly good, interesting article that would enrich the knowledge base of Wikipedia. Let's welcome this newcomer and give him some guidance about editing. Please don't bite the newbies. He just needs some help, that's all. OfficeGirl 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This guy by his admission spends $400,000 per year on web advertising, so he's hardly a "newbie". He also knows that being listed here raises his Google PageRank, too. IMHO this article is just more media manipulation, now he can point to WP as well to assert credibility and notability. I bet he's reading and enjoying this discussion, too. Sorry, OfficeGirl, I've learned to be just a tad cynical about this kind of thing. ;-) Tubezone 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G-11 WP:CSD, vanispamcruftisement. L0b0t 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You've taken a first step, refering to an actual Wikipedia policy as an excuse for deletion. Unfortunately the policy you refer to Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. refers to companies, products, groups or services, NOT individuals. If this is your only justification, it doesn't hold. Alansohn 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely non-encyclopedic material. As it stands now the article is some kind of business directory/whatnot entry, not an encyclopedic article. Ekjon Lok 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a specific Wikipedia policy that you feel is not being fulfilled? Alansohn 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I do not wish to label this as "vanity" or "spam" or anything like that, I believe that the person is just not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The person described is a very succesful businessman, apparently, but nothing more. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every successful businessman. The article is a short resume of his achievements, but does it contribute much to the general knowledge? Or think of it this way: can this article be significantly expanded by someone not connected personally with Brad Wilson or any of his enterprises? Can this ever become anything close to a featured article? I think not; if kept it will forever remain what it is, a directory entry. It's true that the Wall Street Journal is a reputable source, but simply being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal does not yet constitute notability. Ekjon Lok 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that the Wall Street Journal is a reputable source, and it is not the only unimpeachable, independent, non-trivial source, as listed above and in the article. I have alrady edited this article and will continue to do so, expanding the article using the multiple available sources. I'm unfamiliar with your "successful, but nothing more" or the "potential featured article" standards, and you aren't making reference to a specific Wikipedia standard that is not being met. It's very difficult to defend an article against original research and gut feelings
          • I do have understanging for all the "keep" votes, but my vote still stands for "delete". As I have said, the person in question is indeed a very successful businessman, and I do not doubt that he is much admired by all around him and generally regarded as a pillar of society, but there really must be something more than that to make it into Wikipedia. Bill Gates is notable. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak are notable. I am sure the person in question, Brad Wilson, has achieved much and made a very valuable contribution to society, but I just don't feel he is significant or exceptional enough to be included in a general knowledge encyclopedia. After all, we do not include every high school teacher, however much admired by his (her) students, or every church minister, however much loved by his (her) congregation. I urge everyone to stand back, for a moment, and look at this project (Wikipedia) as what is aspires to be: a general-knowledge encyclopedia, a free counterpart to Britannica, Encarta, Columbia etc. We must maintain at least some standard for inclusion of entries. Simply being a successful businessman, founding successful companies, getting millions in revenues, and being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, is just not enough, in my view. Ekjon Lok 03:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OfficeGirl and Edison. All of us have to start somewhere, this is taking the whole "single purpose account" thing too far. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 1 November 2006
Okay, but User:Thepose personally knows the subject of this bio article, as they work together. That's a major mark of a single-purpose account. --Nehwyn 10:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Even if the article was created in conflict with WP:VAIN, that is not a justification for deletion, as long as other editors are editing the article, verifying the information provided, and doing so in a neutral manner. I have already edited the article, and will continue to do so, and I have no connection whatsover to the individual involved. As the article complies with WP:BIO using independent, non-trivial sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V, there is no reason that any initial concerns regarding WP:VAIN are irrelevant at this point. Unless these delete votes citing WP:VAIN isues are solely vindictive, the simple remedy of having these editors checking and editing the article themselves would solve their problems. Alansohn 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Arbusto 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 124 unique google hits for bradsdeals.com . 500 UNIQUE google hits "Brad Wilson". It may be that the huge ratio of total hits to unique hits suggests google bombing is in effect. BradsDeals garners no hits from forbes bitpipe.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to keep Based on Wallstreet Joutnal coverage.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Back to original posistion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You really don't think he doesn't know how to google-bomb or manipulate media, or that WSJ doesn't have an agenda or is open to manipulation? The average McDonald's does twice the actual gross this clown does, we don't give each and every McDonald's restaurant their own Wikipedia article. There's real estate agents that sell a lot more than $2,000,000 of property a year, if a real estate agent tried to put an vanity article in Wikipedia, it'd get shot down in a heartbeat. This guy runs a coupon/referral parasite website, it's no more notable than any other crap referral or coupon web site, and there's thousands of them. Letting this guy in is setting a precedent that every web weasel who can get some print notice ought to be in Wikipedia.Think. JMHO, folks.Tubezone 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So you have decided that this individual has manipulated the Wall Street Journal, the nation's leading financial newspaper, to write an article about him and his company. And he finagled television coverage on WLS-TV, the ABC flagship station in Chicago. And he supposedly bought coverage in several major national industry publications. So based on your own original research POV supposition, just your own humble opinion, we are supposed to override the clear dictates of WP:BIO, which states that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, to include newspaper and articles. Why should we be asked to respond to your mere hunches -- what Wikipedia refers to as Original Research -- and not follow the explicit dictates of the WP:BIO policy? This is not my opinion; this is a direct reference to Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment the whole thing is just silly. "In one instance, a batch of desks, computers and school supplies with $90,000 originally budgeted, was purchased for $22,000 using the BradsDeals approach" – is this what it takes to make it into Wikipedia these days? The whole article is a blatant ad. Ekjon Lok 11:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could someone please show me a link to the acutal Wallsreet Journal Article? I'm not finding anything relevant with factiva.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply See this link for a copy of the article. Based on a seacrh in ProQuest, an online search tool available through my library system, I have independently confirmed that the link provided -- in the reference in the article -- is an accurate copy of the full article as it appeared online and corresponds exactly to the article that appeared in the Eastern Edition of the Wall Street Journal on page B8 of the January 4, 2005, issue of the paper. There are several other links to independent verifiable coverage from reliable sources, including coverage by WLS-TV, the ABC flagship station in Chicago included in the article. Alansohn 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Emeraude Vyse 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Violates WP:SPAM. I despair when I see such poor journalism as the reference article in WSJ, but unfortunately unless we can prove the above was a paid for infomercial, the subject appears otherwise to satisfy WP:BIO. I see no grounds for delete. Cleanup candidate. Ohconfucius 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vote changed to delete. I'm now inclined to think this is indeed spam for a not notable corporation. One or two mentions does not a notable corporation make. I have now seen how journalists churn out company propaganda as their own work. The subject's company is smell beer. Ohconfucius 04:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but what is he notable for? I repeat, simply being a successful businessman, getting millions, being interviewed by WSJ, is not enough! What noteworthy has he done? Why should he be included in an encyclopedia? Can this entry ever become a real encyclopedic entry, and not just a summary "born such-and-such, educated such-and-such school, founded such-and-such company" etc.? Wikipedia is not a business directory! Ekjon Lok 21:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see that he's actually notable for anyone. Impressive CV, certainly. But lots of non-notable people have those. --SandyDancer 10:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No. Notability is more than having a blurb in a paper. I can't see he has any thing to be notable for. I can't see anyone expanding this ... vanity article. What's there to expand? --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (A7, no assertion of notability) by User:BanyanTree. ColourBurst 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Skunk (writer)

[edit]

Original Research, not verifiable, not notable Feeeshboy 08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G11, spam) by User:BanyanTree. ColourBurst 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Eclectic Pagan Fellowship

[edit]

Pure spam. No third-party references. -- RHaworth 08:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: Try looking at the title of the article... MER-C 10:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm...nope, still nothing. A winky paints a thousand words.... OBM | blah blah blah 11:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take out all the minor words in the title... MER-C 11:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Asian Coalition

[edit]

Delete - even after removing the copyright material, this seems to fall into the same category as the cold war article of the same game. I cite WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic Charlesknight 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ? then why is it used to delete gamesguides and how to manuals? It's official policy and the article is not inline with official policy - that's seems a perfectly good reason to delete. It's POLICY and that trumps guidelines as far as I'm concerned. --Charlesknight 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually checking WP:NOT IS a delete guideline - it's the first one in the table here --Charlesknight 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn after article was restructured. JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton High School

[edit]

Bare stub about a high school that hasn't been touched since it was written two months ago. No assertion of notability (unless one counts the statement that an actor who is not noteworthy enough to have his own article, having had a bit part in one film according to IMDB, is a graduate). Unsourced. Article doesn't even bother to say where in America the school is located -- there are several schools sharing that name, including ones in IL, CA, and CO, and none of them appear particularly noteworthy according to my searches. (This school is the one in IL, incidentally.) Contested prod, on the grounds that it's a school. Shimeru 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narodnye Naviny Vitsebska

[edit]

Online publication, recently inaugurated, notability not established, authored as the only contribution from a new account, posted on several Wikipedias, poorly Googlable. If to be deleted, also check Special:Whatlinkshere. lcamtuf 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Daniel Olsen 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Ouija

[edit]

A non notable label full of non notable bands that fail WP:MUSIC. T REXspeak 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. This is a perfectly good and valid central point to chronicle the "non notable" bands published under the label. Many otherwise non notable bands should be found under their publishing label rather than deleted. Unfocused 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable record label. It is too bad that the list of artists takes up so much of the article with so little information. Bejnar 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks like a notable yet defunct record label which is still attracting a lot of attention. Yamaguchi先生 19:42, 1 November 2006
  • Comment anyone have any reliable sources saying that this is notable? T REXspeak 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pandatone

[edit]

A non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. T REXspeak 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kettel

[edit]

A non notable artist who fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Has released a number of albums, although on non notable labels. T REXspeak 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Policy wonkism has its place, but having separate (relisted!) afds for album stubs from a deleted band is a bit much. —Cryptic 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanta

[edit]

A non notable EP by a non notable band (Zegunder) that was recently deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Birds? Thought They Were Leaves... T REXspeak 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBCalls

[edit]

Self-promotion for some very marginal piece of software. Richard W.M. Jones 11:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in Tudor England 1485-1603

[edit]

This is a strange article, explicitly labelled as the index/contents listing of a book published in 1990. I have no doubt that a list of significant people in Tudor England is both useful and appropriate for wikipedia, but I am unsure about the acceptability of an article which is simply the contents listing of a book which is still in copyright. Is it a copyvio? Are there other policies it falls foul of? I'm unsure, so I make this nomination without a recommendation either way (I may make a recommendation later on if some persuades me in one direction or the other). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK,I will recommend a 'strong keep on the basis of info provided below, particularly

