Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 7 October 9 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Deizio talk 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youkaimura

[edit]

5,100 Google hits, NO Alexa rank. In no way notable. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Delete. Andre (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed to delete. You all convinced me. I wasn't aware of the Alexa ranking, or the reasons why websites are listed on wikipedia. I only know that I learned something interesting from reading the article, and others who are interested in the subject matter would also learn something, which I thought was enough to warrent an entry. MightyAtom 00:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not logic to keep. People are interested in Mario, should Tatanga get an article? If this site is give an article because people are interested in the subject matter, then that opens the floodgates to say that any site about youkais is notable because people are interested in the subject matter. People were interested in the article about Bizarre Uprising, a webcomic that used to have an article, but it failed its second AfD despite having around 300k Alexa Traffic Rank. That is not logic to keep, and it should not be given an article for the sole reason that a handful of people want an article on the subject - rather, it should not be given one because the cold hard facts say beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Alexa and Google are commonly used in factoring a site's notability on Wikipedia, and both paint a clear picture that it is not that big of a web site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Wouldn't that be cruft? MER-C 03:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argument was changed. MER-C 05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tatanga? Cruft is not a reason to delete, this is a fact htat is constantly stated. Cruft is an argument, just like the fact that this site does not warrant an article. Under your logic, Tatanga deserves an article, as do every single insignificant character in the Mario universe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason? That's funny, I seem to recall nominating it with the argument that it's not notable on the basis that it does not pass two of the biggest tests of notability. Additionally, you yourself admit that there is extensive coverage of the flaws of the site. But this is the only way any of the site's content is discussed, through the controversy section. This is most certainly not a case of NPOV; if it were, you would not be so focused on the criticism section (your focus giving power to the argument that you are using this to attack the site). If you were not biased as Hushicho says, then you would have added sections about the article's content. There can not be a controversy section before there is any actual content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it non-notable? With that article, I could say half of the articles on Wikipedia are non-notable. This is a major debate in the online Japanese folklore community. And the article is NPOV. It does actually discuss the site's content. Did you even read the article? It even veers toward the positive side at the beginning, when discussing the site's history. Plus, this isn't a question of negativity or positivity. It's a question of fact. Factuality, I think, should be the main question in a discussion of whether or not to delete the article. The fact that the main question here is "notability" (who decides what's notable or not, by the way?) is unbelievable to me. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a celebrity magazine. Of course, that's just my opinion. Shikino 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's unbelievable to you that we draw the line about what should be? So basically, it doesn't matter that it has next to know notaiblity and thusly doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia, as long as it's factual? And the positivity of the article is a blurb compared to the controversy section, which is more or less the only content of the article and the only way content of the site is dicussed is discussing how it's controversial. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. He only wants it removed because it tells the truth about his website, in a visible place where he can't overrule facts. Shikino 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You did a good job showing that you are NPOV, since you clearly refer to what the criticism of the website says as the truth and fact. In fact, the fact that you clearly show dislike towards this site makes me question why you would even want it to have an article. In fact, you yourself was the one who created this article, and are the one who inserted any mention of controversy in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never tried to hide that I wrote the majority (if not all) of the article. As for the criticism of the website, it is fact. And it is fact that is easily proven and well-documented. Saying that a fact is a fact doesn't mean I'm not NPOV. I've never condemned the website or even said anything slightly disparaging about it. On the contrary, I've repeatedly stated my opinions concerning its right to exist. I'm a bit mystified that this argument has anything to do with NPOV. I thought (although I admit I could be wrong) that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia that prided itself on things like completeness and factuality (although factuality is something that can be easily changed, I'd have thought that it would be valued by those who run it). As for why I want the article, I believe the nonfactual aspect of this website should be known; this is why the article is notable, because Youkaimura is a major issue in the online aspect of Japanese folklore. The "information" there is frequently presented as fact in places online where people might not be as immersed in Japanese folklore and can't tell what's real and what's made up. As I've repeatedly said elsewhere, folklore is folklore. It's an area of study, and is not anything similar to the genre of fantasy where "anything goes" is the rule of thumb. The vital importance of factuality in the field of folklore studies, specifically Japanese folklore, is why I believe this article is both necessary and notable. Personally, I think importance should trump popularity, which is why I think some random internet rating is irrelevant in this case. Shikino 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
So you created the article for the sake of putting up a criticism section? Odd, what you have stated contradicts this! So it would seem that you were lying. And you're right - since this article is not important, it should be deleted. Anyhow, one of the editors that has contributed to the criticism section is also a member of the forum sourced. As I see it, Youkaimura has never referred to itself as an academic resource. And from what I've seen, members of the cited forum have harrassed and threatened members of the Youkaimura forum, which - as you would guess it - invalidates them as a source, because they are naturally biased against the web site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man, this is so ridiculous it's not even funny. I never lied about anything. And please, if you're going to be making decisions on deleting an article, please bother to do some homework. You said, "I see it, Youkaimura has never referred to itself as an academic resource." Well, you're wrong. The owner has repeatedly claimed this; in fact, he's gone as far as to say that he's the best source, and that all other academic sources on the subject are flawed and/or poorly researched. A claim which is easily disproved if you bother to look into the subject at all. And as for harrassing and threatening, this is another claim which you'd do well to put a minutia of research into before believing it. The forum in question hasn't harrassed Youkaimura; on the contrary, it's the dictatorial owner of Youkaimura that's thrown most of the people on the forum in question out of Youkaimura simply for questioning the factuality of his content. If anyone's the perpetrator of harrassment, it's the owner of Youkaimura. Anyway, so, basically what you're saying is that Japanese folklore is unimportant. As I've said that this article is important to Japanese folklore and you've said in reply that it's therefore unimportant, that's pretty much what you're saying. Well, if Japanese folklore is unimportant, then anime is twice as unimportant. Looks like I'll have my work cut out for me nominating some anime and video game articles for deletion. This is such bullshit it's not even funny. Shikino 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You know why I say it's unimportant? Well, why don't you go the extra mile and ask why I think the sky is blue? It is an undeniable fact that this website has no place on Wikipedia. It is not even covered by Alexa, and it has very few Google hits. You've stated that the only reason you want this article is to inform people that the site is incorrect. The sole reason you wish for this article to exist, as you have stated, is so that you can give a POV. If the website's content were correct, would you then want it deleted? - A Link to the Past
So you're hung up on the POV thing, when I keep telling you it's not a POV. It's fact. Or, wait. Maybe the difference between a true POV and pure, unbiased fact is that it's only "fact" if no one thinks it is! That's you're logic. To use your example, "the sky being blue" is fact. But if I make a Wikipedia article about the sky, and say in this hypothetical article that the sky is blue, it automatically becomes POV, and thus worth deletion on those grounds (nevermind, for the moment, the issue of notability). I restate what I've been saying all along: Folklore is folklore, there's no "anything goes" in folklore. Folklore inaccuracies can easily be researched and disproved as NON FACT. That doesn't mean there's POV involved, just because someone believes something that happens to be true, to be true. On the issue of notability, I give you the message the IP "213.172.234.208" posted below. To say this article is non-notable, given its notability within the field of Japanese folklore, is to say that Japanese folklore is non-notable. I notice you keep dodging that issue. If this article is to be deleted, I'd say you have to delete the entire Japanese mythology project in order to be consistent. Shikino 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(talk) 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shikino: It's not even ranked on Alexa, which is a typical notability measurement, and it has only 5,100 Google hits. See WP:WEB for notability guidelines. Andre (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just an opinion from a non-wikipedian enthusiast for Japanese folklore. While the point about non-notability may be completely valid, there is one thing most of you are failing to see. Internet sites in English centering on Japanese folklore are a very rare find. So, while in the larger scheme of things, this site might actually be non-notable and irrelevant, it is certainly not such through the optic of Japanese folklore research. Me, I had to find out the hard way that the site in question is at times slightly inacurate, and at times ridiculously flawed. And even if this might seem like a low blow, some of the wikipedians in the Japanese mythology group have had the same problem - see the talk page for kamaitachi, for instance.

So, eventhough my opinion doesn't count towards the ballot, I'd recomend to at least keep the article in it's original, short version - i.e. before the vandalism and the desperate attempts to remedy that turned into the article it is now. It could help a serious enthusiast like myself save some time in the future. 213.172.234.208 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning what? I always thought the "pedia" part of Wikipedia was for "encyclopedia". Maybe I'm wrong. I'm starting to doubt that initial interpretation. So if Wikipedia isn't an "indiscriminate" collection of information, then what is it? A collection of information judged relevant by those in charge? Shikino 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A discriminate collection of information. The users, admins and non-admins, decide what's acceptable for Wikipedia. You were expecting that every single subject in the universe would get an article here? Please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was just simply gonna put down my view and leave it at that. But you, sir, are starting to sound rude. I believe there was some rule or other about a certain level of civility here? I gave my view as to why I don't think this article should be considered "an indiscriminate addition to Wikipedia". I gave an example of how the website in discussion can be misleading even to people that, unlike me, are regular contributors in the Japanese Mythology Project. Do you seriously believe your response was anywhere near the level of my civil display of opinion? And please, don't think I am a sockpuppet or anything. I'm not. I am, as I said, a bystander, somebody with an interest in the subject matter, who noticed this discussion and felt compelled to add his two cents. After all, that's what Wikipedia is about, isn't it? People with a particular knowledge and insight sharing it with those without? 213.172.246.121 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random passerby? Pretty random - your only activity on Wikipedia seems to be responding to this AfD. Regardless, Wikipedia is not about educating people about everything. We try to limit it to less than every possible article that could exist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:33, 13 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. Deizio talk 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wajda

[edit]

Not notable, does not meet WP:BIO — in particular "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". Thanks/wangi 00:25, 8 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, redirect to Grindcore. Deizio talk 10:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornogrind

[edit]

Non-notable ultra-fringe genre which has no legitimate sources and very few live links Kultur 00:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! No reliable sources is not a reason to delete. You should request that someone find a reliable source. If we deleted everything that failed WP:RS, there wouldn't be much left of Wikipedia. Carcharoth 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect To Grindcore per Spearheads response--Inhumer 21:00, 9 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 `'mikka (t) 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bastah

[edit]

Article with little context. Also WP:VANITY. Húsönd 00:52, 8 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, redirect to Rick Wakeman. Nothing significant to merge, no reason to retain edit history. Deizio talk 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Wakeman

[edit]