Wjhonson's point that an index is a "minor extract". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, interesting one. Not many redlinks here - it actually functions as a pretty good index within wikipedia on a topic of quite wide interest. Perhaps it could be developed along those lines and the references to the book phased out? I don't think a list of names could be a copyvio. It looks as if it could be useful, so I'm saying keep. BTLizard 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is the concept of compilation copyright, which as I understand is both a bit fuzzy and rather weak, but that's what I had in mind when suggesting a possible copyvio. However, it sems to me that if the book index is used as one of the sources, rather than being drectly reproduced, we should be okay.
      However, more work is need to make it into a useful list, because it lacks annotations: it should say something like "Edward Smith, papist heretic from Glossop; Joe Smith, online mead merchant from Much Hadham" rather than just "Edward Smith; Joe Smith"). Quite a few of the liks point to dab pages, and it may be unclear which (if any) of the names on the dab pages is the right one. Coukd this perhaps be best considered as a very long stub? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This page has a lot of promise. In addition to identifying who the names are, I'd suggest adding dates (since the list is largely ordered by date). A new title would let us decouple the list from the book, since it would be useful to be able to add other names to the list. --Bpmullins 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is not a copvio, it would be useful in sorting out the people of that era. Edison 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and improve, If not copyvio, we need more of this and less of webcomics and video games. L0b0t 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Interesting article. May need a rewrite, but I've access to some good sources. --SunStar Net 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with BrownHairedGirl's comments on providing context on the individuals, and reorganising into common professions rather than page numbers --Steve 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and Rename to Who's who in Tudor England per Bpmullins's comment --Steve 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename as per Bpmullins via Steve. Useful and IMO pretty much in Wikipedia's spirit. However, be prepared for a storm of new articles from "Who's who in Pericles' Athens" to "Who's who in German concentration camps". Stammer 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ah I've been away. Yes an index is not a copyvio by nature, that's why I did it. Indexes are protected as "minor extracts", which is why a library can cite all the chapter headings of a work in its catalog by the way. The extract doesn't go "to the heart" of the work, and doesn't copy an inordinate amount of detail. Also the distinction here, vs Stammer's comment just above is that this is an actual work published, whereas Stammer's examples aren't. Not that I'd be opposed to "Who's who in German concentration camps" but the majority of course would probably fail Notability. Anyway, I'd glad the community decided to keep. Wjhonson 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh and by the way if anyone wants to annotate it, go right ahead :) Rearrange it, do what you want. It was just a way to get a useful index started, on a topic on which I'm particularly interested. Wjhonson 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. delete. WP is not an index for other written work. Such list trivia, where it belongs, is surely better represented by a category. But as an article about the work published in 1990, this is fine. 90% of content should go, though. Unfocused 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh to the comments about the name of the article, see Who's Who in British History. My original intent would be that there would be an article on each book, describing what's in the book basically. But since I don't own any of the other volumes, I'll go with the consensus if someone wants to rename the article. Wjhonson 07:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo 3

[edit]

There has been no indication as to the existence of Diablo 3, this article even stats so itself. All in all it's just rumors on rumors. Until Blizzard announces the game, I don't see any reason that this article should be here. It also breaks WP:NOT a crystal ball. Sorry. Havok (T/C/c) 12:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There have been a few bad arguments here I'd like to address. Most come from WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but that doesn't mean that diablo 3 has not had discussion or cultural relevance. Being a crystal ball would be to assert it exists, or that to speculate on content. Much like windows "longhorn" was never a released product, it was still a valid target for documented information. There's at least one solid reference on the page. That meets WP:Verifiable. i kan reed 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That source is questionable at best. The source isn't anyone involved in the actual meat of the production - he writes novelisations of computer games, which does not place him in the position to guarantee a future game. The article also cites the fact that "World of Diablo" is trademarked, ignoring the fact that the phrase has already been used in commerce and therefore does not indicate a future game. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm... I was looking at the trademark app for "World of Diablo" (you have to search for it, their website won't let you direct-link like the rest of the internet) and it lists "IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software. FIRST USE: 20060715. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060715 IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game. FIRST USE: 20060715. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060715" as the use and "(APPLICANT) GENERAL COMPUTERS, INC. CORPORATION NEVADA 606 JOHNSON AVENUE, SUITE 18 BOHEMIA NEW YORK 11716" as the owner. Anyone know who "General Computers, Inc." is? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Judging from the Blizzplanet interview, Diablo 3 will exist one day. However today is not that day. If there was any official indication (like Microsoft vaguely confirming Fable 2 at E3 2005) then yes this could stay. Until then, delete it. GarrettTalk 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete until we have more available information that "it may exist one day". Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until more reliable sources come along, or redirect to a main Diablo article. Yamaguchi先生 07:06, 1 November 2006
  • Definitely Keep - Up till Richard A. Knaak's interview, you could argue it's only rumors. Not now though. If you apply the same logic there should be NO Windows Vista article. For all I care, it's only rumors - it has been announced, delayed, postponed, announced again. I haven't seen the box, have you? Of course, there will be inaccuracies at this point but the disclaimer at the top addresses that.Krasimir 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then please give me any sort of proof other then a sentence made by Knaak where he said "I am not writing for a dead world... but a world with dead. 'nuff said!" which means nothing really. Besides, bringing up Windows Vista is flawed seeing as it was announced in the form of a press release ages ago, even before the name Vista was given to it. There is a difference between unsubstantiated rumors and facts from the company making the announcement. Blizzard have said nothing in the form of fact yet. Thus the article is suffering the crystal ball syndrome. Havok (T/C/c) 13:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad-The software training capital

[edit]

Directory of businesses. Advertising. Ligulem 12:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence theory

[edit]

First deletion reason. Article fails to assert its notability by reference to a single reliable source WP:NN. Wholely original research and opinion violating WP:RS and WP:NPOV (Note: blogs don't meet WP criteria). Part of a walled garden in conspiracy theory circles. Article has been deleted once before, and re-created.Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Morton devonshire 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidence theory. Wrong again. Coincidence Theory was speedy deleted in 2005 for {{db|Minimal and unencyclopaedic content}}. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Coincidence+Theory — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article contains no citations, no sources other then Indymedia and other blogs. Per WP:V and WP:RS I believe this article should be deleted. After Edison added the citations I ran into another problem, I wanted to test out the usage of this terma nd so I searched CNN, NyDailynews, NyPost, BBC, and *.gov (through google) and surprisingly came up pretty empty except for its usage in relation to biology and one source that uses in quotation marks, seeming more to mock the idea of coincidence then actually use the term genuinely. --NuclearZer0 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is a New York times article referenced in the talk page. Catchpole 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link it into the article, then add a few more so it appropriately passes WP:V and WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added 3 other references from the New York Times which use the term in the sense of the article, not including the one mentioned in the talk pade, which I think uses it in a different sense. I also revised the last paragraph to accurately describe coincidence theory as an alternative to conspiracy theory, based on the fact thay when you examine a worldwide collection of people and events, soem surprising relationships are found purely by chance. Now it is NPOV and has reliable and verifiable sources. Edison 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote to neutral per the new links, but not keep because while NYTimes comes up with 3 hits, which isnt much in 24 years of archives, BBC and CNN come up with none at all, making me wonder if the term is really notable or widely used enough to warrant an article. I will do some more research on other news sites I find to be reliable and change my vote accordingly. --NuclearZer0 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing back to delete, I checked two local papers and 2 more WP:RS sites that contain archives and couldnt find this term anywhere other then on NYTimes, which makes me wonder if its based more on the person they interviewed or on the fact that they use the term, meaning did they ask for it be stated in that term. I appreciate Edison's efforts but its obviously lacking notability and possibly should just be transwiki'd to the dictionary wiki thingy. --NuclearZer0 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After my edit, it no longer says that "coincidence theory" supports conspiracy theories. Coincidences can be just that. If you consider 6 billion people's individual experiences for even one day, 6,000 of them should experience "one in a million" happenings just by coincidence.Edison 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Albright

[edit]

Asserted to be the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program, but otherwise seems to be non-notable. Gut feeling: delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks.com

[edit]

Unsourced, spammy neologism. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain: First, I should mention that one of the websites mentioned in the article, WillowBendMallSucks.com (more commonly known as TaubmanSucks.com), is mine. I'm bringing that up not only as a warning that I may not be impartial on this issue, but as evidence that I have some expertise in the matter at hand.

To state my position up front: Rather than deleting the article, I feel that it should be revised and strengthened, and allowed to remain online.

A "sucks.com website" is a specialized kind of "complaint website" (you could think of sucks.com sites as being a "subset" of complaint sites). Their distinguishing characteristic is that they communicate their complaint as part of the domain name itself, typically in conjunction with the name of the organization (often a business) that is the subject of the complaint. This succinct and stunningly effective use of domain names allows a complaint to be communicated without even requiring the viewing of the website.

Because the portion of the domain name that precedes "sucks.com" is often a trademarked name, sucks.com sites have engendered a rash of lawsuits, in which businesses typically charge site owners with trademark infringement. For years, decisions (court and arbitration) were uneven (and perhaps even capricious), as no lower-court decision was binding on any other jurisdiction. However, my case was the first sucks.com case to reach the level of the US Court of Appeals, which definitively ruled that a non-commercial sucks.com site was purely an expression of free speech, and as such was not subject to trademark law. The decision by that Court has been adopted as precedent by other circuits, and is well on its way to becoming established law throughout the US.

The point I'm trying to make here is that sucks.com sites are the bleeding edge of the ongoing struggle for free speech on the Internet. I recognize that the crudity of their names makes many Internet purists uneasy, in that they would rather fight the Internet free-speech battle on a less-offensive front line. But I still feel that the concept is an important one, and eminently deserving of a Wikipedia article.

I should point out that the US Court of Appeals weighed in on the issue of the importance of sucks.com sites when they said, in their decision on my case:

"Taubman concedes that Mishkoff is 'free to shout "Taubman Sucks!" from the rooftops....' Essentially, this is what he has done in his domain name. The rooftops of our past have evolved into the Internet domain names of our present. We find that the domain name is a type of public expression, no different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment right to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is not commercially misleading, the Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it."

I couldn't have said it better myself... :) -- HMishkoff

The above highly informative comments by Hank Mishkoff should in my humble opinion be included in the article in an appropriate manner. User: JohnaDonovan: 1 November 2006

  • That's not correct. In the opinion, the judge said, "In Internet parlance, a web name with a 'sucks.com' moniker attached to it is known as a 'complaint name,' and the process of registering and using such names is known as 'cybergriping.'" He also specifically indicated that by adding "sucks" to the domain name I differentiated my case from an otherwise similar case in which "the defendant used the plaintiff's trade name as a domain name, without the qualifying moniker 'sucks,' or any other such addendum to indicate that the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the website. In contrast, 'taubmansucks.com' removes any confusion as to source. We find no possibility of confusion and no Lanham Act violation." In other words, the opnion clearly states that the fact the my domain name included the phrase "sucks.com" significantly contributed to the fact that I won the case.

I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia culture, and so I don't know if "neologism" is some kind of code word -- but I'm puzzled by your contention that the fact that sucks.com is a neologism (a "newly coined term") would disqualify it from inclusion in Wikipedia. "Internet" is a neologism. "World Wide Web" is a neologism. "Wikipedia" is a neologism. In fact, it seems to me that one of the strengths of Wikipedia (in contrast to convententional encyclopediae) is the ease with which it embraces neologisms. So while I agree that "sucks.com" is a neologism, I think that argues for its inclusion in Wikipedia, not its exclusion. HMishkoff 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the permission of Mr Mishkoff, I have used his comments above to expand the Sucks.com article. The article name could be changed to gripe.com or some other appropriate title rather than losing informative content material to the electronic age which has made Wikipedia possible. A number of multinationals and famous individuals (and their PR agents) will no doubt welcome the deletion of this page but this is probably not a criterion appropriate to take into account. User: JohnaDonovan: 2 November 2006.
  • From the "Good Timing" Department: This showed up in my inbox a couple of days ago as part of an Intellectual Property newsletter to which I subscribe. (The URL of the complete story is http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=270395.) In the article, the author says, "Brands are frequently mocked in parody advertisements, and some Web sites vilify companies. (Go to Google and type in 'sucks.com.' You'll get about 250,000 hits.)" I tried it, I got 231K hits. The point I'm trying to make is that the sucks.com issue is hardly "non-notable," as it's been described in this discussion. In fact, if you'll go to the "News" page on my website (http://www.TaubmanSucks.com/news.html) you'll find links to something like 75 articles that have been written about my case alone. Some of the articles are "newsy," but many of them are serious pieces written by attorneys to discuss my case and the sucks.com phenomenon. So YOU may not think that the sucks.com issue is notable, but intellectual property lawyers seem to disagree. HMishkoff 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As correctly pointed out, the article has been described in this discussion as "non-notable", not by you, but by another contributor. It seems logical to conclude that you at least concede that the article is notable which is surely an important factor. Sources have been added as a result of the comments fairly made and more can be done if deemed worthwhile. The article has been improved as a result of the various issues raised. The point about neologism has already been covered by HMishkoff. User: JohnaDonovan: 5 November 2006.
  • I've lost you. What do the issues of "neologisms" and "original research" have to do with each other? Sounds like apples and oranges to me. Every article that has anything to do with the Internet (and especially with the Web) will address a neologism, by definition, and it may or may not include original research. The point is that "sucks.com" was not a phrase that was coined for this article, it's a notable phrase (judging by the amount of press and other attention it's received) that's been around for a few years. How long do we have to wait until it's old enough to be included in Wikipedia? HMishkoff 19:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the technical term or legal term for a sucks site is "gripe site", maybe just move this whole article there? Router 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Spam, nn notable neologism.--75.117.212.25 04:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. I thought there was a relevant policy, but couldn't find it at the time. BanyanTree 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Hate (band)

[edit]

Band. See talk for claim of notability. (Closing admin: This is a procedural nom; count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - From the notability guidelines: "A musician or ensemble is notable if they meet any one of the following criteria...Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". We could even speedy keep this. -bobby 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as non-notable (CSD A7). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Helmet Productions

[edit]

Non-notable school film production group. Weregerbil 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Mohan Matuszewski

[edit]

Non-notable. Google gives less than 20 distinct hits, 9 of which are Wikipedia mirrors or copies, several are chat forums. The ones in Polish I don't understand but they don't look particularly useful in establishing notability. (Perhaps a Polish speaker could check these out.) The subject's own website is dead! Links on the page to other language wikies all come up with the equivalent of the page not existing (perhaps they did but have been deleted.} Creator has no other contibutions listed - not in itself a reason for deletion I know, but certainly a question to bear in mind.} Emeraude 15:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dance music artist, X Green

[edit]

Arguably asserts notability as music producer, but I don't think notability is established in the article. NawlinWiki 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the modern world we live in today most art works and technology is owned by idividuals and of course writting about them reflects the personal interest of those individuals, however that does not mean that poeple will not be interested to read about them. (answering the self promotion question).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xgreen (talk • contribs) .
  • I agree with you. People might be interested in reading about you, and the Interent has all types of free sites where you can post anything you'd like to about yourself. This is not one of those sites; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and some of the links posted above show you the policies and guidelines we have developed for figuring out encyclopedic content.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This doesn't matter; Wikipedia is WP:NOT myspace or a promotional tool, and is an encyclopedia. That means you need things like reliable sources to verify information in the article, of which you have none. ColourBurst 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done some research in Wikipedia and I would never attempt to write such article if hundreds of alike meterial didnt already exist on the site. Would you like me to post links to some of these pages?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgreen (talk • contribs)
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. It really isn't that hard. Fan-1967 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe the only thing I can point out as a reference link for deep dish except the ones which I have already added and considered unapproves is the Discogs.com link. which I will add now to my article. Xgreen 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we reached a final decision about this? Wikitorian 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen (talk · contribs)
    • Reply - The closing admin will make a final decision based on the arguments presented in favor of each side (keep/delete). I must say that trying to sway the course of discussion by altering your appearence is not going to be very convincing. I encourage you to click on a bunch of the links throughout this discussion to get a better idea of what Wikipedia's guidelines are. -bobby 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt try to be convoncing using appearance alteration. Just happend to be the same time i was checking the account preferences. Anyway I guess its better to leave the judgement for those who moderate the site. I mentioned my point. at the end of the day there wont be a third case, either kept or deleted. I'll do what I think is right and write what I think can be useful. Good day Wikitorian 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen (talk · contribs)

X Green Caedmon records google returned at least 10 relevant hits Wikitorian 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen (talk · contribs)Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half of those are myspace, which have no value, since anyone can create myspace pages. Notable artists generate hundreds, preferably thousands, of google hits. And who's "Wikitorian"? Fan-1967 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Bums

[edit]

Social organization. (Procedural listing; count me as neutral) BanyanTree 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OC Transpo Route 95, OC Transpo Route 96, OC Transpo Route 97

[edit]

A bus route is not a suitable article subject for Wikipedia. WP:NOT a travel guide. Delete Proto::type 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NB - also included in this nomination:

**OC Transpo Route 96 **OC Transpo Route 97

Nomination WITHDRAWN. I won't remove the AFD notices or close this - as nominator, it's not my place to do so; please could an admin do so (on all 3 articles). Proto::type 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redierect - Put any info not already covered here and redirect to the same. (That goes for all 3). -bobby 15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are high-volume routes which carry an awful lot of passengers. They also use dedicated roadways (the Transitway) for part of their routes. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Calgary alone has 50 (you read that right) bus routes with higher volume than any Ontario bus route. I don't think they belong in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a city bus schedule. So why should these? --Charlene 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep or Merge with OC Transpo article (but certainly not to deleted) They are the 3 buisiests routes in Ottawa and are rapid-bus routes that travels through all areas across cities via the Transitway (a unique transit corridor), serves major touristic areas in Canada's National Capital region (such as the Rideau Canal, Parliament Hill, Byward Market, etc.. No reason whatsoever to delete this. They are consider like most London bus routes in addition to be a mass commuter routes also as touristic routes. See also [[25]]. And also it belongs to the Ottawa WikiProject--JForget 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSOLUTE Keep I see some people come and saying that I was the nominator to delete all routes, but remember I said EXCEPT 95,96 and 97. They are all Transitway routes which are necessary to the city and have an history. We cannot remove them. It's not about not being a travel guide, it's about three very important bus routes that link almost anywhere in Ottawa to Downtown. I repeat, absolute keep. --Deenoe 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add, since Transitway Routes 95, 96 and 96 are Ottawa's current mass transit, perhaps we should also remove Montreal's Subway, Toronto's etc... --Deenoe 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point of the volume.. Just to see 95 pass every 3 minutes, and that, full-packed.. :p --Deenoe 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, it should be merged to OC Transpo Routes --Deenoe 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick comment - if this route is so important, perhaps you could bother to ensure that articles assert this in future. There are SEVEN lengthy paragraphs that describe the route the bus takes. These paragraphs are not assuredly encyclopaedic information. There is then a paragraph on the frequency of the bus route - this is travel information, and is best served with a link to the bus companies website, which already provides this information, and is guaranteed to be up to date. It is neither Wikipedia's responsibility nor its remit to provide that. I have had a go at revising the article so it makes sense. I have also withdrawn the nomination - ok, it's notable, but the article needs reworking. I confidently expect my changes to be revetrted ASAP. Proto::type 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI've just posted in the Canadian Public Transportation Forum (Ottawa area) [26], a group of transit fans to see if anyone has sites that can contain history about the Transit Routes 95, 96 and 97 (including an older version of route 96) When the info is out, the changes will be drastict. I'm think essentially the utility of the route along with its history and recent and future changes as well as key destinations along its way will be enough along with an infobox just like it was done with route 99 before it was canned.--JForget 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I don't know if there is still a chance that this will be deleted after the folk who proposed the deletion had withdrawn the proposal, but I do think that the network of roads and transit routes are an important background to many articles about the national capital area, just as the names of buildings are perhaps more important in some circles in ottawa than the actual addresses. (C.D.Howe Building vs 140 Queen Street or 240 Sparks - Same building)One of the advantages of an online encyclopedia is that one CAN have articles on non-mainstream topics without adding to theh weigh that one can ship..

cmacd 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this early because there have been no dissenting votes, the copyright owner is pissed, and there's no need to continue the debate any further. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Katsuyoshi

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.


The reason I have marked all these articles to discuss for deletion is twofold. The first one is the question of copyright. Every article I have tagged has a single source (http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/A1.html or later pages in that same source - for now I have only tagged the A's). In most cases it is also an uncited source. Regardless, the text of each of these articles is merely an exact duplicate with a few words changed around. In nearly every case, the content (meaning) and order of the content (meaning) is the same, even if some words have been changed. Whether this is blatant copyright infringement or not may be questionable, but that is not the only issue.

Quality of scholarship The second issue is quality and scholarship. All of these articles only have that one source - the Samurai Archives website. In many cases, if not most, sources are not cited on that website. Therefore, we can not verify the validity of the entries on that website. One of the requirements of Wikipedia is that articles include information that is verifiable. Information taken from the Samurai Archives is not verifiable. The simple fact of the matter is, aside from it not being verifiable, if there are any errors in information on that website, we are now propogating them all over the internet. This is because all of the articles I tagged are created only from information on the Samurai Archives website. That is just plain poor scholarship, and has been noted on other discussions regarding this, adding articles such as the ones I have tagged cheapens wikipedia and it cheapens the work that we do in adding information to it. Another issue is that many, or possibly most, of the articles I tagged, have not been added to for months, which tells me that there is little information out there that can be used to supplement them. So the issue of both verifiability and scholarship leads me to feel that these articles need to be eliminated. The articles I have tagged are of low quality, and of almost no academic value, and I back that statement up with what I have written above.

There are over 100 articles almost identical in situation to the few that I have tagged here - and you will also notice that it is the same contributor on every article Darrin Fidika - he apparently been made aware of the situation many times over, but continues to blithely post articles of identical poor quality as those I have marked below. That worries me. He has been talked to many times according to his talk page, but he never stopped this activity.

Sorry it took me so long to figure out how to go about all this, I have always been happy to just anonymously add information to wikipedia from work during slow times, but this issue, first brought forward a few days ago, really caught my attention as a major quality control issue that all of us who contribute to wikipedia need to pay attention to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyheadster (talk • contribs) . 20:07, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

Articles included for deletion

--Monkeyheadster 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After looking through several of the articles listed above, I can see that one of the main sources was definitely Samurai Archives. However, all of the articles I looked at had more information than found in the Samurai Archives, leading me to believe there was at least one other source for the information. As all of these articles are quite short, it's understandable the information would be presented in similar ways—there are only so many ways to write 2-3 sentences. I do think the articles need to be sourced, however, so it can be more easily determined what information came from where. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I disagree - what you are seeing is "fluff" added by the contributor - throwing in that such and such was a lord of such and such province because the province is mentioned later in the text. It is one contributor, one known for this sort of thing, and frankly, I do not believe it can be argued that the only source is not the samurai archives, because it plainly is the only source - most of these articles only exist in the english language at the Samurai archives site, and I am most definately sure that Darrin is not translating his own information. Here is a good example:

Marume Nagayoshi Here is a good example of a typical "entry": Samurai archives - Nagayoshi was a retainer of the Sagara family of Higo Province. He is said to have met the wandering swordsman Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and studied under him, later forming his own school of swordsmanship on Kyushu. Wikipedia: Maruma Nagayoshi (1540-1629) was a retainer of the Japanese clan of Sagara of Hizen province during the Sengoku Period of the 16th century, extending to the 17th century of the Edo Period. It is said that Nagayoshi ran into the famous swordsman known as Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and began training under him. Nagayoshi later established his own school of swordsmanship at Kyūshū.