Daughter of a notable musican Rick Wakeman, but only other claim to notability seems to be that she provided vocals and backing vocals to a few tracks. 176 unique google hits, but most of these seem to be listings on her father's CD tracks and no google news hits. Irongargoyle 00:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is information in Jemma Wakeman that is not at Rick Wakeman, hence a merge and redirect is far preferable to deletion. Carcharoth 09:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for deletion was: since the article is Rick Wakeman and not Rick and Jemma Wakeman it is not necessary to merge all the (unreferenced) information from Jemma Wakeman into the Rick Wakeman article (it doesn't contain the details of the births and careers of his other children), but rather to wait and see if she becomes notable in her own right and if so to recreate her article. Yomanganitalk 13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge implies redirection, not deletion. Merge and delete destroys edit history. Please don't do this. Carcharoth 09:24, 8 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. Deizio talk 11:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Three

[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable conspiracy theorist vanity project. Article has been up for over a year, and fails to cite to a single reliable source (or any sources for that matter). Fails WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:RS See its companion article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter, also nominated for deletion. Morton devonshire 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion arises from the relationship between WP:RS and WP:V. I think what the nominator was doing was using "fails WP:RS" as shorthand for saying that the article lacks sources that provide an independent verification of the material in the article. ie. the way the article currently asks people to verify the information, is by going to the official website of the company/person involved. But "fails WP:RS" can mean other things as well, most of which are not reasons for deletion. Carcharoth 17:27, 8 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 Closing as No consensus and relisting in light of rewrite. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Deizio talk 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Walter

[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Fails to cite to reliable sources, violating WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:NOR. See its companion article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walden Three -- also nominated for deletion. Morton devonshire 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not a valid reason for deletion. Possibly you mean WP:V. Carcharoth 11:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My appologies. An article without reliable sources is not verifiable.--Rosicrucian 18:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The google translation of that one makes him look even less notable than this one. If I spoke French, I'd slap a Modèle:Suppression on it so they can delete it too. --Dual Freq 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that says it all! :-) Carcharoth 09:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fact that an article exists in another language is not a reason in itself to keep or delete. Someone may have innocently translated the original article into another language. The articles in another language may be subject to the same manipulations, prejudices, and flaws as the first article, or it could be a walled garden. However, one potentially has different sources, which could be better (or worse). In JWW's case, the French article more informative (for example, how he claims to be in exile as the FBI has labelled him a terrorist and banned him from air travel), but still no less verifiable, as its main source appears to be a magazine interview with the subject. Ohconfucius 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rosicrucian had an excellent point. I cleaned out the cruft, and rewrote, focusing on information based on the articles from Reuters, New York Times, and Der Spiegel, which should meet the reliable source objections. I also merged in the Walden Three info, as that probably isn't notable/verifiable/reliable enough in itself, but can stand a paragraph here in the article of its founder. Please look at it again. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly a stronger article for it, but I'm going to need some time to look it over before I can consider changing my vote. I'll try to re-evaluate before the vote closes. Thanks for the positive attitude towards revision though.--Rosicrucian 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AnonEMouse has made significant improvements to this article. Walter appears to meet WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial news reports. --Hyperbole 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep He appears to be a crackpot who I believe is borderline notable because of the outlandish things he's saying (and the ton of money he's throwing around) and how he's going about drawing attention to his theories. News about him is picked up all around Europe and the US. Ohconfucius 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to meet BIO in the rewritten version. Nice job, AnonEMouse.--Kchase T 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, i read over the revised article and an ad campaign doesnt scream notability to me. If you ever read the NYTimes before its simply massive and you can even find an article on your local (if in NY) ice cream palor, which doesnt mean it notable. After the 9/11 rush anything containing the twin towers went to print, and so it should not be weighed the same in terms of notability. --NuclearZer0 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, the NYT is in some ways also a local paper. However, note that Reuters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Der Spiegel are not New York City local papers. I humbly submit that being the topic of independent articles published by the largest newspaper, tv corporation, and magazine of 3 respective continents passes WP:BIO. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been cleaned up since the nomination and now passes all sections mentioned in the nomination. *Sparkhead 14:09, 13 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 (in light of biography cited by Mitaphane). --Nlu (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin S. DuClos

[edit]

After looking this entry over a few times, I am undecided as to whether this attorney is sufficiently notable. I felt that it should be submitted to a discussion. Neutral at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 01:31, 8 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 - no reason given for nomination. Thryduulf 15:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform

[edit]

Restarting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform due to the last AFD being for multiple articles such that a clear consensus could not be determined for the two remaining articles that appear to have been mostly rewritten. Cowman109Talk 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason was given at the original AfD, but I agree, this new AfD needs its own reason for deletion to be given, otherwise it becomes void. Carcharoth 11:21, 8 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. Thryduulf 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform - History

[edit]

Restarting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform due to confusion from major changes made to the article, splitting into two AFDs. Cowman109Talk 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason was given at the original AfD, but I agree, this new AfD needs its own reason for deletion to be given, otherwise it becomes void. Carcharoth 11:24, 8 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 - Yomanganitalk 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrugem

[edit]

Non notable Brazilian ex-VJ. Fails WP:BIO. Húsönd 01:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-08 02:18Z
  • Keep. He is a well known VJ in Brazil, which makes him notable. --Carioca 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems as though the survival of this one will depend on providing sources. I couldn't find more than passing mentions of him online, but maybe someone else knows what to look for and can improve the article during this AfD. Grandmasterka 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Brazilian Wikipedia. Carcharoth 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth should they want an English article...? Punkmorten 14:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what I mean! :-) If he is only notable in Brazil, get someone at the Brazilian Wikipedia to write an article on him. I'm sure they are deleting articles people write on Phillip Schofield (to pick a random example). Carcharoth 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not an English-centric Wikipedia. It is an international encyclopedia in English. If he meets WP:BIO in Brazil, he meets it here. Grandmasterka 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point. I wonder whether that works in practice though. I am sure the individual language Wikipedias have articles that would be deleted if translated and copied across. I guess what I am saying is that the article is more likely to be accepted and expanded at the Brazilian wiki. Having said that, I can only find a Portuguese-language wiki, as that is the official language of Brazil. Carcharoth 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Do you actually have a concrete example of an English-language article that would meet notability requirements being deleted in a foreign Wikipedia? If not, then you're just speculating. ColourBurst 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am just speculating, but your challenge prompted me to investigate a little bit. I thought of looking at the current articles nominated for deletion and seeing if any have interwiki links. Not many do, most being obscure and/or recently created. But James W. Walter (looking likely to be deleted) is also on the French Wikipedia here. So is the interwiki co-ordination good enough that we will notify the French if we delete the article, and do we expect the same sort of notification when they delete stuff. I would say not in both cases. So I suggest that it is quite likely that deletion policies are not uniform across the wikipedias, which is as it should be, as they are written for different audiences (different languages), and are independent anyway (though all are hosted by the Foundation). Carcharoth 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reason I ask is there have been a few AfD nominations that have been bandied about saying that we should delete an article on the English Wikipedia because it isn't popular enough in English countries (without checking at least if it's notable in its own country/language). This seems extremely biased to me. Walter is from the United States (and a large portion of his time is still spent there) and therefore it's easy to prove if he's notable in English. From what I read in the article, the Walter article was transwikied from an earlier version of the current article as well, so it might not be that relevant if somebody does decide to delete it. I'm not saying that notability is having an entry in a foreign language Wikipedia, but I am saying that the interwiki could be used to find notability links, something that doesn't always happen when an article with an interwiki is nominated, and people cite the nonexistent "a person must be notable in English or in English-speaking countries" criteria (which is actually contrary to WP:V). ColourBurst 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Notability not asserted. Igbogirl 18:52, 8 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. Deizio talk 11:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eclectic Chauvinist

[edit]

Delete. [Check Google hits] Only 7 Google hits, and Amazon Sales Rank of 1m+. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please let us know what those other articles are, and we'll put them up for deletion too. ... discospinster talk 14:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All three above keep opinions are from single purpose accounts. Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Sam Higginson" wrote "keep" twice. Hu 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So did "Jackson Carver2". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my belief that this article is appropriate. It is not fully finished yet. Nothing in it is controversial. As far as meeting the proposed WP:BK, the book does have an ISBN, is available among other places at Books-a-Million and Barnes and Noble, and is regarded as literary fiction. I do not know if the Library of Congress has it; is there a way to search the library online?--12.109.193.99 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I plugged the ISBN given into the LoC on-line search and it did not come up with anything. ... discospinster talk 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a quote from the PublishAmerica website saying that they are not in any way a vanity press or self-publisher.link. Vanity press authors pay; PublishAmerica authors get paid. --12.109.193.99 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. You probably shouldn't use PublishAmerica's reputation as an argument to keep the article. ... discospinster talk 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The 12.109.193.99 IP address user deleted referenced information from the PublishAmerica article (since reverted). I think that the continuing and extensive efforts made on Wikipedia by single-purpose editor(s) are evidence of the book's non-notability. If it was notable nobody would need to attempt to prop it up by such an extraordinary campaign. Hu 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted the referenced material because I saw the notice "do not copy text from other websites without permission". Instead I linked to their site. I am sorry if my "campaign" is such a big deal. I did not mean it to expand to such large proportions. --12.109.193.99 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the quote here that you changed to a reference, I was referring to the whole paragraph on the PublishAmerica article that you deleted in an attempt to hide negative information about PublishAmerica without explanation or summary. All your underhanded tactics make everything you have written, including your book, suspect. Hu 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the edit which Hu is referring to. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response When I checked on the sales rank on Amazon it was 64,000. --12.109.193.99 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Now we have the spectacle of 12.109.193.99 (talk) deleting attributions, and then showing up as this new "Imity", since it was 12.109.193.99 who blanked the book page. However, Imity pretends not to be the "IP person". Hu 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's all of a piece, a grand windup. Follow the trail and you can see who is who. 12.109.193.99 formerly voted "keep" (unattributed) then made some other comments here, then tries to delete the attributions on those comments (since reverted), then votes "delete". UserSevenSeven has made a solo edit, above. It amuses me to track this nonsense for a while, but I may get bored of it at any moment. Hu 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment get bored? --Hirokimoko Tachiri 00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) -- — Possible single purpose account: Hirokimoko Tachiri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Delete The "grand windup" has ceased. --Hu Is it 01:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Hu Is it (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete. Non-notable. The creators of non-notable articles should not be allowed to decide what is allowed on Wikipedia. THL 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Non-notable. The book ranks in the 400 thousandsth on Amazon.com and has no ranking on Amazon.uk Ohconfucius 02:52, 13 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. – Avi 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Tartupaluk

[edit]