They are obviously the same. You can see how he adds fluff by stating that it took place during the sengoku period - that most definately does not indicate an "alternate source" - he even goes so far as to add incorrect information to hide his plagiarism - he changes Higo province to Hizen province.
I challenge anyone here to come up with another source, preferably a book rather than the internet, due to the sad fact that Samurai Archives information has been propogating due to wikipedia all over the internet. If there is a belief that multiple sources have been used, I challenge someone to provide one.
However, that is only a small part of the issue - the issue of poor scholarship is much larger. My argument above about poor scholarship stands. The unfortunate fact here is that we have let this go for 10 months now, and it has created a monster. People seem intimidated by having to remove over 100 articles, but any one of these articles on its own would be a solid candidate for deletion. We shouldn't let the volume of articles get in the way of objectivity in this matter. --Monkeyheadster 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and tackle the problem differently: there does seem to be a potential plagiarism issue here, but I do not think that AfD is the right way to tackle it. Five days is simply not sufficient time for people to check so many articles and confirm that your claim that they are all problematic. The AfD process was not designed to handle large-scale cases like this, and we run the risk of throwing babies out with bathwater.
    It would IMO be more appropriate to open a centralized discussion of the matter, possibly as a subproject of Wikiproject Japan, to give the full set of articles a proper consideration, establish which can be cleaned up and which cannot, and resubmit the unsalvageable articles for deletion with more than one editor's word for the claim that they need deleting.
    For example, it appears that in many cases there are articles on these people on the Japanese Wikipedia, which certainly will not be based on the Samurai Archives website, and which could thus almost certainly be used to salvage the English articles. — Haeleth Talk 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a mere 2 hours to confirm it. Not only is 5 days plenty of time, but this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. There are nearly 100 more articles that are the same as the ones I have already tagged. It is time that we take care of the issue that Darin Fidika has been allowed to create. This has been discussed to little avail on LordAmeth's talk page and on the Japanese Military History task force talk page. Someone should have caught this months and months ago, and furthermore, the lone contributor must be brought to task for his actions.
All of the articles listed are identical in format, and from the same contributor. None of them use more than once source. This is specifically why I chose these to tag. Because they are all essentially the same. I believe they should be removed until such time as interested and responsible wikipedians can go through and create new entries with multiple sources.

As it can't be disputed that the tagged articles are rewrites of articles from the samurai archives and no other sources were used, I do not believe this can be considered fair use of the material. These articles duplicate the information from the samurai archives while not adding anything new to them - they are mere copies with different wording. This has gotten way, way out of hand, and I think removing the articles until such time responsible and interested parties come along to do actual orginal work is best. --Monkeyheadster 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The precident is set - You will notice that the article called Hinarasu has been deleted. The author (a contributor to the samurai archives website) tagged it for copyright violation, made his case on the talk page, and it has been removed. His article is representative of every article I have tagged here, and this precident should show that I am correct in my request for deletion of these articles. Yet again this was an article added by "Darin Fidika". --Monkeyheadster 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Summary - I will summarize my points here, with detalied information standing above as the detailed talk.
  1. It can't really be argued - Darin got nearly every piece of information in the above articles from the Samurai Archives site, from the page I have listed. (See above quote from Marume Nagayoshi as an example).
  2. I do not belive this is "fair use" of the samurai archives information. "Fair Use" of information includes using multiple sources to pull together an orginal article - using any one source as a mere reference - "one among many". These articles are not original. They are copies of the Samurai archives, with some changed words, and a little "fluff" (see above) to make them look different. Hoever, the content (ideas) is nearly identical, as is the presentation of the order. These are not original articles by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, after checking the Samurai Archives forum, it has been made clear that all further research activity will stop on the page because of the wholesale gutting of the page by Darin Fidika. Understandable, I wouldnt want my hard work to be simply copied, pasted, and then a few words changed around and have it called an original work.
  3. The Hinarasu article. (see above) That article on wikipedia, placed here by Darin and taken from the Samurai Archives, was identical in form to all of the articles that I have noted here, and that one has been deleted. That sets the precident that these articles are justified in being removed. In fact, the author of the original article who requested it be removed pointed out that Darin also incorporated errors into his wikipedia article in his attempt to "hide" his plagiarism. He did the same with his copy of the Marume Nagayoshi article I mentioned above. Notice how he changed the province name to Hizen province. This guy will go so far as add wrong information to hide his plagiarism. That also needs to be addressed. I believe this could even be considered vandalism and could potentially invalidate all of his "contributions".
  4. Scholarship issues. Since these articles all do come from the samurai archives (with minor fluff and a few changed words), and they have not been edited hardly at all since they have been posted to wikipedia, that tells me that either there are no other sources to pull together, or at this time there is no one interested in doing so. Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interest of wikipedia to delete them until such time as more responsible and interested users can pull together multiple sources to create new, original articles. No one has added information in 10 months, so it is highly unlikely that enough, or even any, information will be added to change the state of these articles.
  5. Error propogation. Any errors made by the samurai archives site has now been moved to wikipedia, because no other sources have been used. There are references to "Uzu" castle, an accidental mistake on the samurai archives (recently brought to attention on that forum), and now "Uzu" castle has made it's way to wikipedia - and from there, all over the internet. It is actually "Uozu" castle, but wikipedia has secured it's place in hisotory now as "Uzu". Not to mention Darin Fidika adding false information into the articles he copies to help hid his plagiarism.
  6. Verification. One of the requirements of wikipedia is that included information be verifiable. The samurai archives for the most part does not cite sources. Since Darin has been using the SA exclusively, he is essentially using an unverifiable source. This is not good, and throws into question the quality of wikipedia itself if such articles are allowed to stay. Even where sources are listed, since Darin is only using one source (the samurai archives), the info he is pasting and changing words on has not been verified by him. His "addition" of Hinarasu further goes to show that he is not above adding errors into his articles to hide his plagiarism.
  7. Darin Fidika. Darin has a history of problems as evidenced by his talk page. It is very clear that he is incapable of utilizing sources correctly, and has a documented history of plagiarism. He is unfortunately incapable of creating an original article using multiple sources. Is he a "bad" person? No, I don't think so. Is he misdirected? Probably. What can't be disputed is that his information comes strictly from the samurai archives - he has stated as much on his talk page, saying "I did not realize that meager articles needed citations", and has also said he has taken from the samurai archives. Comparing his articles to the link to the samurai archives I provided shows that he just copied it, and changed words around. Like I mentioned, he has a history of questionable behavior, and has admitted to taking info from the samurai archives. As far as contributors go, he appears incapable of scholarship, and that alone throws any of his articles into a questionable light.
  8. Wikipedia quality. Keeping these articles would be a severe disservice to wikipedia, and also sets the precident that it is OK to steal, as long as you try to hide it by changing some words around. Maybe what I have tagged is not true outright copyright violation (most are certainly plagiarism), however my other points alone are more than enough to justify removing these articles. It is the right and moral thing to do.
  9. Precident. We need to set the precident that scholarship and research is expected, and that plagiarism and unverified information is not. It states clearly that "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." on the edit page. We need to stand by this. We have allowed this to go on for 10 months, and now we have to deal with a monster - over 100 uncited, unverifiable, plagiarized, low quality articles. It would be a simple matter if this had been tackled long ago, but we are dealing with it now, and qualms about the number of required deletions should not cloud objective judgement.

I believe that each and every one of my points have merit, and and every one alone justifies removing the pages. Please don't try to debate a single point while ignoring the rest. I believe, however, that removing the articles is the right thing to do, again, until such time that responsible and interested parties can come up with orginial article from multiple verifiable sources. I believe we should be working together here to make wikipedia a good place for information. I hope my belief that we can and should make wikipedia a better place for information is justified. Because, by leaving these articles copied by Darin up, we are hurting the quality, and the reputation of wikipedia - both as a source, and as a place where plagiarism and bad scholarship is not tolerated. --Monkeyheadster 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - This is absolutely ridiculous. Such blatant plagarism should be stamped out. This is copyrighted work. Rather than try to "improve" them, which I can assure you no one will volunteer to do, delete and start from scratch. Fairest thing to do. Wikipedia shouldn't about breaking honest rules to make our lives easier. John Smith's 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your backup on this. It truly is ridiculous. I have been working for 3 or 4 days to bring this to someone's attention. I fully agree with you - NO ONE will volunteer to improve these, and so keeping them up just hurts wikipedia. We do have a problem here, however - There are over 100 more articles in an identical situation as these. How do you recommend I move forward with the rest of it? --Monkeyheadster 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you "worked 3 or 4 days to bring this to someone's attention," when a simple post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan page would have gotten someone's attention. Almost all of the articles you mentioned are listed as part of the project on their talk pages (and have been for months). Additionally, I think you're hurting this AfD by posting a novelette in explanation when a few concise statements would have sufficed. Most people who participate in AfD don't want to have to spend 15 minutes reading the AfD, and I don't know any who want to spend 2-3 hours perusing and comparing all the articles that are part of just this one AfD when they have many others to go through daily (have you ever spent time going through the AfD pages? They fill up very quickly.) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been done User Talk LordAmeth and Japanese Military History Task Force. The "3 or 4 days" were at these places. When nothing came of it, it was time to force the issue. As for the "novel length", I believe most people want a cogent argument and justification for removing 40 articles, and the literate members, I am sure, will appreciate it. I do appreciate you admitting that you con't care about the quality of wikipedia's articles or have any interest to put in the time that I and others are in order to guarantee quality (don't want to have to spend 15 minutes reading the AfD, I don't know any who want to spend 2-3 hours perusing and comparing all the articles that are part of the AfD.) but like myself, everyone else that does care about the major quality control issue we are facing will be glad to help out. Thanks for the input, it is appreciated, but rather than attack me, I believe we have a major quality issue here to deal with. We - you, me, and everyone else, are the ones responsible for wikipedia. If you are not interested in putting in the time to maintain that quality, your negativity really doesn't help things. ---Monkeyheadster 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the mind-reading to yourself, as you aren't very good at it. Please show me where I wrote I didn't care about the quality of Wikipedia? As for spending time here, I imagine I've spent a far cry more time than you on Wikipedia. I've spent countless hours cleaning up articles, writing new ones, translating them from the Japanese Wikipedia, and generally helping out. So do most of the people who take time to go through AfDs, and I can tell you that many people will just skip over an AfD that's so huge right at the beginning. Maybe you have all the time in the world to spend here, but the rest of us have jobs, families, and lives outside of Wikipedia, and don't spend all our waking moments here. Therefore, my point was that it is a good idea to try to keep your reasons for posting an AfD concise so that it receives more attention from more AfD patrollers. It was just a friendly suggestion to keep in mind, so please don't take it negatively. I've adjusted my comments above to be more clear on what I meant. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete-I'm the one whose Hinarasu article got stolen. Since that was my research--no one else checked my sources or checked to see what I had was accurate. Check the Hinarasu discussion page for the low-down. Darin just copied what I had, with no checking. Even made some ridiculous statements to cover his tracks. Delete. Nagaeyari 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In each individual case, the text is changed a reasonable amount. However, the fact that virtually every one of these are derived from the same source by the same editor is a serious copyvio concern. Mangojuicetalk 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Let me add that the most troubling of these are the ones where there is hardly any information. That's actually a good argument for deletion: these samurai can't be very notable, and there are verifiability issues. Mangojuicetalk 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete--Mass copying seen in the above examples is unacceptable. The above numbered argument--especially numbers 5 and 6 hold true for wikipedia-- makes my decision final: copyvio Mhirama 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately Delete -- I am in a state of shock and awe that a single user was allowed to plagarize to this extent, even after repeated warnings. I have compared at least 15 articles, side by side with two browser windows - in one I have the orignal source, the other I have the wikipedia "article". For all intents and purposes, even if he changed the words, the articles are identical. This is something of a minor scandal, and I suggest that we take care of this by removing these articles, and by disciplining the culprit. What I find most disturbing is that there are apparently over a hundred articles that this one user has put up that will now have to be taken down. --63.164.145.198 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to read WP:AGF. Truth is, these are very short entries, and often the WP article has a lot more in it than the source. I wouldn't object to any of them, because even from the first, the wording and structure was not the same, but the amount of material that has been treated in this was is just too large. Mangojuicetalk 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is the problem - the structure is identical, only words have been changed. And since he is only using one source, and just changing words and adding in fake info to hide his plagarism (see above), I find it hard to justify keeping these here. --Monkeyheadster 07:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree - delete Funny, the night I decide to create an actual login after contributing tidbits here and there, I am shown that I have been a moron. Rather than researching facts, I should have been taking a source, change some words around, and create a new article with it. Yeah, that's the ticket! These articles should be deleted. The arguments for deletion by all involved are pretty much ironclad. I think that if the user had done the exact same thing, but had put it within a larger article, that probably would have been acceptable. However, this user didnt do that. He started countless articles from one source, which is plagiarism in my book. I've only looked at a few, but the ones that I have looked at have not been touched in months, except for the occasional additon of Japanese in the entry. I think this user really wanted to increase his standing by creating all sorts of articles. I think it must have been calculated, because it appears that he has also been adding in fake or false information in his wikipedia entries to cover his tracks. That is simply dishonest. I hope this issue is taken care of, I've had fun contributing, but this sours me a bit on wikipedia. --BranePan23 04:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Copyvio. delete all articles, indef. block for creator, I am shocked that this has been allowed to stink up the encyclopedia for so long. L0b0t 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and possibly relist in JapMilHist). This is not prejudice for recreating the articles in the future, but this is honestly poor research and plagiarism in the highest degree, because of the amount that was taken from one source. If it pulled together the original sources to create these articles, that would be a different story. (Having a single source is also problematic for notability issues.) I'd rather wipe these and restart afresh, this time taking proper care. This might mean a smaller amount of material in a longer amount of time, but it also means safety for Wikipedia. However, this does bring up a different point - since Wikipedia is so large, is it possible that many different articles by different editors will pull enough material for there to be a copyright violation based on amount of material pulled? ColourBurst 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as discussed above - this would be too difficult to go through and repair one by one; better to start fresh and allow recreation without the plagiarism and with better sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke and Pave - Nuke the current articles and pave the way to better sourced, non-copyvio versions. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


MangoJuice, you should be ashamed of yourself - I just saw this string. Those articles you claim came from wikipedia came from the samurai archives main page, what was originally called the "famous Samurai" page, which I then personally moved to the samurai wiki. Those articles have been up for years. You are again proving that wikipedia has been stealing from me. Here is the main page, first online in early 2000: http://www.samurai-archives.com/warrior.html

These biographies, which have been online at the samurai archives for at least 6 years, were the ones that have been recently moved to the samurai wiki. Since I own the copyright, I have full right to move them. I research Japanese resources, I would never even consider taking any of the worthless information from wikipedia, as most of the info on wikipedia is here by my or my associate, by proxy. These are the original articles that you 'claim' were taken from wikipedia, when the reality is, they have been on my website for 6 years, researched by me and my associate:

Also, here are the original battles, also up for at least 5 years, take a look at any matching wikipedia entry, I assume that they will be similar, because my site has been gutten and raped by wikipedia for years, mostly without attribution:

This is what happens when wikipedia is lax with its standards. It gets me accused of stealing my own work. I am drafting a letter to wikipedia's legal representative now, so do me a favor and leave up all of these articles that have been tagged for deletion, so that the lawyers will be able to see the violations when they get my letter.--Kuuzo 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I have been corrected in my mistake by Nagayeri. My response to him was, basically, oops. I acknowledge that the material in question is clearly not stolen from Wikipedia, more like the other way around. I was simply going on the assumption that the history link on one of those particular files on the Samurai wiki was the true revision history of the file there, but that was false, so I apologize. As I said to Nagayeri, I am happy to assist in deleting ALL of these copyright violations once the AfD comes to a close. In this case, I had some evidence that I was mistaken about, and I apologize for that, but it was an honest mistake. (I would have amended my comments on the Samurai wiki too, but I've been blocked there, so I guess I can't.) Truly, this is not so much a failing of Wikipedia as it is an example of the nasty consequences of copyright violations in the first place. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, mangojuice and everyone else. I am sorry if I come off as beligerent and angry. But, frankly, I am. I and my associate worked our asses off for 3 years researching and translating to put together the Samurai Archives, and now someone has the gall to tell me that I'm stealing my own work. I think you can understand the position that puts me in. I truly appreciate all the people here who have fought for me. I just want these articles off wikipedia. I am willing to eventually go in to wikipedia and contribute- and if you look at my contributions, I in fact have made a few contributions in the past, but I absolutely have to protest when our work is stolen wholesale and not even attributed. I am perfectly fine with having my work used as a resource among many, in fact I would be honored that my website could be one contributor among many (a term used here before, I see), but I protest my work being stolen. Again, Mango et all, I apologize for my tone today, but I think you can understand. --Kuuzo 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I for one totally understand. Darin himself has even made some comments suggesting that he will help adjust the contents to address this issue; see User talk:Darin Fidika. In fact, your response to this leads me to change my own vote here to a strong delete; this situation is way past the point of being unacceptable. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly userfied this autobiography, which has been deleted twice before as {{db-bio}}. I'll take it up with the subject on his Talk page. Guy 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Lavery

[edit]

This article is an autobiography and violates WP:AB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skapur (talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 October 2006

This is not a notable event for being listed as per WP:MUS --- Skapur 04:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Given he has appeared on tv, radio and released a CD I think the article should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.211.227 (talk • contribs) (vote #2)
  • Delete because the information is not verified and violates WP:AB. The first issue is not of notability but of verifiable sources. The second issue is notability and he does not meet notability standards as specified in WP:MUS. --- Skapur 23:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep . He DOES meet the wikipedia music criteria as he has appeared on national radio and televsion for longer than half-an-hour and has won national competitions and also toured internationally to a major country, Australia in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.211.227 (talk • contribs) (vote #3)
Read the notability critirea again. Was he the "subject" of an half hour TV or Radio NETWORK show or part of a large ensemble appearing on radio or TV? I have taken a tour of a lot of countries. Please read the Music notability criteria again. Where is the verifiable source indicating the existence of the tour or broadcast performace? --- Skapur 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy merge. The nominator has boldly done the merger that they wanted, as per the discussion at Talk:The Weather Channel/Archive 1. Discussion of the merger belongs on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Pulling across any lost content can be done by any editor, and does not require administrator privileges. Uncle G 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Abernathy

[edit]

Delete or Merge to The Weather Channel: She's been around for 11 years with the company and was on a few television stations, however, there's not enough information on her to warrant an stand-alone article. She's likely known within the circles of TWC and fans who follow her. --Moreau36 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge (or Del). Visible but not notable, like the wallpaper (on your walls, not the cool one on your screen). And i agree with what Moreau has argued elsewhere, that there's reason to turn the title into a Rdr rather than simply deleting. The admin who calls this shouldn't be counted on to shoehorn the content into The Weather Channel, so i'm willing to be notified if Merge is the outcome.
    --Jerzy•t 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, no-one has stated that the only way to alleviate their concerns requires an administrator to hit the delete button. Even the nominator wants a merger. This is Articles for deletion, people! Don't come here if you don't want things deleted. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. It doesn't require an administrator to do an article merger (Even editors without accounts can do mergers.) and AFD is not the place nor the way to propose mergers. Unless an editor comes forward in the next twelve hours who specifically wants deletion, I shall be closing this discussion. Uncle G 15:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after I look at the discussion page for TWC, this article will be merged per discussion @ Talk:The Weather Channel/Archive 1 --Moreau36 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Batman (cancelled film)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Light Lounge Shooting

[edit]

A random shooting is not notable IMHO! Only a few Canadian local media outlets talked about the incident Szvest 15:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®[reply]

  • Comment, Wikipedia is not the newspaper. If this incident leads to new legislation, or someone notable is involved maybe. As it is, I can't see a reason to have this in the encyclopedia. L0b0t 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this got national play it isn't considered as serious as, say, the Dawson College murders in Montreal. We can't have articles on every incident of this nature; they have to have some national or international notability. So far, this incident doesn't. The best I could suggest is referencing it in the main article on Edmonton in a crime subsection. 23skidoo 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shootings are not uncommon in Edmonton, and there is nothing whatsoever that distinguishes this one from any other. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a random murder is about as indiscriminate as you can get. Resolute 14:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a news report database or a police records archive. Media coverage does not automatically mean encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews. This incident is clearly notable news, but it is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiNews is the most appropriate place for this. I think one needs to differentiate between encyclopedic current events from those that have a low long-term impact on society - the former belong in WP, the latter in WikiNews or nowhere at all. Mindmatrix 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not very notable. —Brim 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may have potential to become keepable, if somebody can write a real article about it rather than a two-line stub. As currently written, however, it's pointless. Transwiki to Wikinews, but do so without prejudice against recreation here if it can be shown in the future that there's a legitimate reason to view this as encyclopedic. Not that I'll actually hold my breath or anything; this certainly isn't Dawson College. Bearcat 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did we forget that we can't transwiki to Wikinews? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is news to me. Why couldn't we? It's a Wikimedia project; we transwiki to other Wikimedia projects all the time, why would this one be any different? Bearcat 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I am not mistaken, Wikinews is under Creative Commons rather than the GFDL, thus disallowing Wikinews to replicate Wikipedia content. If an article on Wikinews were to be started on this subject, then it would have to be started from scratch, i.e. rewritten so as not to violate the GFDL. metaspheres 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware of that at all; excuse my ignorance. Reading over the WikiNews licence, it appears the issue is that WikiNews uses the by licence (attribution only), whereas GFDL is most similar to by-sa (see: Creative Commons licenses for info). Mindmatrix 18:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure what you mean. The following page on meta pretty much clarifies everything: m:Wikinews/License. According ly CC-By content has one-way compatibility with GFDL, i.e. Wikinews content can be incorporated into Wikipedia, but not vice versa, and CC-SA is totally incompatible with GFDL, which is probably why they decided to go with the other one. I have no idea how solidly these licenses are followed, so I can't say whether or not there would be any objection on Wikinews if Wikipedia content would be posted there and if anyone would care about that, but technically it would be "against the rules," so to speak. For instance, there was a great deal of objection to GetWiki (a fork of MediaWiki) being released under CC rather than GFDL, but no further action was taken. So, I don't know. metaspheres 10:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This kind of stuff happens everyday, this is no exception. It is a small thing considered to the death toll everyday from shootings. IF someone actually had the time and put some effort into the article, i'll rethink. In perspective:

If I had a dollar for every shooting in LA...-ECH3LON 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal season review 2005-06

[edit]

Also see:

I'm going to nominate this group of articles since I think we'd first need consensus before going ahead and creating such articles. Personally I feel that most info here that can be salvaged should go into the history section of the club, or a seperate history article if one exists. Only when the history article gets extremely long should we contemplate splitting of articles like this. jaco♫plane 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced by others that merging is inappropriate. Delete Emeraude 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a merge doesn't mean adding all the material to the destination article. It means adding the encyclopaedic material that is missing and discarding duplicates, POV etc. The POV in the articles doesn't preclude a merge since it should be cut out as a normal editing procedure. BlueValour 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what the procedure for a merge is - my point is that there's so little in these articles that is salvageable and NPOV that has not already been covered in other club history articles that it is not worth the effort to go through them. Virtually every football club article covers recent events in very great detail already. Qwghlm 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. There is no time limit on CSD G12. --Coredesat 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadas swami

[edit]

a) copyright violation (from [27]); b) misspelled name "Ramdas"; c) Samarth Ramdas exists Lars T. 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be db, the same religious figure is already at Sarmath Tamdas.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KIPP: Lead College Prep Charter School

[edit]

Articles Brad Wilson and BradsDeals have just been nominated for deletion. The largest part of this school article was about Brad Wilson. Following the deletions, the article has been edited to remove him. However, I have serious doubts that this school actually exists for these reasons: (1) The article itself has practically no information, not what one would expect from such a high octane institution. (2) The school's own website has clearly not been updated for many months (i.e. since before it was supposed to have opened last July). (3) The school's calendar on the website is empty. (4) The press article cited actually links to the school's website where it is presented as a PDF file, and (5) the articel itself only mentions TWO potential students. (6) And that article itself is from March 2006. Perhaps there is someone who has some local knowledge who could help with this. Emeraude 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a party to this contract and it has a directory entry. I cannot find enough sources to warrant breaking this article out of Gary Charter Schools. Uncle G 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is the school real? It's included on the list of Indiana charter schools (which refers to the school as KIPP Lead Academy of Gary) and on the Kipp Schools web site, (referd to as KIPP LEAD College Prep Charter School ). Kipp is a major national manager of nearly fifty charter schools. The Welcome to KIPP LEAD College Prep Charter School page describes the unique program, and provides links to relevant, non-trivial independent reporting on the school. The article needs to be expanded, but can stand on its own, independently of the local charter schools. Alansohn 17:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That Kipp is a "major national manager of nearly fifty charter schools" is an argument for having an article about Kipp not an article about this specific school. As for the "relevant, non-trivial independent reporting" do you have any that isn't minor puff pieces of the sort one always gets at schools and is not associated with Ball State? JoshuaZ 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Let's worry about having a good KIPP article before we worry about an article for the eighteenth charter school in Indiana. Delete —ptk✰fgs 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Your justification for delete is meaningless. The question here is whether this article meets Wikipedia standards for retention, not what you think of some other article. Which specific Wikipedia policy does this article not meet? Alansohn 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There aren't the sources to show that the primary WP:SCHOOL criterion is satisfied. If you wish to argue otherwise, please cite some sources. I couldn't find any. Editors who have no sources to cite, or who are unwilling to cite sources to support their arguments, may want to consider carefully what thin ice that places them upon when it comes to the subject of policies. Please cite sources. Uncle G 21:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does not meet WP:N. It's just another school. WP:SCHOOL is millions of miles away from consensus or coherence so we don't really need to entertain it here. —ptk✰fgs 21:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V even before we get to the matter that the school is in no way shape or form notable. JoshuaZ 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's nice to throw around a reference to WP:V, a step forward from some of the more meaningless delete votes. Only question, is what part of WP:V does it fail? I see several sources included in the article, all of which can be easily verified with a click. Read the article and specify what part of WP:V the included sources do not meet. Alansohn 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some interesting discussion points, but to go back to my original nomination - I simply want someone to verify that the school actually EXISTS. Its website suggests not, based on currency. Nowhere else that I have looked says that it is open (the KIPP directory merely says new in 2006, not that it opened). The quality of the KIPP programme is irrelevant (as a teacher, I personally have my doubts). I suspect this school was planned but never opened. SO again I ask, in hope, is there anyone in the area who can verify this one way or the other; if not Delete as non-existent. Emeraude 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this link for an article about the school now that is has opened for the 2006-07 school year, dated July 16, 2006, after school had opened with 81 students. Please let us know if there are any other issues you have that need to be addressed regarding this AfD. Alansohn 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added links from Ball State University and the Indiana Department of Education that appear to confirm that the school exists. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Proving that the school exists or not would require original research, probably (and most reliably) a phone call to the Office of Charter Schools of Ball State University at 765-285-1336 or to the Indiana Department of Education. I can argue that, based on the evidence in the article, and based on the fact that I haven't seen any evidence that the school closed down or failed to open, it is more likely than not that the school exists. The school's web site being out-of-date is most likely just another case of "brochureware", where the site is created by a designer, uploaded to a hosting provider, and then neglected, in part because the organization that commissioned the site doesn't have access to the editing software or doesn't know how to use it. But Emeraude's suspicions could be correct. I would encourage someone to make a phone call or a visit to answer the question, and then the evidence can be reinterpreted in the light of the results of the phone call or visit. I think there are enough people who dislike charter schools and Ball State University's involvement with them that a crash-and-burn of any of Gary, Indiana's charter schools would be widely reported. That having been said, I think that a charter school that closes down because of mismanagement, fraud or politics ought to be written about so as to provide a better understanding of what can go wrong with charter schools in general. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Charter school with a nominal amount of press coverage, thus meeting proposed WP:SCHOOLS and relevant verifiability policies. Yamaguchi先生 07:13, 1 November 2006
  • keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Unfocused 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a good article for a school!! Audiobooks 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [removed spa comment][reply]
    • Comment Again being a "good article" (whatever that means) is not a reason to keep and adding exclamation points doesn't help matters. JoshuaZ 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just as verifiability is the standard for inclusion, not some warped standard of notability. Audiobooks no longer appears to be a "single purpose account" so I am going to begin removing these SPA tags shortly and assume good faith. Silensor 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements made by TT, meets the bastardised WP:SCHOOLS proposal. Silensor 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a good article for a school!!!!!! (i.e. passes WP:V and my standards for notability!!!). --JJay 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 22:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Lawlor

[edit]

Appears to be non-n. See [28] Mad Jack 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to fork (disambiguation). Yomanganitalk 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forking

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lusty Argonian Maid

[edit]

I am really not sure about whether this should be deleted. It has had the notability tag on it for ages, and I think that this will be the best way to decide whether it deserves the tag, or deserves to go. As such, I am not going to vote at this moment in time. J Milburn 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If anything originial research. comments such as "widley considered" are not cited. Plus, I dont think that article would be of much use anyways. Chris Kreider 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a big fan of the Elder Scrolls series of games, but this is such a minor aspect of what is a very expansive game that I don't see any reason for a stand alone article here and I'm not sure it is even important enough to suggest a merge to the main Oblivion article. Maybe one of the many ES: Oblivion Wikis would be interested in this sort of content.--Isotope23 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as "lifts her tail" was an ammusing character, if we were to include every book from the elder scroll series of games, we'd have a lot of useless articles. No cultural relevance, nor scientific or philosophical. i kan reed 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chris Kreider. - Tapir Terrific 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The play isn't really significant to the game. The connection to the character from the previous game is interesting as a trivia item, but hardly warrants its own article -- maybe a brief mention in the main article, maybe not even that. And reproducing the text of the in-game book is probably a copyvio. Shimeru 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should have said this before, when the article was first created, the creator left a comment at the bottom of the page that I then moved to the talk page. The creator said- This article would fall under the fiction section, or the proposed books section. Deleting this article would mean the deletion of all Elder Scrolls related articles, including those on Vampires, Argonians, and all of the other articles related to that subject. J Milburn 12:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane E. Benson

[edit]

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned in light of input from members of WikiProject Alaska. I wish to make clear that there no flaw in procedure, and no error on the part of the previous closer; sufficient interest of a large number of well-informed established editors, unaware of the prior discussion, is itself a valid reason for relisting. This matter is submitted at AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused; I went to the policy page, but I don't see where an overturned deletion review should have its article renominated as a matter of procedure. Are we to go through a new discussion? we just did one-- Deirdre 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, we relist. Absent an overwhelming consensus (roughly 75% or more), success at DRV only means that the item is undeleted and relisted. DRV is mostly a forum for cloture, and rarely is DRV the final stage of a debate. Clearly, this matter was disputed; although relisters obtained a majority, they fell far short of an overwhelming consensus to undelete outright. See the white box at the top of the DRV page. Xoloz 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Benson was notable and newsworthy before she ran for the Senate as an artist and writer. Arguments for deletion was based on her being a candidate with little chance of winning, not on her notability as a Tlingit writer. She has had substantial press coverage before the election. Luigizanasi 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In addition to her artistic notability, she is known for her role in a controversy over academic freedom that received national (National Review) as well as local (Anchorage Press) coverage. This meets the criteria of "renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). -- Shunpiker 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most notable thing about the subject is her news coverage for the Congressional race. Regardless of the likelihood of the success of a Green candidate in an Alaskan race, I beleive she has sufficient news coverage to make a claim of notability. Samm Simpson, Bill Young's snowball opponent, gets 2 by comparison. (I will not nominate her article due to a conflict of interest. As much as doubt her notability.)
  • Keep Though I would argue that her chief notability is in her artistic/cultural contributions and that her current political ambitions are of secondary and limited notability; and that of course significant news coverage and "newsworthiness" is not automatically a conferrer of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 01:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some old news hits and a book ranked at #2,700,000 hardly meets the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Should everyone who had the news once in their life get an article on wikipedia? I don't think so. Arbusto 08:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable Tlingit poet and playwright - notable for being one of only five professional Tlingit writers. Sufficient coverage in journals, etc, appended to article. Vizjim 09:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Congressional candidate who is the nominee of a major party. Silversnake020 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all the reasons I've listed before: she's a major party candidate causing a ruckus in Alaska politics, she's an outspoken Tlingit woman author, and thus a relatively big fish in a small literary pond (Alaska literature, Alaska Native literature, Alaska women writers), and she's a relatively well-known Tlingit performer and playwright. Deirdre 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Candidacy enough is probably not enough, but combined with her literary and playwright accomplishments . . . keep. -- Sholom 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep I question the wisdom of deleting major party candidates, especially for high office. Without an article, it will always appear that the incumbant is challenged by a "nobody"; which is a disservice to voters and political scholars. In past elections, losing opponents can be embedded in the winner's article, but current campaigns deserve separate pages. Of course, a separate page should be maintained post-election if there is notable professional accomplishment outside of and in addition to politics.
  • Although there seems to be quite a few people interested in keeping this article, nobody has yet to show that she satisfies WP:BIO: In particular, we still have no reliable sources indicating any of the following:
    • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
    • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
    • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
    None of the existing links satisfy this: They are either not independent of Benson herself, or else mention her only obliquely. The exception is [29] which does not, to me, appear to be a reliable source, and in any case we are missing the "multiple" part of the requirements above. As I stated in the first AfD, we should keep this article if and only if she can be shown to satisfy WP:BIO. I will happly change my position to keep once this is done, but until then, Delete. Vectro 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fully qualifies for an article. Much news coverage of her political activities. I also see no need for a relist when that was not the explicit outcome on DRV. Overtuning a flawed close should not lead to an automatic relist. --JJay 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete a third party canidate in a failed 2002 election is not notable. Arbusto 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Cross Steelers