A student and his project, and basically un-important satire, in lack of a better word. You can’t call it a hoax. Someone claiming Hans Island as a new “nation”. Indorsing something like this on wiki is not only demeaning for an encyclopedia, it is to open the door for every two-cent fun property claim out there. Normally I would put something like this up for speed delete, but lets hear what others have to say. Twthmoses 02:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither real nor notorious! and in no way comparable to Sealand. At best half a dozen obscure online news outlets spend a few words on this. They don’t do it because “Principality of Tartupaluk” is news, but because “Hans Island” is in dispute and apparently news worthy. This student who “invented” this 2 month ago, is only trying to cash in on the fuzz. The very best indicator that this is rubbish and not notable at all, is that it is only the “project manager” himself that is trying to get it on wiki! Just tab in Principality of Tartupaluk in goggle = what story? Twthmoses 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge your point, but I am concerned about this. This principality is a recent nonsense alright, but it's a nonsense conforming to WP:V. This seems to be an example of an article that could be allowed to stay and be listed on Wikipedia:Unusual articles.--Húsönd 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are focussing on the notability of the person, which is the wrong thing to focus on. I agree that the person is non-notable. The notable thing here is the history of Hans Island. Like it or not, this attempt to declare a micronation is part of the history of Hans Island, hence it should be noted at that article. I am not suggesting an article about the person, though if you want examples of people who generated media interest and have their own article, see Amos Urban Shirk and Simon Pulsifer. Carcharoth 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Carcharoth. Unfortunately it is not this simple. In fact redirect should never be used in such cases. If redirected two things happens, I indorse Hans island = Principality of Tartupaluk, which I absolutely don’t. But much more important wiki, the worlds largest encyclopedia, is now propagating that Hans island = Principality of Tartupaluk. That simply is wrong. You come to wiki because you are notable, wiki does not make you notable. Twthmoses 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that redirects can be a problem if they imply the wrong thing. But I am not sure that this is consistently enforced. I can't think of a good example right now, but I am sure that similar cases in the past have been redirecte. Carcharoth 19:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User Twthmoses has repeatedly removed all mention of the Principality of Tartupaluk from the "Recent events" section of the Hans Island page and attacked people who have objected. Just check the article's history. He/she seems to be of the OPINION that the Principality of Tartupaluk is a "satirical" exercise, but he/she doesn't seem to have any evidence to back this up. Unless he/she has some special knowledge not available from the primary sources, his/her arguments appear to be pure conjecture. Why is he/she now also pushing for this page's deletion? Its content is verifiable, appears to be neutral, and has appeared in several reputable news sources--not "obscure online outlets" as he/she claims. What's the rush to suppress it?

Ahh, User:Tartupaluk yet again as a “new user” whose first action just happened to concern this issue. Hehe. Never mind. I have neither removed nor attack anybody, and there is an entire history log for anybody to see if they wish. On the issue however, “Principality of Tartupaluk” is an un-notable fun “project”, the likes that 10.000 students make in the parents basement each year. 9999 of them never sees year two. That simple does not belong in “Recent events” on a serious article on a serious encyclopedia. It should not be necessary to explain why this is so. You inserted it; I catapulted it to the satire section, cause there is no other place for it on the Hans Island article. This is btw not the place to discuss this; it goes on the Hans Island page. Twthmoses 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hans Island. Silly or not, this is a verifiable part of the history of the place (and whether or not the guy's claim is silly and stupid is really not ours to decide, even though it is). No reason to have a whole article for it though. Seraphimblade 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hans Island. This is definitely part of the island's history, silly or not, and for a place the size and remoteness of Hans Island, probably one of the more interesting things to have ever happened to it, or, for that matter, ever will happen to it. Jamin 00:24, 14 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. Deizio talk 11:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Jimbo

[edit]

I doubt this is notable. Article seems to go out of its way to display notability through google and yahoo ranking, but this is probably just due to googlebombing. jaco♫plane 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Googlebombing? Please at least do me the favor of any type of search. The prominence on Yahoo, Google and other sources is due to the large volume of content I have produced and the amount of links from notable media sources including National Review, Time.com, CNN, Salon, AP and many others. I will endeavor to make the entry more encyclopedic and simply ask indulgence for a day or two, as this entry was posted today. I was honest about my use of Wikipedia and that can certainly be verified by examining my postings, and I hope the community will not succumb to Jaco's incorrect and unresearched allegation.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 04:00:40 — Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete, the article spends more time trying to prove he's notable than it does talking about what makes him deserve an article. Fails WP:BIO, and the above shows that this is total vanity. Redirect to Jimbo Kern. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some additional information added to the article that notes specific accomplishments in citizen journalism and blogging that ought to be taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclejimbo (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 04:43:07
  • Keep, and I hope the first vote doesn't count, because the guy who made it is obviously retarded. A quick Google search would show this isn't a "Googlebomb." As for it being vanity, how many news sources does a person have to be in before he's a pundit? I know some people here at Wiki are all like "Oh no! Bloggers! They're scary and will eat up all of Wikipedia's hard drive space leaving little room left to expand our article on Bumblebee from the Transformers!" Seriously, this is asinine. So, if someone sees Uncle Jimbo on CNN, don't come to Wikipedia for information on who that is. If you want Krang from the Ninja Turtles, we have you covered. Come on! The article needs some cleaning up, but do some research before making a decision. Frank J. Fleming 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all of the attempt made in this vanity article, there is absolutely nothing that shows this individual is notable. It is bordering on failing criteria G11 for a speedy delete. Resolute 06:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay. As per FFleming's wishes I have done a quick in-context Google search ("uncle jimbo" "jim hanson"). 281 results. Not-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 2006-10-08 10:33:13
    • What's an "in-context Google search"? I did a Google search for that phrase but didn't get a hit. I don't think looking for Google hits on "uncle jimbo" and "jim hanson" together proves anything, since he's often cited as just Uncle Jimbo or Uncle J. Milbloggers are often cited in the press, inlcuding Jim Hanson, so it would make information about him a lot more useful than a lot of crap Wikipedia has extensive articles on. Is there just some irrational fear of bloggers here that makes it harder for them to prove notability than any other type of person? Frank J. Fleming 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 11:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then recreate as redirect to Jimbo Kern, protecting if necessary to avoid recreation. The delete is required to prevent the WP:VAIN stuff being accessible in the page history. Suggest that the blogger article be at Uncle Jimbo (blogger), or Jim Hanson, but will probably fail WP:BIO. Possibly add a brief note to Jimbo Kern to note that a blogger is using the name, and/or create a disambiguation page to list Jimbo Kern and Jim Hanson. Carcharoth 11:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I do realise that precise search engine rankings probably shouldn't go in a blogger article, the people who scream vanity likely do not know the reason they were posted. If you look at the page history, this is the third attempt to create this article. The previous two entries were simply reverted by a certain *user, not admin* without any sort of discussion. It is my understanding that these search results were posted as a simple way to confirm notability while the article is still fledgling and will be later removed. And look, it worked, at least we are having a discussion this time. Also, I have added this article to the proper category of American Bloggers. IMO a lot of articles in there could be deleted for lack of notability. But somehow noone argues that. Wikipedia has set a precedent and now we should follow up. I mean geez, there's a guy who has an article because he's a prominent figure in the community of podcasting. Please don't make me comment on this. Uncle Jimbo writes for - what I understand is - the top American military blog, Blackfive. He appears on radio interviews. On posters. He seems to be very widely recognised in the so-called blogosphere, especially it's military segment. And it's not like he started yesterday. Ashanthalas 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of Category:American bloggers is no more an indication that Wikipedia is a directory of every single 'blogger in existence, than the existence of Category:Living people is an indication that Wikipedia is a directory of every single living person in existence. Wikipedia is not a telephone book nor an Internet directory. Our criteria for biographical articles are Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If you wish to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water, please demonstrate by citing sources that those criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 12:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment does hold water, as it adresses the issues raised previously (accusation of vanity and explanation of overall notability). Second: right now, Wikipedia is a telephone book, to be in which you have to win a lottery. As for the criteria for inclusion of biographies, Uncle J is likely to meet this one Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field in the field of independent journalism or something similarly worded, although since he's around, I'd prefer if he commented on it personally. As for Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, see here and here, look for "Blackfive" (the blog that he co-edits in addition to his personal blog). Ashanthalas 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see absolutely nothing in this article that suggests this individual will become a part of the "enduring historical record of that field". Since when was "blogger" a professional occupation? Especially compared to a painter, architect or engineer? As to your earlier comment, if the only notability an individual can show in his article is google search results, then he is not notable. This article is pure vanity, nothing more. Resolute 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Michelle Malkin is a notable blogger and if you go to www.counterterrorismblog.org that is a blogger that is reputable on counter-terrorism. Therefore, a blogger is a profession. MRMKJason
  • Delete or Redirect as above, just another blogger. Thryduulf 15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason to keep the entry is based on the notability of the author of Madison.com and BlackFive.net. First, BlackFive published a book "Blog of War" and authors of books are notable. Secondly, Uncle Jimbo is one of five authors on BlackFive and there should be an entry of BlackFive, as well as its published work, "Blog of War." Thirdly, Uncle Jimbo should have his own entry within the confines of a BlackFive entry and "The Blog of War: Front-Line Dispatches from Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan" entry. He is notable by affiliation of authorship through another blog that published a written work on the testimonials of soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan. Still, the Uncle Jimbo entry needs to be Wikified and cleaned up. There does need to be neutral entries into his article, as well as the aforementioned entry requests to put in context his notability. MRMKJason 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the author for Blog of War is listed as Matthew Currier Burden. Jim Hanson is no more notable by association than the random child of a President or Prime Minister is. Resolute 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Matthew Burden is BlackFive from BlackFive.net and he has made guest appearances on news shows. Also, there are entries of people that are associated with other people and Jenna Bush has an entry as the daughter of President Bush. Therefore, there are entries in the context of someone or something more notable. The book written by BlackFive and his blog is notable as testimonials of soliders during war. It is also notable as a book that publicizes military blogs and www.counterterrorismblog.org is a very reputable military blog for research on terrorism. Still, the BlackFive blog also contains other authors and are notable under the recognitiion of BlackFive's notoriety as the result of Matthew Burden aka BlackFive's work. MRMKJason
        • Matthew Burden is not Jim Hanson, however, which is entirely the point. You have argued the notability of Matthew Burden (published author), and of the website blackfive.net (top military blog on the net[citation needed]) Yet you have yet to show a single argument on why Jim Hanson himself is notable. Resolute 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jim Hanson aka Uncle Jimbo is notable as one of the five others of BlackFive. Much like Jenna Bush, who is only notable for being a sibling to President Bush, Jim Hanson is notable for his authorship at BlackFive that is a top military blog and was implemented by a published author, Matthew Burden aka BlackFive. In addition, Michelle Malkin a blogger, has her own published works and entry into wikipedia. On the other hand, I do not think that the Jim Hanson entry should be alone. At least, there should be a BlackFive entry with all of the bios of the authors and the published work of Matthew Burden. Therefore, the Jim Hanson/Uncle Jimbo entry would be unnecessary if there were a BlackFive entry that had the bios of the authors and the BlackFive book. Without association to BlackFive than the entry by itself would not stand. Hence, there requires a BlackFive entry in order to give credence to its entry. MRMKJason
            • Also, a BlackFive entry with Uncle Jimbo would be good for those that want to research military blogs. For instance, Wikipedia is for the purposes of research and the BlackFive entry would serve the purposes for those that would want to research military blogs as a primary source into the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or past/present/future wars. MRMKJason
              • Well, I made an entry for BlackFive, so if any of you are interested, please make your entries. MRMKJason
                • Right now the BlackFive entry has a speedy deletion, but can be removed by other users and not by the person that created. Therefore, for those that support the BlackFive entry on its merits of being historical and newsworthy than remove the speedy deletion entry and update the article if you can. MRMKJason
      • I appreciate the fact that you folks are considering ths article, and I just wanted to clarify a few things before a final decision is made. I did this because in researching my writings Wikipedia is the most useful tool on the internet for checking facts and I have been using it more and more. I work for madison.com selling online advertising, but I was writing my blog there for almost a year before I joined the company. They had shown support for citizen journalism and I wanted to help make sure the field would grow. Recently I had a row with the editorial board of the larger newspaper hosted on madison.com about the military commissions and prosoner interrogation. I did almost all of my research about the Geneva Conventions, Hamdan decision, and other related topics on Wikipedia and cited them in my piece.