[edit]

Nonnotable amateur rugby club. NawlinWiki 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Steeler's page updated - The Steelers feature in an anti-homophobic campaign recently launched by the Met. Police (one of the team's sponsors) and is also endorsed by the RFU. This should be counted as 'signifigant press coverage'.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olchfa footbridge

[edit]

This (unreferenced) article is about an ordinary, unremarkable footbridge. There are millions of similar structures around the world and I can't see why this one should have an article at Wikipedia. Previous AfD discussion from 2005 is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olchfa footbridge (the result was no consensus). KFP (talk | contribs) 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be adverse to merging the article to the Olchfa School which is pretty barren of content, so adding this bit wouldn't hurt it at all. FrozenPurpleCube 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that - I wondered about commenting about a merge, but wasn't aware that article existed. Thryduulf 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me then. But if you just want to add the information that you know to the Olchfa School article instead, that might be easier than a merge. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Danielsen

[edit]

This is a nomination for Rune Danielsen, Lamin Bojang, Andreas Welo, Kenneth Gruer Hansen, Terje Sanne, Inge Klevberg, Alexander Kristoffersen, Thomas Hansen, Bjørnar Sund and Christoffer Lind Røysnes, players for for Norwegian football team Bærum SK.

Contrary to the beliefs of the article creator, these footballers are not professional and does not play in a professional league. I cleaned up the articles of the team players who actually have, and whose professional league appearances are verifiable (I know Danielsen was once in the Lyn Oslo squad, but not if he actually played). Hell, I've even played with Bojang, Røysnes and Hansen (whose article by the way is flat out wrong - he is a goalkeeper born in 1987!) Punkmorten 17:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer

[edit]

Admittedly, this footballer has played in the highest league in Norway, which is a fully professional league (although it's very unlikely that he had a professional contract). But his sole appearance was limited to 7 minutes. (See this cached page). Therefore this article falls on the "non" side of notability, and also WP:V. Punkmorten 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus so kept by default. Yomanganitalk 15:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Liebling

[edit]

This AfD request for Debbie Liebling is due to a combination of lack of notability; possible commercial insertion (see the earlier version before a speedy-deletion tag was placed on it, which was very WP:PEACOCK, and the other edits by the editors and creators of the page); and lack of useful encyclopedic information (though of course, if that exists, it could be added). jesup 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain there's enough info out there to be worthy of expansion, which was part of the question. The wikipedia page already seems to have as much info on her as you can find in all the references on the first several pages of google -- basically, that she's an executive VP, and that she's listed as coproducer on a couple of movies. Oh, and she was quoted talking about BattleBots to some press outlet. jesup 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of a VP/EVP varies a lot by industry (and company). In banks, sometimes it seems that everyone who isn't a teller is a VP of some sort.  :-) jesup 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For entertainment companies, while VP is a title that's thrown about just for prestige incentives, Executive VP is very high up and pretty much answers directly to company Presidents. --Oakshade 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see why "greenlighting southpark" makes one notable in and of itself. Does the bean-counter who gave South Park the ok 'deserve' a bio page? The key grip? Everyone who appears in the credits of every episode? Every executive at the company? Sure, greenlighting South Park is a counter towards notability, but I don't see it as a full payment. jesup 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see a simple difference of opinion. I favor verifiable fact as the primary criteria and notability is secondary or less. Notability is inherent in the verifiability of the topic, and I don't see any particular problem if the bean counters, key grip, or any other credited staff have articles here, as long as they're researched and documented properly with references cited. I'm not concerned at all with impressing the "Random Page" surfers, nor do I care if a topic is "too dry" or "too boring". However, this person's influence in a major media corporation has far more impact on society than almost any published musical artists who have sold the roughly 5000 copies of their work that is "notable enough" in that field. Definite keep if verifiable. Unfocused 18:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, though I think your take on this heads towards a collision with 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Even more directly, which of the entries in Wikipedia:Notability (people) does this article fit? Also, does it pass the expandability test? (Can it be expanded past a stub.) The subject doesn't pass "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)" IMO. jesup 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following carefully:
This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious).
And:
This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.
In other words, she passes all Wikipedia's formal policies even though her situation is not addressed by the guideline. And that's just a guideline, which is why I feel free to ignore it in cases like this, where notability not anticipated by the guideline authors is clearly evident. Unfocused 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject itself appears to be notable, but the article needs much work. Yamaguchi先生 19:37, 1 November 2006
  • Delete She is not important enough to appear on any of the various fox web sites such as fox.com foxstudios.com foxinternational.com foxmovies.com foxhome.com fox.co.uk etc. Although she was mentioned at least once in Variety. Bejnar 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should be obvious since I AfD'd it, but just in case: I say that there's not enough notable, and there's not enough for it to be expanded past a stub, and therefore should be deleted unless and until that changes. jesup 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply being an executive in a major corporation is not necessarily notable. Also a procedural comment: There wasn't an AfD template on the page, but I went ahead and added one. Jesup, in the future, you probably want to start with that. Place {{subst:afd}} at the top of the page, rather than just listing it at the main AfD list. --Elonka 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, so many templates, I got confused. I had indicated in the talk/comments that I would be listing it as afd (I'd originally marked it for speedy deletion, and instead of edit-warring over that I took the advice to list it for regular deletion instead.) Thanks. jesup 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Executive occupying an important position, but not notable, and notabilty not properly asserted. Ohconfucius 05:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article needs work but this is a very powerful person in Hollywood. If you watch Fox (or Sky for the rest of the world) or Comedy Central, you have watched shows that were aired due to decisions this person made. --Oakshade 08:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this person is that notable (as opposed to powerful), there should be more WP:RS and more content. Is there enough encyclopedic content for it to be expanded past a stub? jesup 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Daily Variety I've found 38 articles that cite Leibling's importance (remember to search under "Deborah Leibling" as well as "Debbie Leibling") [31][32] and in the Hollywood Reporter, 47 articles [33][34]. A couple of these articles have been inserted into the WP article. Those alone are two VERY RS. Plus I've found she's been nominated for an Emmy 3 times. --Oakshade 16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that nominations were general SouthPark episode nominations, not individual - all people working on it and executives involved are included. The articles inserted were basically "she left Comedy Central". Those publications are RS, but mention there doesn't mean notability per se. And those are trade mags that report on "so-and-so was made under-VP-in-training". More to the point, those searches basically show lots of "title, executive producer foo, writer bar, director xyzzy", etc. The only links not like that were "she left CC", and a single quote about SP. (In the Variety search). jesup 16:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and very important news sources read by almost everyone in the entertainment business and not in any way excluded from WP:RS. I actually agree that some of those articles are "mentions" of Liebling, so I inserted three articles that she is the "primary subject of" into the WP article. Very much passing WP:BIO. As for the Emmy nominations, if you don't feel an Executive Producer nomination is notable, that's your POV. --Oakshade 16:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, those are WP:RS, but being mentioned in them doesn't necessarily mean that the subject is notable. It depends on how they're mentioned. WP is an encyclopedia, but not a list of all facts, which is why Notability is important. Correct me if I'm wrong, but her nominations for emmy's weren't for her; the episode was nominated and she (along with all the other staff) were therefore considered nominees. Would you consider all group emmy nominees to be notable per se? I imagine not. So the question goes around again to what makes her notable. Also note that even searches at the trade pubs barely come up with any refs other than "she left CC and was involved in SouthPark, and was an executive at Fox" - so how will this article ever get beyond a stub? jesup 00:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when show gets nominated for an Emmy (it was the entire show, not just an episode), it's in fact the creative staff responsible for that show who is nominated. And I in fact do think that all the writers and producers nominated for an Emmy and responsible for and extremely popular show are notable. If you don't think that, that's okay as that's your POV. At least three articles (beyond what WP:BIO considers "multiple") demonstrate notability. If you don't think her being an important executive at 20th Century Fox is notable, again that's your POV. I guess this bears repeating, so here it goes Per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." --Oakshade 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Update Two Three Four references where this person is the primary subject of from very reliable independent sources have been added to the article confirming notability. Also some extra information was added - like she was nominated for an Emmy 3 times. --Oakshade 16:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Administrator - Unfortunately, a user is repeatedly removing an independent reliable reference/source from the article. This in violation of WP:POV and is highly inappropriate during an AfD as it could unduly influence editors opinions. --Oakshade 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade is referring to me; please see the Talk page and changelog for why I felt the reference was redundant (all viewable text part of the first citation). Citing that might be useful here in arguing over notability, though I'd say it doesn't help the argument, but there's no reason for the citation to remain in the article regardless of the results of the AfD. While the AfD is pending I'm monitoring the page and I think you'll see all my edits are reasonable and meant to improve the article (as much as is possible). WP:AGF please. jesup 01:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that I didn't mention whether sources were reliable in calling this AfD (they weren't in the article) - the issues are notability and sufficient encyclopedic content (can it be expanded?). The sources are reliable - but they don't IMO establish notability. I have doubts about the recently uploaded picture by the original article author, in that they first uploaded it under a non-GFDL license, then uploaded a scaled-down version claiming original authorship. jesup 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really hung up on this "must grow beyond a stub" (could you please cite that WP:BIO clause, by the way?), then you've got a ton of Wikipedia deleting to do. Just to make it alphabetically and numerically easy, start with Arkansas Highway 2 (there is no Arkansas Highway 1) and move your way up the highway system. Okay, joke over. As for this "stub" issue, open up your real-life encyclopedia and you'll see thousands or articles that are no more than one paragraph... and all of those are "Encyclopedic". --Oakshade 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has clearly been greatly improved since the nomiation and references have been added. It seems to me that an "Executive Vice President of 20th Century Fox" is at least as important as many of the sportspeople added to Wikipedia every day. The systemic bias of Wikipedia seems to disfavour people in business, just as it disfavours academics. up+land 05:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GetBackers media

[edit]

Article serves no purpose. All information incorporated into main article. No encyclopedia pages link to it Jojas 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the Rights of America's Youth

[edit]

Non-notable organization. Only hit in Google is the organization's Myspace page. John Nagle 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRAY does not have many hits YET, but it will – very soon. PRAY has been very active on a local basis, in Springfield, Missouri, where it was formed. It is sure to be an important group, on a national basis, as the 2008 elections get into full swing a week from today. User:macs417 13:10, 31 October 2005 (CST)