While anyone who attaches their name to a piece of writing and believes the public ought to read it has an element of vanity, my purpose was more to join the community and hopefully add to the credibility of Wikipedia for more people. There is a perception that the editorial voice of Wikipedia is left of center, and while that is not by design, the perception certainly exists. I have two very distinct audiences, the one at Blackfive is largely pro-military while the one at madison.com is just as largely progressive. I have received positive feedback from the madison.com audience for my use and acceptance of Wikipedia and I have introduced it to a skeptical, but more accepting over time, audience at Blackfive.

I have not been active in editing other articles here yet, mostly because I am unfamiliar with the etiquette. I believe that the addition of myself and the other authors at Blackfive would be a positive thing for Wikipedia as it would aid in it's acceptance as a definitive non-partisan source of information. If this survives the deletion process I will add info to the article on myself in the proper format as well as one detailing Blackfive and it's authors. Obviously then the Wiki process will take those and build them into articles reflecting the community's perception.

Regarding the book "The Blog of War", The author is Matthew Burden "Blackfive" and although my work was included in the proposal that won the contract, it is not included in the book as the focus was tightened to active duty personnel and their families.

Citizen journalism and the blogosphere are having a larger effect on how the public gets information. Small as our contributions have been thus far, we are affecting changes. Thanks for your attention and hope this resolves in a positive manner for all of us. --Unclejimbo 17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; no evidence of adequate notability. Postdlf 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and redirect as per Zoe. No encyclopedic notability apparent. Bwithh 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not just another blogger. The argument for re-redirecting to the Southpark supporting character's entry is ridiculous, I've never seen that character outside of the animimated show. This Uncle Jimbo has been on the radio and tv. FlyingSpaceMonkey 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not even especially notable among milbloggers on his own[1][2]. I would suggest a merge to Blackfive but we don't even have an article on that blog. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle Jimbo is one of the prominent bloggers out there and to me it's perfectly okay because he's outspoken about his military views especially regarding Galloway. He would be most known in the blogging community just like User:Dailykos who works on his own biography as well sometimes. At least he worked his reputation up before the establishment of this article. He's not out to promote himself because he's already done that job. Uncle Jimbo is a reference I always attribute to Blackfive.net, not Madison. Googlebombing is a stupid excuse for this as he is already #1 & #2 on the search engine for Madison. Especially other blogs talk about Uncle Jimbo ie: [3] [4] [5]. The Uncle Jimbo wiki isn't even in the first four pages and so on. The proper link to South Park's "Uncle Jimbo" howver in the first four pages are Jimbo Kern and Recurring South Park characters. Again the idea of deletion is nonsense. ViriiK 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Pre-eminent MilBlogger. I fear many of the delete votes are political in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falshrmjgr (talk • contribs) 2006-10-9 02:19
Note: User's 4th edit. --Storkk 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Re: Note:' The number of my edits is irrelevant. The issue is whether the subject is worthy of entry. The notoriety of James Hanson as a Milblogger of repute has been established. What I attempted to draw attention to is the efforts by some to make a political statement, including your own "strong delete" below. The simple fact of the matter is that a personage who has established himself as a pre-eminent milblogger, including being referenced in the Washington Post [6] is of significant relevance for a wikipedia entry. Surely he has contributed more, and is more influential and recognizable than a random sample entry for a AAA Basball player who has 1 major league game to his credit. Example: Shane Komine Furthermore, your intimation that my number of edits is somehow relevant smacks of of the sort of elitism that is counter to the spirit of wikipedia and I take offense. You might want to take yourself back to the "Don't bite the newcomers" page. Falshrmjgr 06:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's very relevant. Please read WP:SOCK, especially the part about "meatpuppets". The fact that you have few edits casts a strong suspicion that you were asked to come here and create an account for the sole purpose of contributing to this discussion. We call this "vote fraud" even though this is not a vote. --Storkk 10:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voter fraud but not a vote? I thought we were supposed to argue the contents and not each other (at least, that's what I got yelled at for), and if a new user can add inforation on the content, I don't see how the number of edits is relevant. Maybe this just happens to be one area where the person is particular knowledable and can contribute.Frank J. Fleming 12:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, since this isn't a vote, who does make the final decision?
New user. Arbusto 05:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New user or not, maybe a disambiguation page and a link to BlackFive would be a good idea, with any relevant data on Uncle Jimbo moved there. Frank J. Fleming 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I rewrote to be more stub-like. Jimbo is less notable than some bloggers who've been deleted from Wikipedia, but I agree with the point made about Wikipedia being too blog-hostile. Arcane television characters on cancelled shows get their own articles with the smallest minutiae (e.g., Sue Ellen Mischke) while IMAO.us and the like get repeatedly deleted (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/IMAO) in spite of being repeatedly referenced by virtually every right-wing blog and blog-like entity out there. Yes, Jimbo started this article and yes, it was badly written (partially in response to the RfD!), but I'd like to give it a chance before killing it outright. Calbaer 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading the stub it seems its apparent this persons views are regarded to some extent, they have had media appearances, host a popular blog and program. I am not sure what more you can ask. While I normally do not like bloggers and blogs for that matter this persons reach seems to extend beyond the, dare I say it, blogosphere. --NuclearZer0 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article is full of self-references. I happen to agree with the default presumption of non-notability for bloggers. In this day and age where everyone can be a blogger, this subject is no different in that he likes to have his opinion known, and that's about all, really. Except, oh, he wants to have an entry in wikipedia (to increase his credibility?) Ohconfucius 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the first link is not a self-reference, in spite of being from the same domain name. So only 2 of the 4 refs are self-references. Calbaer 06:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent multiple non-trivial independent mentions in external sources of provable authority. Warblogs are notable as a genre, individual warbloggers are not. Guy 10:41, 13 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 14:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPenn Art Club

[edit]

Non-notable university club, no assertion of notability outside the university. Contested prod. MER-C 03:30, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Martens Memorial and San Tan Pride Association

[edit]

An attempt to get a bio of an nn person into Wikipedia through the back door. Although deaths are sad, this person is, unfortunately, non-notable, and his memorial doesn't qualify as notable, either. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the multiple links to David Jason Silver, an article also created by this same user, which was deleted previously. More vanity by the same individual using a different method in an attempt to get his name in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jason Silver, where it was suggested that the person creating these articles is David Jason Silver. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senator John McCain has it on his Wikipedia web site under references. this is not notable, I think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harvardlaw (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about that little bit of spam you left. I've cleaned it up now. Also, please don't edit closed discussions, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jason Silver. -- Jonel | Speak 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not leave it John McCain's website, try again. I am not that computer literate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.204.214.142 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This and this suggest otherwise. -- Jonel | Speak 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Silver Kidd is going to open the eyes one day on Wikipedia. He is big time connected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.204.214.142 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep - cleaned up since nomination - Yomanganitalk 11:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Erotic Network

[edit]

reads like an ad, not adequately sourced or notable DanielCD 04:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP! I am the author of this article that has recieved so much attention for what reason I know not?! I have edited the article several times and feel that the present version is not like the original. For those that wish to delete it, why don't you edit it, change things to your liking, instead of just saying 'delete it'?? That's cheap, take the easy way out why don't you?!The whole point of this site (from my understanding) is that it is a public project, anyone can contribute in whatever way they feel would be useful. So step up and contribute- change what you don't like, make it into a better article than it currently is. I have seen articles on this site that don't qualify as articles, they are only 5-10 words, a sentence at most but they are still up last time I checked. Why are other articles about Porn channels still up and this one is slated for deletion?? I am still awaiting an answer on that one but so far nothing but silence. Based on the subject matter (adult channel) I have done what I can with the article, you don't like it- fine then delete it. It descibes a PPV service that is available in the United States, according to the corporate site, to over 100 million households. I mentioned that it consists of 7 channels, 3 are on Dish Network and 2 were just added to DirecTV. It may also be available on cable but I have no information on that. It is one of 2 major adult PPV services in the U.S., the other being Playboy/Spice Network. I think that makes it deserving of being on the site but I have no final say so my opinion means nothing. As a result of this current action with this article, I am seriously re-considering my future contributions to this site. It seems I don't know how to write a good article, just spam, so no point in writing anything else. I will no longer write any more articles and may just stop contributing all together. It seems that this site like alot of other sites on the net is now 'controlled', so much for free speech. I guess the internet as the last bastion of freedom is slowly coming to an end. Keep it or delete it, its up to you, I have said my piece.HeMan5 19:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: HeMan5, people aren't personally against you or the article. Wikipedia has minimum standards for articles, which is why this Articles for Deletion section exists. Discussion deletion is one option for handling an article that doesn't meet those standards. We hope htat you will learn a bit more about what is acceptable on Wikipedia and why. But Wikipedia isn't a "bastion of freedom" for anyone to write anything, it is intended to be a usable encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 8 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. Deizio talk 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Queen Creek, Arizona

[edit]

Do we really want an article which lists all of the mayors of a town with less than 5000 people? I have no problem with having an article on every place in the world, but on the mayors of all of those places? I think not. And, as I write this, the only entry is actually linking to somebody else, not the mayor of the town. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:37, 8 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, created by banned user.--SB | T 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Commonwealth Numismatic Project

[edit]

Delete: this page is a non-notable vanity page for Aidan Work, who is now posting as Paisleyite1976 (talk). Aidan Work was banned from Wikipedia in January of 2006: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Deizio talk 11:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Linney Barber

[edit]

Biography of a small business owner and minor social figure from 19th century britain. No reason for inclusion given or apparent. Uploaded as an obituary by someone likely a relation. Icelight 04:44, 8 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 request of author. Wickethewok 18:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wikis about St. Louis, Missouri

[edit]

This article is highly unnecessary - I doubt there are enough wikis about St. Louis that it needs its entire article. This page seems to have come about via a discussion here: Talk:St._Louis,_Missouri#Link_Spam_Discussion, where it was decided that all linkspam about St. Louis needed its own page. So far, all the article is is an external link. I don't think there are that many wikis about St. Louis that meet WP:WEB. And if it is the intention of the article to be a collection of external links (as opposed to wikilinks), WP is not for that purpose. Delete. Wickethewok 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Possible even speedy delete under A3: "No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title." TJ Spyke 05:07, 8 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 admin User:Grandmasterka as lacking context. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Scholar

[edit]

Appears abandoned by its created (hadn't been edited for two weeks), and right now provides no real information. Speedy delete as a nearly empty article unless fleshed out during process. --Nlu (talk) 05:00, 8 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 14:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.T.'s Revenge

[edit]

I fail to see any assertion of notability here, and with no such assertion backed up by a reliable source, this fails the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Also, the article is entirely unsourced, and may be vanity. Delete under verifiability and notability guidelines. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a side project, ergo, members of notable projects doesn't really apply. However, my main concern is that there's not, like, you know, a source for this information. Anywhere. Oh, wait, never mind. They have a myspace page. And we totally use those as sources. Don't we? I would be more inclined to keep this article if somebody could find any documentation at all of their having done what it claims they did. But don't let WP:V get in the way of being snide and attempting to discredit the community as a whole as inferiors. GassyGuy 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that he finds me embarrasing, yet four of PT's recent AfD closes have ended up at DRV, and 3 overturned. That is what I consider embarrasing. Daniel.Bryant 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the whole community inferior or embarrassing, just those of you who know nothing about music, yet insist on nominating bands for AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might want to create a punk rock wiki and take your elitism with you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the sentiment, you've still yet to demonstrate to those of us who know nothing and think this should be deleted where this particular entry meets WP:V. It's one thing to claim that an act meets WP:MUSIC. I could write an article about myself and make sufficient (false) claims to that easily. It's another entirely to prove them. GassyGuy 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are assuming bad faith of the editors of this article? Here are some links for you: This magazine interview proves the band has notable members, as does this webzine. A simple Google search for the band names pulls up many old concert dates which proves they played beyond their hometown (not that only touring bands meet WP:MUSIC). I think the AfDing of all these band articles is part of some sort of disruptive agenda. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the AfDing of all these band articles is part of some sort of disruptive agenda." That's illogical; it's a unanimous delete besides you. The only one assuming bad faith here is you. You like throwing these acronyms at people as a way of assuming bad faith, but you clearly don't even know what WP:POINT means. If we didn't want this article deleted it would be disruptive. Dmcdevit·t 23:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets WP:MUSIC. Period. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a grand total of zero sources, that is objectively impossible. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See External Links section and Talk Page of article. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you call sources? Neither of these websites even indicates that "P.T.'s Revenge" exists. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not looking at them very closely then. It's sad when, even faced with sources, stubborn editors still insist on a Delete. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. "Pt" threw me off, because I just searched for the words in my browser and that's not how the article calls them. In any case, this doesn't really establish anything. There is an important distinction between sources and external links. Nowhere does it confirm ay of the article's claims. Dmcdevit·t 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unindenting With all due respect, those links confirm that a band called PT's Revenge exists. I don't argue that. I also don't think the editors of this article created it in bad faith. The only issue I'm bringing up is verifiability, and I don't mean verifying that "there is a band called PT's Revenge," because I've yet to claim there isn't. What I can't find are sources that indicate that PT's Revenge has done the notable things claimed of them. I did read your sources, and both of them simply refer to it as "Kevin's old band." That's not enough. GassyGuy 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it IS enough. I know that the band is notable, but I can't prove that to YOU without some internet link. So, I have to fall back upon the WP:MUSIC criteria of this being the project of a notable musician. The links I provide do that. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could offer me a citation from a print reference or some such if one exists. I actually prefer book references to Internet ones when they're available. But, yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect proof of notability. For what it's worth, the musician in question isn't really notable outside the context of other bands (which still makes him notable by WP:MUSIC, not arguing that) but all that seems to justify is a notation in other articles that mention him that he is "formerly of P.T.'s Revenge," as is already done in the Teen Idols article, because that appears to be the only verifiable claim to notability. Even if this article were to stay, most of the information would have to be excised as unverifiable, which would leave it of very limited utility. GassyGuy 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I'm not from Detroit, we'd need editors from that area to contribute. And I think it is more within the spirit of Wikipedia to allow this article to remain and be expanded, rather than erase it from the record altogether. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:16, 10 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 wasMerge and redirect to Vril. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vril (energy)

[edit]

Does not warrant its own article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Why not wait for the creator to finish working on the article before AfDing it? - Lex 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the already existing article Vril. -- Cardamon 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't anyone see that the vril article has virtually nothing except for a brief explaination about it and then goes straight to talking about the vril society that does not even have anything to do with the plot of the story(Vril:The Coming Race). Also there is the link in the coming race article which leads straight to the vril article that doesn't explain about this but instead talks about conspiracy theories. By the way if you have read the book you should notice that the plot and vril is not even about conspiracies or nazis. Anyway it would be dissapointing if you can't even diffrentiate a plot element from a conspiracy. Asarhapi 10:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense, the content can be easily merged to Vril.Eusebeus 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you wrote here [7] that you intended to write a new article about Vril as in the novel. Granted, the Vril article is in terrible shape and I can understand not wanting to deal with it. However, I think that the new article probably counts as a POV fork. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your stay here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Durham Station

[edit]

Evidence indicates that this Battle did not exist:

What is the source for claiming this was a battle? (I just noticed the failed request for deletion, so am late to the party.) Durham Station was the location of Johnston's surrender on April 26, 1865, but I was not aware hostilities were involved that day; an armistice was signed April 18. (See Bennett Place and Carolinas Campaign.) I checked with

  • Phisterer, Frederick, Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States, Castle Books, 1883, ISBN 0-7858-1585-6.

which has a big list of 2,261 battles and skirmishes and it is not mentioned. The travel site http://www.civilwar-va.com/northcarolina/CarolinasCampaign.html is pretty comprehensive and it doesn't mention it either. Hal Jespersen 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - as nom --Ineffable3000 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my reasoning in the first AfD. I had a go trying to find more about this, but I couldn't, as it simply doesn't seem to exist. No Civil War book in my posession mentions it. The Durham Chamber of Commerce has a history page which mentions the Bennett Place surrender but says nothing about any battle there. The only reference anywhere to this "battle" is a handful of "This Day in History" websites, which give the same date as the Bennett Place surrender, so it's pretty clear they're confusing the conference/surrender for a battle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this, this and this there was a battle by this name on 1865-04-26, although they say nothing at all about it. According to this, Henry Mattern was wounded at this battle. Uncle G 10:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that 1865-04-26 is also the date of the surrender at Bennett Place, which is why I believe the websites have gotten the surrender cofused with a battle. The surrender was a major event indeed: it pretty much ended the whole war (though there were some minor events afterward) and if a battle had taken place on the same date in the same town (!!!) there would be much written about it. There isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Someone copied my Talk page text above, but I might as well vote formally.) Unless someone can come up with a reference that describes an actual battle (vs. one of those day-in-history websites that merely lists it), this page should be deleted. Since I wrote the original text, I also searched through the Official Records and find no hostilities mentioned on April 26. Hal Jespersen 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If this kind of article is kept, it will open up all sorts of weird articles which lack of any significance. Some local conflict is definetly not encyclopedia material. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  20:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Durham Station. T REXspeak 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suspect the theory that this was just a surrender, and not a battle, is correct, but I would suggest contacting an expert in the field who can verify this. Also, the website here that Uncle G quoted mentions two people wounded in this battle, so maybe there was a skirmish before the formal surrender? Those reports of wounded men need to be explained before we can say for sure that there was no battle at all. Carcharoth 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two soldiers who were wounded had no military record and no official report was filed for them. That is probably why they aren't mentioned in any books. If only two people died/were injured then I don't think it was much of a battle and therefore isn't notable even if it did exist. T REXspeak 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. Carcharoth 20:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR and Boatner who writes: "By 13 Apr., however, he (Johnston) realized that the situation was hopeless, and the next day requested an armistice. Without renewal of hostilities, he surrendered on 26 Apr. '65." (CW Dictionary, article Carolinas Campaign, pg 127.) True, Bennett House near Durham Station was the site of surrender, but no hostilities appear in the standard sources. If someone got injured, it was likely an "administrative" injury, hard feelings occuring during the stand down. BusterD 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pedia-I Project Jesus 20:17, 26 November 2024 UTC [refresh]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - has had citations added since AFD started. - Yomanganitalk 11:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of science fiction movie and television series

[edit]