Comment My reasoning remains the same, not notable. Sorry I missed that unverified date. The myspace reference indicated that PRAY is a 16 years old from Springfield, MISSOURI, is married with Zodiac Sign: Leo. The Myspace article appears to have been created in August 2006. There is no notability there. Bejnar 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you quit replacing my signature with the unsigned notation! It's really annoying. --User:Senatorsmith --User:Senatorsmith --User:Senatorsmith
Comment What is annoying is your editing of other people's comments, which you have been doing. Wildthing61476 21:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Moscovici

[edit]

Non-notable Gadgetry 18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Man

[edit]

There's nothing in this vague and poorly sourced stub that isn't already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. We don't need a separate article for every term for demons. wikipediatrix 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there's no evidence that they should be. So far this article has only one valid reference, whose only contribution is that someone in the Salem Witch Trials allegedly said "They saw the spectre of a black man bending over the accused". That's not enough to justify an article, a merge, or anything. wikipediatrix 14:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. - Longhair\talk 08:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Tea Tree Plaza

[edit]

Does not attempt to assert any form of notability. At best it could be merged into the city article, but the {{local}} existed for all of 22 minutes. Vegaswikian 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Now that the article has been expanded, I agree it's worth keeping. I would also point out that this same effect could have been obtained by just expanding it after the {{local}} tag was added to it, rather than going into a revert war and eventual AfD. I recommend that in the future, when articles are flagged with the "local" tag, that it be treated as a normal expansion request, rather than as some kind of censure. Then if the article is not or cannot be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, its information can be merged into a more appropriate location, such as the chain's article, and/or the article about the local community where the establishment is located. --Elonka 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Charly Boys (CvE horror novels)

[edit]

Unpublished books, scores the rare Zero Google Hits award. Possibly deletable immediately under db-spam. Was Prod tagged, but tag removed without comment by article creator. Calton | Talk 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable (CSD A7). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo navarro

[edit]

This appears to be a resume, with no asserted notability. Editor has already removed db-bio and prod tags. FisherQueen 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - and tagged as such per FisherQueen (A7). It also qualifies under advertising (C11). I decided not to knock the inexplicable and poorly placed picture off the page, because I like the chandelier. -bobby 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - The page's creator is engaging in a revert war at the moment. I might not have the patience to continue it, but make sure you check the history before making any judgements. -bobby 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio even after editing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn brown

[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Article's tone is such that I really want to speedy it per CSD G11. -- Merope 20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The shows are legitimate, as (apparently) are Brown's roles in them (although I'd never heard of HD Net), but I don't see the notability. I'm also concerned that this may be a single purpose account which always makes me uneasy. As to the speedy, I'd hold off on that and let concensus decide. -bobby 21:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as is is bona fide crap, but if the claim is true, it should obviously be rewritten to read more like an encyclopedia article. Danny Lilithborne 21:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All information is true. Please advise how to make article more acceptable to Wikipedia's standards. Thank you.
    • Reply - Hi Brownie1212! In the future, please use ~~~~ to sign and date your posts. The issue with your article's deletion isn't factual accuracy (in my mind) but notability. Please read over the guidelines qualifying an individual for inclusion and see if Jenn brown fits them. Also, based on your user name, it sounds as if you might not be the best editor to write an unbiased article on Ms. Brown. My advice is to wait until Jenn achieves the requisite notability, and then I'm sure her followers will get an article up here pretty quickly. Hope this helps. -bobby 21:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Thank you for your response and help, I very much appreciate it. This is all so very new to me and I was just intersted in seeing what this very interesting website was all about. If the powers that be feel this is not sutible for your site, then I am sure that is what is best as they would know. The article was created directly from Jenn's website's Bio page. Maybe there is a better format...or maybe she just needs to have someone that is more familiar with your site submit her. Thanks again. Brownie1212 22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem notable, but should this end as a keep, I would suggest that whole chunks of it are edited out to get down to the really important stuff (if there is any). Emeraude 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lecd

[edit]

Unsourced and no web search hits apart from a patent application, unclear that this actually exists Rich257 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 23 google hits For "Light emitting Ceramic Device" Not paper. The information is verifable. This is a new technology, so the Google hits are not abundant. Notability does not come into play. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the exact same reasons presented as rationale for keep above. 23 unique and 56 total Google hits is nothing. It's a new technology, which means it should have tons of G-hits if anybody has heard about it- if the web is ever abuzz about anything (besides celebrity sex tapes), it's new technology. Of course notability matters- it always does. -- Kicking222 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of those 23 google hits are about the patent that was lodged in 2002 and granted in the US in 2004. I don't see patent applications as proof of existence, nor does the patent application seem to prove any of the claims in the article. It's four years since the patent has been applied for and apparently no actual devices yet. Rich257 08:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like they do have a product out "The company's first product to the consumer market is the Firefly Light Tray". View image: [35]. 70.57.246.220 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beano McDonald

[edit]

I must admit a lack of knowledge as to the Irish football scene, but this player simply doesn't sound notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China as an emerging superpower

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for POV essays, which this effectively is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in strongest terms possible. This is a part of WikiProject China and WikiProject Power in international relations. It is an article of long standing, is well-referenced and represents the efforts of a lot of editors. The cure for POV, which I do not see at a quick glance, is not deletion but adding counter points and editing POV to NPOV. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep - I just spent an enjoyable and thought provoking 20 minutes browsing the listed article. I saw no NPOV issues, and learned quite a bit which I would not have gleaned from any of the other China related pages. It is one of the best cited articles on Wikipedia, and should absolutely be kept. I'd like to get this debate wrapped up quickly so the Deletion tag can be removed. It drastically misrepresents the article's status. -bobby 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title does suggest an unencyclopaedic essay, but the article covers a lot while sticking to the facts. There are some problems, such as occasional weasel words and a tone that sometimes makes this read more like a brochure for potential investors than an encyclopaedia article. The tone and title might need a look, but this is just too good, and verified, to justify deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm concerned about original research here; for example, it does use facts about China, but the facts are meant to be persuasive about its influence, not informative. There's also a concern about the reliability of some of the sourcing (forexblog, an expat blog, is used even though expats unless they're also reporters are not reliable sources on China, and the source is actually presenting opinions as weasel-worded facts, see reference 110.) My suggestion is 1) slap an NPOV tag on it, 2) cut it down to a more reasonable length and clear out all the OR, and 3) monitor it carefully for edit wars. I'm not sure if deletion is the answer, as there are many sources. ColourBurst 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or Delete
I agree with ColourBurst. Deletion is the last resort solution to the OR problem in this otherwise well-written article. The OR problem is that the parts that are verifiable are the facts and this article appears to synthesize the facts into a comprehensive theory. This makes it a good piece of writing but OR nonetheless and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia.
What needs to be verifiable is that reliable source X believes that factors A,B,C are reasons why China is an emerging superpower and reliable source Y believes that factors D,E,F are reasons why China will have problems in the future. In other words, the author(s) do not need to prove that the factors A,B,C,D,E,F are true. They need to prove that reliable sources, X,Y,Z believe that these factors are relevant and significant to the question.
Surely there are books written on the subject. Cite them.
--Richard 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article is nominated for anything, it should be GA, not AfD. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Well sourced, well written, notable subject, and hardly any POV violations except for a few weasel words. Has been speedily kept before.--TBCΦtalk? 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe all these comments about the quality of the article are missing the point. The point is not that it's badly written. It's not. The point it is that it's currently a position paper, not an encyclopedic article. Even the title is POV. One can write the most persuasive, most elegantly written paper in the world, and it would still be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As a long time contributor I have worked hard to convert these articles to NPOV and avoid OR. I do not believe it deserves deletion as it is a notable discussion point in modern society. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sourced, well written, NPOV. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The topic is supported by multiple reputable sources. I don't see this as a PoV essay. Instead I'd like to see a comparable article on India. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with some minor reservations) - I will accept that, at first sight, the title gives the impression of crystal-balling. However the article doesn't engage in speculation - it is an accumulation of sourced facts bearing on China's international power. I have some concerns over layout (the points for/against) and, given its title, there is the risk that it will encourage POV/OR editing. However I offset this against the number of excellent editors who are doing a creditable job in keeping it clean. I would suggest though that thought be given to orienting the article more towards the opinions of IR academics rather than a simple presentation of facts (per Richard, above). Xdamrtalk 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comment. Assuming that it is kept, any objections to renaming it to China as a potential superpower? --Nlu (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles (China/India/EU) have gone through a number of variations on a theme of 'potential superpower' or 'emerging superpower' - either way the title looks crystal-ballish (even if the article itself isn't). I don't really have any alternative suggestion (sorry) but I think that any emerging/potential/possible/future title is bad and should be avoided. Xdamrtalk 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all crystal ball-ish. However, so are a number of articles related to global warming. This kind of prognostication is important and therefore encyclopedic. I would focus less on the title and more on getting the article to survey the opinions of reliable sources rather than trying to be a reliable source in itself. --Richard 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be China as a potential superpower, but what's the point of making an article just because a nation has potential. Then we would have less reason to delete articles made by people who just wanted to make their country look good, as many countries have "potential", to be "emerging" is a state of actual movement to the status of superpower and is harder to make an article on. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 14:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kent H. Landsberg Company

[edit]

I am also nominating KHL Engineered Packaging Solutions, KHL Express and Traybon. They are non-notable linked companies that are subsidiaries of multinational Amcor and each fails WP:CORP, plus a non-notable baking product. Articles created by editor User:Corrbert whose only edits are these [37]. Prod contested by 207.104.211.150 whose only edits are these [38], saying "Kent H. Landsberg Company is a noteworthy organization with over 20,000 individual customers, 60 years of history, and 2,500 coworkers. It is NOT known in North America by its Amcor association". I say delete. Mereda 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --MCB 07:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson - Marek

[edit]

Non-notable yacht design group; fails all three of WP:CORP's criteria because 1), there aren't multiple, non-trivial published works about it, 2), the company is not "listed on ranking indices of important companies," and 3), its stock price is not used to calculate market indices. Add to that, less than 500 ghits. Picaroon9288 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Frank Lloyd Wright only generates 809 unique Google hits and the most famous yacht design team Sparkman & Stephens only generates 776 unique Google hits. At 66% of S&S, it seems that N-M could be considered very significant to this industry, as recognized by the web.

Kevin Murray 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied conversation from my talk page--
My Google seach [39] shows 1000 hits
Hi, thanks for your note. I'm afraid 1000 google hits would not suffice to establish notability. WHen I enclose in brackets, I come up with 10,000 hits, of which 452 are unique. Those beyond 452 are repeats. 452 UNIQUE google hits for "Nelson Marek" Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giboney Cave at Doling Park - Springfield, Greene County, Missouri

[edit]

Non-notable cave, in a non-notable park, article created as a record of a glorified family get together Delete Steve 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Technology, Inc.

[edit]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify, because the notability of the company is asserted. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion/vote, but inclined to keep. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close as delete per WP:SNOW.--Konst.ableTalk 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Google Broken

[edit]

Original research and possibly advertising (link is to a site that performs search engine optimization). In fact, there is no substance to this article -- it exists to direct people toward the essay behind that external link. I believe that essay's point is already covered, in more encyclopedic and NPOV form, in the Google and History of Google articles. Shimeru 00:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_31&oldid=1116878376"