This is original research and really seems to be quite random. Ponch's Disco 05:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a great big "So what" Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Resolute 06:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've asked another user at the bottom of the discussion, this list is not one of the examples of indiscriminate articles from the Not Indiscriminate guide you linked to. In what way do you see this as being indiscriminate? --Arctic Gnome 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has curiosity value, though.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intereesting and useful: provides a quick at-a-glance way to compare various sci-fi series by length. I think our definition of "original research" is starting to get overly-broad. It was supposed to protect us from crackpot theories and "Dude, what if the whole universe is just a hair on an ant's butt?" silliness. None of this article is original research. If one wants to find out how long, say, Blade Runner is, there's a thousand different places to find it: the IMDB, the DVD, countless video guides. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You don't even have to go as far as IMDB. This information is available in the existing Wikipedia articles about each series. This list exists so users can make a quick comparison of these specific facts about the series. It's just like how wikipedia has a list of past presidents so that the reader does not have to look at each president's page to compare them. --Arctic Gnome 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Danny Lilithborne. --Brianyoumans 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Andrew Lenahan. The Wookieepedian 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being pointless trivia collected under the pretense of academic research. Interrobamf 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nicely formatted, but still listcruft. ... discospinster talk 15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Resolute. --Metropolitan90 15:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not original research, but merely a collation of information from other sources. Potential value to anyone researching science fiction series. FrozenPurpleCube 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a usefully put together collection of data that is not itself all that important. It's not OR, although it leans toward an indiscriminate collection of information. Given a potential usefulness to someone wondering exactly what they are getting in for when starting a new sci-fi series (which is happening more and more as DVD season sets continue to come out), I'd say err on the side of leaving it alone. It can be reviewed at a future date if it expands in foolish directions or is not maintained. -Markeer 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move somewhere else (make sure the individual SF series articles have the information), because I just know I will want to refer back to this one day! Incidentially, I suspect this started from the tendency of Star Trek and Star Wars fans to run "24-hour marathon viewings" of their oeuvres. Carcharoth 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft Bwithh 20:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft and will be extremely hard to maintain. --210physicq (c) 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incredible listcruft. -- Kicking222 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful almanac-style list. As Andrew Lenahan points out, it's not original research, but a collation of information available at dozens of other locations. Citations can be provided if verifiability is the concern. Whether it's too trivial to merit inclusion in Wikipedia is, of course, an individual judgment, but I'd question whether it's any more trivial or listcrufty than the vast majority of the articles in Category:Sports-related lists; I'm sure that as many people would find this useful and worthy of inclusion as, say, List of Hail Marys in American football or List of Indianapolis 500 winning starting positions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of information (listcruft). Valrith 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It isn’t indiscriminate at all; the article describes very clearly what belongs in the list and how it is organised. Neither science fiction nor motion pictures are random categorisations made up by the article’s creators. --Arctic Gnome 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per Markeer. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information as it provides an actual context and criteria for the information. Maintainance is not really an issue because there are obviously people willing to maintain it (and it gives counts up to whichever episode it mentions, so again the context - and the limits of the information - is clear). As for cruft, it really depends on your definition, although I would say that it's a step above most cruft insofar as it is actually interesting to see how long certain series have lasted and the breadth of fictional universes. I, too, would err on the side of keeping it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not original research. Somewhat indiscriminate, but potentially useful, collection of information -- enough so that I'm inclined to give it benefit of the doubt. Might be NPOV/citation issues (who's deciding what's "canon"?), but that calls for cleanup, not deletion. Shimeru 09:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or maybe move it something like SCIFIpedia before deleting it from here. --GracieLizzie 11:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the sheer fact that it's a useful collection of information, that clearly a number of people have use for it, and that clearly a number of people have put a lot of work over a long period toward maintaining it. I've often seen links to this article, in conversations about TV sci-fi.--Aderack 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful and original data set, even if not of interest to everyone. It is well presented, well linked and thus can serve as an extension of the information available on this site for many films/programmes. --Orbling 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have twice seen this article used as a reference on other websites, meaning people are finding it useful. It is an accurate, up-to-date, almanac-style list. --Arctic Gnome 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definetely not liftcruft. It's verifiable, managable and very useful– a lot of people are interested in it. Just the other day I saw someone cite it to resolve a question they were having [8]. Makgraf 05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR by default due to lack of any WP:RS. Sandstein 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's not the way it works. Reliable sources for this information exist, so it's merely a matter of citation, which is not a reason for deletion. Shimeru 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's the way it works. Per WP:RS: "The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible." Per WP:V: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." So a lack to cite sources is very valid grounds for deletion. Just asserting that sources exist somewhere isn't a valid remedy. Sandstein 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're misreading WP:V. The criterion isn't whether information is verified, it's whether it's verifiable. Yes, it is important that we cite our sources on Wikipedia; but that's not a deletion criterion. The criterion is whether such sources can be provided. An article on my cat Maggie is unverifiable, because no reliable source could be provided. Sources can be provided for the information in this article (and, indeed, Arctic Gnome has begun to do so). This article isn't original research, but a collation of widely available data. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was not arguing this article fails WP:V; I'm arguing that it fails WP:OR by default because it has (or had) no sources. But strictly speaking, it does fail WP:V, because I think you are misreading WP:V by stating that "The criterion is whether such sources can be provided." Quoting from WP:V again: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." It also says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Read together, this means that, in case of disputes, the criterion of WP:V is whether sources are in fact (not: can be) provided. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for WP:OR compliance. Sandstein 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unsourced material is not the same as original research. In this case, any reader can in fact check the information against reliable published sources. The error lies in the fact that the citation isn't (or wasn't) provided -- which is not in itself a reason for deletion. If the material were questioned, and such sources were not (or, more to the point, could not be) cited by editors, then there might be reason for deletion as OR -- however, since the citations can be (and are being) provided, this meets WP:V criteria. Ideally, of course, all articles would be both verifiable and verified -- but the fact that a given article is not yet verified is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion of verifiable material is simply counterproductive when cleanup is a possibility. (This is also, I believe, why the policy states "unsourced material may be challenged and removed," rather than "will be... removed." Babies, bathwater, you know the drill.) Shimeru 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Everything on this page comes from imdb or tv.com. I'll give the article links to those websites. --Arctic Gnome 14:24, 10 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 as hoax. El_C 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish breeding program

[edit]

I was unable to find any (English language) evidence of any such program. Kerowyn Leave a note 05:47, 8 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. —Xezbeth 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Syndicate

[edit]

Hmm... non notable forum, I think, with 111 members... although it is hard to know what the article is about without doing some meditation. I wonder if CSD:G1 could be applied here... -- ReyBrujo 05:48, 8 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. Malformed and pointless nomination by an anonymous contributor. Re-list with an explanation if you believe this article should be deleted. Thanks, RFerreira 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope Valley High School

[edit]

Precedural nom, completing afd by an anon. Abstain. MER-C 06:45, 8 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 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keza

[edit]

Unencyclopedic unsourced original research. Non-notable name. Contested prod. MER-C 07:13, 8 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 as A7 by NCurse. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asaf Cohen

[edit]

Supposedly a hero in New Zealand, but more likely only his mind. No pertinent Google [9][10], Newsbank or Newsbank hits. Likely hoax, hence not speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions proposed by an anonymous fool are absurdly outlandish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.130.54 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity_Valentine

[edit]

Edit logs show this cutesy entry to be mostly autobiographical and self-serving. Realliveprincess 07:43, 8 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 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jaeger

[edit]

This article has, in its time, being about 2 different people, a DJ and a Doctor. The DJ has been prodd'd as non-notable and the Doctor has been questioned as a possible hoax. So this AfD is about 2 different people, so the questions are delete both? Lift and separate both? Or delete just one? It looks like delete both to me. --Richhoncho 08:24, 8 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley family

[edit]

This article does not give any reason for the Huxley family being notable or even have a good deal of information on more than one member. Dev920 (Tory?) 08:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to QuiteUnusual and Eusebeus: the article is summarising a topic, and as such will appear to be superfluous when it is not. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style for more on this. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are joking, right? This article is not trying to turn Wikipedia into a genealogical database, it is merely showing family relationships between notable people. There are lots of family trees in Wikipedia, but they have to involve notable people. This family tree clearly does involve notable people. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about being a geneological site. There is already a Category:Huxley family and this family is significant as a family. It's not just a family that happened to produce some famous people. For many to most of the people named their being Huxley's had some impact on their history. For example many Leftist critics of Brave New World cited that Aldous Huxley was of the "Huxley family" and therefore dismissed his criticism of a future that was dull/overly-clean as the whinings of a child of privilege. (This was either in Rai's "Orwell and the Politics of Despair" or possibly Hillegas's "The Future as Nightmare") There's other cases too.--T. Anthony 19:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are not notable, they are a very important family. I can't think of a more noteworthy family in science and literature. It also shows relation to Arnold fam. I agree with above statements generally, but suspect users do not understand Huxley and Arnolds significance or believe their relationships to be an odd coincidence. Fred.e 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whether the individual members are notable or not is irrelevant. The question is the family name, in its own right? And the answer is no, or at last it has not been made obvious in the article. Dev920 (Tory?) 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If notability has not been made in the article, the answer is to add notability, rather than delete! The comments elsewhere in this debate attest to the notability of this family. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete sure, SOME family members are notable but they are listed invidually. Why is a listing for the entire family necessary? Why not list the entire Baldwin family if this is your policy? That family has produced several notable actors. Igbogirl 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the Baldwin brothers article?--T. Anthony 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Here's the thing, ALL of the Baldwin brothers listed are notable. Are all of the Huxleys notable? What's wrong with just listing the notable Huxleys individually?
Huxley family does not list all the Huxleys. It lists only the notable Huxleys, as you are asking for, and it included an image that shows the Huxley family tree to show the relationships between the notable Huxleys. Where is the problem? Carcharoth 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there is precedent on Wikipedia for this sort of article. See my examples listed below. And listing the entire family is what a family tree does. The important thing is to ensure that the accompanying text only mentions the notable family members. Carcharoth 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As individuals, yes. As a family? Dev920 (Tory?) 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. They've been the subject of articles and the book The Huxleys by Ronald W. Clark (McGraw-Hill, 398 pp.)[11][12]--T. Anthony 03:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, no question about it IMO. Charlene.fic 00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the Tolstoy family, or the Bach family.  --LambiamTalk 05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a List of members of the Huxley family, only presented in non-list form. How many lists are inherently notable? They are lists of notable individual topics, and they simply provide an alternative entrance to the data. Categories do this, but lists serve different functions from categories. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article says, it is a stub. A whole book has been written on the topic. The question I answered to was not: Is this ripe for being a Featured Article, but: Is the topic notable?  --LambiamTalk 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused now. Lambian and Dhartung, you have both voted keep, but seem to be arguing about something. I can't quite work out what though! Carcharoth 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be arguing about whether this should be deemed a list or an article. I tend to feel that lists are articles of a kind so that's not important to me. Also that debate is best for after the vote.--T. Anthony 01:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got confused by Dhartung's comment. If this stubby article is doomed to remain "just" a list of the notable individual members of the family, well, then for this case I don't see an advantage in the list form over the category. It is the potential of a full-fledged article that makes me recommend it to be kept.  --LambiamTalk 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was to Dev920, not Lambiam. Sorry for the confusion -- I thought the indent was enough! To clarify my point and this unintended tangent: I believe it is a potential article, which is why a category is insufficient. I wasn't arguing against expansion, simply noting that a list, like a category, is an organizational tool. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category page serves a different function to the article. The article should be (eventually) an overview article, like the many other family articles pointed out on this page. Please click on a few of them to see what I mean. Just because this article may not have reached a mature stage yet, and appears to be redundant, is not a reason for deletion. Carcharoth 10:58, 10 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, and also delete Out of the frying pan (into the fire). El_C 07:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 2nd glance, restore frying pan, since that link is actually dead (someone added the template to the article, so I thought it was real). El_C 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From bad to worse

[edit]

A popular, but unremarkable phrase. The article itself is a dicdef. I'm not sure if there are any set policies for dealing with stuff like this, but this seems totally unencylopedic. Should we have articles on Good but not great, Face was as white as a sheet, Crack of dawn and I'll eat my hat? Nydas 09:31, 8 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 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvermoon's law

[edit]

Another non-notable 'law' with 49 Ghits[13]. Devoid of notability and reliable sources. And who is Silvermoon anyway? Nydas 09:31, 8 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 - Yomanganitalk 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox-McCandlish law

[edit]

Yet another unimportant Internet 'law'. Whilst the creator of this article and joint creator of the phrase, User:SMcCandlish, is a Wikipedian of good standing, this phrase has little notability. It gets 153 Ghits [14], mostly blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. For an internet fad, that's virtually nothing. There are no reliable, third party sources to be found on this phrase anywhere. There are also serious problems with original research and article ownership - the talk page is filled with blog-like musings on the 'law' and its 'corollaries'. Nydas 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Non-notable neologism. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article needs work, and the number of page hits is low, many of those that did pop up are encyclopedia-type sites, and one on the first page is actually a debate that invokes the Wildcox-McCandlish Law. It may not generate many page hits, but it is used.Alternator 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not referred to in any printed media, so far as I can tell. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, which says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." A NY Times article would certainly suffice, but cites in online forums don't seem sufficient. Especially with only 753 Google hits. EdJohnston 18:19, 15 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. Neologism. El_C 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyloon

[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Ghits aren't relevant. Contested prod. MER-C 09:39, 8 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 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Labor Club

[edit]

Unencyclopedic unsourced, shameless self promotion unable to be verified or referenced, student sub prone to vandalism NCM 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kaiser went on to more controversial things (I'm rather surprised there's no article on him, in fact, it's an oversight which is on my "things to help with" list), but I'm not sure even that amounts to notability for the club. Realistically, I think it's only outfits like Cambridge Footlights which are almost an assembly line of notable alumni which move beyond the "university club/society" heading and become worthwhile inclusions here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there appear to be a number of other "unencyclopedic unsourced, shameless self promotions" in Category:Australian student societies--Grahamec 14:40, 11 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 15:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mueller (telecommunications)

[edit]

Non-notable business exec. Previous attempt to delete opposed with message to take it to afd. Brianyoumans 10:45, 8 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 15:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Northwest Herpetological Society

[edit]

Was on Speedy, put on AfD instead abakharev 11:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Notable or not. Isn't the purpose of wikipedia to be able to find information about just about anything?

I think it's a grave mistake to start deleting valuble resources like this simply cause they aren't in the front page of the newspaper. It's a extremly well written article that offers up excellent information about this group. Had I not chanced upon it be looking for law regarding herp breeding, I would have not known of it's existance.

Thanks to wikipedia, I was able to find this group, and now I will be able to join them. I might not have found them otherwise.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merged to Red Button (Digital Television) - Yomanganitalk 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press red

[edit]

I really don't think this button is worthy of an article. The article is unsourced where it needs to be, doesn't actually say anything about why the red button deserves an article, and has no technical information. The only real content says that television networks sometimes tell viewers that the red button on their remote controls does something. jd || talk || 11:22, 8 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 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand Effect

[edit]

Neologism started at blogs KittenKlub 11:44, 8 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 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship launches in 1946

[edit]

A pointless list which will never be exhaustive, despite the claim it lists ALL ships launched in the year (one it seems!). A large number of related articles should also be deleted at the same time. Emeraude 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to nominate and list the other articles, but there 86 of them and I won't live that long!! The earliest is List of ship launches in 1895 and the latest List of ship launches in 2006, with most intervening years included. Emeraude 12:18, 8 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 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.G. Devitt

[edit]

Lack of notability. Most of the G-hits I found (not that many, by the way) are from blogs and livejournals. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:02, 8 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 all as duplicates of 109th United States Congress. El_C 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Congressional Delegation from XXX

[edit]

All of these are duplicates of the articles listed in Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state. The ones in Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state are large, detailed articles, includeing history of the delegations. The ones listed above are all little better than stubs. They basically each include a template detailing the state's current delegation, and little else. Some of the big articles use these templates, some do not. I plan to add the templates to those that do not yet use it. - TexasAndroid 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is my intention that, before the end of this AFD, to have merged each of the templates onto the bottom of the large article for the same state, assuming it is not already there. From a random sampling, some already are there. - TexasAndroid 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for North Dakota article - useless duplicate of {{ND-FedRep}}. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete them all under A3. --Peta 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - In the Project Congress article scheme, I understood the scope of the AfD articles to be the current delegation and the articles in Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state to be the historic delegation articles. It's true that the historic delegation articles are indeed large and detailed -- and that is my fear: they are already too big and could not adequately absorb additional information that focuses solely on the current delegation. When the current delegation information is developed, it will most likely have to be split out into a separate article anyway. On the other hand, Project Congress has expended alot of effort to standardize and conventionalize article names for each state and territory and be comprehensive for each and every state or territory. Since the article names in this AfD series of articles don't fully comply, it may be best to delete all of them and then, when we are ready to expand the 'current delegation' information, we can start over.--G1076 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect -- What is the actual reason to delete these? If they're duplicates, then merge and redirect. These article have many incoming links. Let's all try to pay more attention, please. –RHolton≡– 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the many incoming links to these AfD articles are as a result TL:XX-FedRep that appears on all those articles--and therefore is not as big a problem as it first appears to be.--G1076 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the templeates TL:XXX-FedRep will remain and be merged into the existing articles Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state. The template (Template:Current congressional delegation article) should go through a separate WP:TFD following the close of this AfD.
Suggestion: if a merge is decided upon, I would agree that the AfD articles should point to the Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state; however, I would suggest that a comment line be added to the redirect page to alert/direct would be editors to Wikipedia:WikiProject:U.S. Congress/Congressional delegations, a standard/boilerplate page that will be developed by WP:USC.--G1076 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : This page list only the "current" members of congress. This is a very relevant piece of information. If a person is interested in finding this the only other resort he/she has is to go to the page with list of congressmen from the last 200 or so years and scroll through the pages looking for the details. Also, I believe this page is a frequently used and linked page from other websites. If you search for say, 'U.S. Congressional delegation from Arkansas' in goggle [16] this would be the first page to show up. This attests to the importance of this page. I would definitely vote to keep this page.
  • Comment - interesting. However, I don't think that these results reflect the importance of the article rather it is caused by a combination of Google's bias towards WP and the effect of an uncommon search term fitting exactly the article title. BlueValour 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC) --DuKot 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: These pages allow to hop conveniently from say, a senator's page, to the delegation list of another state. This is particularly helpful if you are interested in identifying a member of Congress. If you do not know a Congressman in question, these pages let you easily identify him or her. Because of its inherent convenience, these pages should remain on Wikipedia Another option is to merge all of these pages into one, but keeping the same template which appears on Congressmen's pages currently. Porvida 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Isn't it a little risky to keep a page that says "current" but not the year? What if once the year roles over somebody forgets to update it? I think if would be easier to just merge it with the other years that state the date, then people don't have to worry about whether the page is actually up-to-date or not. I don't think it's too difficult to scroll through, and also you can see if the past history of the delegation. If it gets too unwieldly perhaps the pages can be broken down into half-centuries. --134.174.21.2 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the past these templates / pages get updated within minutes of changes in congressmen / senators. This has happened when people like Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley resigned. Lots of editors are actively keeping track of these pages. So I do not see any risk in these pages going out of date. Also, if you think that way any page in wikipedia could go out of date. For example if you say ABC is the current governor of XYZ. The day somebody else is elected this statement becomes outdated. DuKot----
  • Okay, there's basically no satisfactory way to close this at this point, no one is willing to touch it. Personally, unless I'm missing something here, I think this should be relisted to get more input. I'll do that today if no one objects. --W.marsh 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - this is a case where the categories do a way better job. Not only to they provide the same information as do the templates, they provide chronology and history. A concern expressed above is that you have to scoll through 200 years of history to establish the current incumbents. This can be dealt with, if it is considered to be a pivotal problem, by putting the categories in descending order. BlueValour 21:21, 7 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, W.marsh 13:21, 8 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, admitted hoax. NawlinWiki 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gergo Szetlik

[edit]

Being in the Model United Nations is not, I believe, enough to indicate notability. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the article "Gergo Szetlik", I have created it to see how long it will stay. None of the information is correct, and this person is solely a student at a school. It was interesting to see that it is still not deleted after 2 weeks- this proves that wikipedia is a very unreliable source for information. And because of this incident this website will be blocked from viewing. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:45, 11 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. – Avi 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter-Blair

[edit]

This article has been scaled down, but it remains little more than and advert for a shop whose importance can only be guessed at. The same could be written for thousands of other non-notable shops all over the world. Should be in Yellow Pages. Emeraude 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow the links in their website to the magazine articles and you see what are basically 'advertorials', i.e. you give the stuff to the magazine, they photograph it, theysay how nice it is - not exactly authoritative reasons to include in an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 14:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles are indeed little more than advertisements. The GQ "article" in fact, was nothing more than one item in a group of 6, a dozen words in the caption, and a price. Indeed, some of the figures they site, for instance a total of 4k ties (for a store specializing in them) sold in an entire year, make it a rather small operation overall. Icelight 01:03, 9 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. Jaranda wat's sup 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret First Credit Union

[edit]

Spam for a non-notable credit union. Prod tag was reomoved with the reasoning that this is LDS-approved, but I fail to see how that makes a difference. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:27, 8 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 Merge to Thomas and Friends video releases - what fun for me the rest of the day! - Yomanganitalk 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas the Tank Engine video releases

[edit]

There's really something excessive when it takes me ten minutes to copy-and-paste all of the titles. Essentially, those articles are only "(Name) is a (media) release in (country)." and one or two short lists that are absolutely meaningless to the lay reader. No hope whatsoever for expansion. This situation can be summarized up to an apt "Who cares?" Interrobamf 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are added to this discussion:

Interrobamf 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge into one big list. Long-running and strong-selling series of children's videos. We've kept countless movies, CDs, and video games that aren't nearly as popular as these. I haven't been able to find individual sales statistics for this bunch, but according to a 2002 Chicago Sun-Times article, in 2001 4.5 million Thomas videos were sold. At, say $15 a pop on average, that's almost $70 million dollars in that year alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But these are videos of several episodes each, some of which overlap with other videos. All or most of these programs were originally shown on TV. These seem to be the US releases as well, so they're not even the classic British episodes but US "translations". This is not the equivalent of an original CD album or an original video game. Bwithh 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not individual episodes. These are video releases of several episodes per video which seem to overlap with each other sometimes And TV broadcast has been the primary distribution means for these programs. Plus, these aren't even the British originals, they're American "translations". Bwithh 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that Wikipedia should only appeal to a general audience? How would you define the phrase general audience? There are many many articles that rightly belong on Wikipedia that may not appeal to me or to you. These articles don't particularly appeal to me. That does not mean they should be deleted. –RHolton≡– 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these (or many of these) articles seem to have been created by a single purpose account[17]. Given that they focus on video releases of multiple episodes in the US, rather than the actual British original episodes that an actual fan would more logically focus on, there are grounds for thinking this is a commercial spam incident Bwithh 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it was duplicating material, that was an argument for deletion (after checking that all relevant information has been merged). This sort of material is far better as one big list, than lots of mini-lists. And expansion to plot summaries has alrady been done at the main Thomas the Tank engine articles (the ones about the original English broadcasts). Carcharoth 12:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread it. Simply keep all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Useful information" is not a good criteria for encyclopedia articles. There are plenty of kinds of "useful information" such as detailed daily weather reports, local cinema listings, restaurant reviews, shopping guides, telephone directory listings, video game guides, recipe books, road maps, and DIY manuals etc etc etc which are not acceptable in Wikipedia as they are not encyclopedic. Bwithh 23:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I believe these can be with a little love and attention from the right editor(s). --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to show how they can be reasonably expanded? Will we be getting "development" sections or anyhting of the sort? Or are you simply stating as such, then letting this garbage rot while you do nothing to actually help? Really, if you're going "this can be expanded!", then do it instead of wandering around and just voting keep because it's easier to. Prove I'm wrong. Interrobamf 12:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With that sort of attitude about it, it makes me less compelled to, for sure. But there's no episode information other than the title yet, no sales figures or chart information. I don't know where to look for much of that, and I try to keep from editing articles on subjects I'm unfamilar with, as is the case with Thomas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But certain enough to consider those articles as expandable and of worth, of course. Interrobamf 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Without a doubt. I don't know jack about math proofs either, but I know they're important, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did you just suggest mathematical proofs are equivalent in importance to Thomas the Tank Engine video tape episode listings? These articles aren't expandable. What can you say about them that's distinct from articles about the episodes? You'd be reduced to describing the video packaging. Unless these were major major video successes, sales figures are very unlikely to be obtainable - this kind of data would be banal and unencyclopedic as well, even if you had detailed data (oh look, this video with episodes X,Y,Z sold better in the US market in 2001 than this video with episodes Y,Z,A,B did in 2003) Bwithh 23:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - Would be better placed within the Thomas the Tank Engine space, as subpages. As would be a good idea with all show specific pages. --Orbling 22:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand this suggestion. Subpages aren't functional in the main (article) namespace, and making pages that look like subpages is strongly discouraged. –RHolton≡– 02:41, 10 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

78 Records

[edit]

Advertisement, POV and content from own website Fred.e 13:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep — 78 Records is a significant icon in the music industry of Western Australia, the article needs work currently the article is single sourced. None of the issues raise in this AfD have been raised on the articles talk page. A quick read/cross reference to source of the article there doesnt readily appear to be any copyright/plagerism problems. Given reasonible time I think the information could be cross referenced from other sources. Gnangarra 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • from a personal observation with the cultural change to live music/pub scene in Perth 78 records is one of the few remaining places where new bands can perform, a fact that can only further enhance the need for an article. Gnangarra
  • Thanks for your comments, Gnangarra. I think I started a discussion on the talk page, but let the newbie know if I cocked it up. I completely agree with its significance, although there were other good stores/venues later, but feel the article merely reiterates its own website and is therefore a single POV and a covert ad. Completely understand your affection for it but , objectively, it is not a good WP article. Expand or Delete. Fred.e 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've copy edited/rewritten the history section to DePOV, removed the section on Current location. Gnangarra
  • Delete Without any external sources to document its notability, I'm voting to delete. If the place were influential you would expect to see something about it in the press. EdJohnston 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep One of the most problematic issues with cultural history of Perth Western AAustralia on wikipedia is the preponderence of editors less than 30 years old who have little or no understanding of the perth of their parents generation - for example the Capitol Theatre in William Street is where Bob Dylan first played Perth , or the Mayfair Movie theatre in Hay Street where the first Monty Python movies showed in Perth- there is nothing in the current cultural heritage 'fads' from academics or 'keepers of the community history ' that adequately map what is otherwise a difficult to trace heritage less than 50 years old, it is usually bulldozed or erased. I consider the existence of what was a sustainer of otherwise diificullt to find music shop which beccame a cultural institution within its own time deserves an article -If it has derivved info from its own website - the article needs to be cleaned up so that it can be kept. SatuSuro 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. ... with the above statements. I think my main concern is with the name of the article. It should be part of an article/s on the Cultural History of Perth and Freo. Particulary, that WP coud for become a repository for a community's history, with judicious editing from a number of soures. Fred.e 15:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Iconic in the 80s. Deserves an article but can we find enough verifiable information on it? Someone needs to track down a copy of

Yusof, Azmyl (1999). "More than just a music store". Curtin independent, 21 Oct. 1999: 17.

Hesperian 23:54, 16 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 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Chaos

[edit]

NN online forum (fails WP:WEB) and associated concepts

I am also nominating the following pages:

These pages describe in-game concepts from an in-universe POV; Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up Percy Snoodle 13:53, 8 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 This is an A7. It is also link spam by professinal political promoters. It dies here. -Doc 08:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Bruce

[edit]

Non-notable candidate for Toronto mayor. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is all over the news, check any Toronto newspaper... search the Toronto Star, the Sun, the Globe and Mail. CP24 has also mentioned him several times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.44.37 (talk • contribs)

Then why not wait until after the elections to delete this article? Right now he is a candidate, he matters to people, and they should be able to read about him. If/when he loses, and people stop caring, then delete it since you are so eager to delete it. It isn't harming anyone having it here, it has been cited to prove that it isn't a lie (the link to the global tv spot for him), and it isn't breaking any rules. He is running, there is proof, what else do you want?

  • Please note the changes that have been made. All information is sourced now as to the date and news outlet that it was found. The numerous sources are as follows:

-http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1159998617469 -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_YtDDnPhhg (global news interview) -http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7847337375663937651 (SUN TV interview) He and his platform were also referred to in the Globe and Mail, National Post and on numerous voting websites (www.spacing.com/votes). I have read all the rules and regulations of Bios on wikipedia and haven't written more because it should be left open to the public to add more to his page. My only argument is that he is being covered in all the major Toronto news sources, as well as some national news and therefore is a credible candidate who deserves a page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state neckwear

[edit]

Arizona is the only state with a state neckwear [18] so this entire article could be replaced by a single sentence. DJ Clayworth 00:14, 8 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 Mangojuicetalk 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 07 (Hall of Fame Edition)

[edit]

This game is just a special edition of Madden NFL 07, there are few differences between the game, these differences should be put in a section on the Madden NFL 07 article itself, they definitely do not warrant their own article. Timkovski 23:13, 7 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 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredibles 2

[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The sole basis for this article is an unsourced interview with Brad Bird, which claims the idea for a sequel is strong, without mentioning if the film is in pre-production or not. No official announcements have been made about any Pixar sequel, save for Toy Story 3. This said, if an Incredibles sequel is indeed officially announced to be in pre-production at some stage, I shall support this article's undeletion. RMS Oceanic 10:32, 8 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. Those wanting a redirect can make one if they feel strongly. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulong (Tribe)

[edit]

Ulong is the only Survivor tribe with it's own page. The page features voting history, and the fact that it won no immunity and only three reward challenges. Voting history and these facts are both on the Survivor: Palau page, making the page just a copy of part of the season page. There is no need to make this into a redirect, since no one would type "Ulong (Tribe)". They would type Ulong, which brings them to a disambiguation page, which leads to Survivor: Palau. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 12:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my deletion reason, it shouldn't be made into a redirect, since no one will type "Ulong (Tribe)". They will type "Ulong" which brings them to a disambiguation page, linking to Survivor Palau, therefore there is no need to make this page into a redirect. Just delete it. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 15:41, 9 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. – Avi 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment in Montreal

[edit]

Delete. Article appears to be incoherent, mixing demographic and immigration discussion without linking it to the article name. I probably made the only edit that made sense between immigration and unemployment. Deet 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should be taking offense at the name of the bot that corrected my nomination or if this is a self-directed description. Deet 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an encyclopedic subject but needs a substantial rewrite. MER-C 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are there similar articles for other cities? If there are, then this article should be kept and rewritten? Nlsanand 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off, I just searched for articles relating to unemployment in major cities (NYC, Paris, LA, Tokyo) and found nothing. This does not mean that an article about such a topic could not be created, just that they haven't been. But even still, I would not mind this article if not for the fact that it made absolutely no sense. It is, as Deet stated, incoherent. Most of the article, if not all of it, is completely unrelated to unemployment. All of the references (none of which are actually referenced) refer to unemployment in general terms, not in regard to Montreal, nor even Canada. The article has been tagged for seven months, and has only been edited about a dozen times since then (and many of these edits were further tagging and linking). Put simply, this article is a train wreck. -- Kicking222 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Allow new creation if the material is WAY different. Arbusto 06:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge with Montreal what is salvagable
  • It's incoherent, and there's nothing inherently encyclopedic about analyzing job market statistics on a city-by-city basis. Unemployment in Canada would be fine, but breaking that down into separate stub articles for each individual city in Canada is pretty pointless. Delete. Bearcat 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Canada is a very, very fractured country when it comes to societal matters such as unemployment. Reasons for unemployment in Montreal are as different from those in Calgary as reasons in Lesotho would be from those in Slovenia. The article isn't well-written, but that's not a reason for deletion, only for improvement. Charlene.fic 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let's for a moment remove all info that is not directly link to unemployment in Montreal (as opposed to out-of-place demographic info or some blurb on the general social ills of unemployment). The entire article then reduces to:
Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world with a significant portion settling in Montreal. Canadian landed immigrants have an 37% unemployment rate, putting upward pressure on Montreal's employment rate (see related article, Economic impact of immigration to Canada). Figures were obtained for each of the 1996 census tracts and then aggregated at the police district level. The 1998 survey included individuals residing in 182 different census tracts. The proportion of persons unemployed was computed as follows: numerator = number of unemployed individuals (>15 yr old); denominator = number of individuals (>15 yr old) in the labour force. Community unemployment varied from a maximum of 30% to a minimum of 5% across the 49 police districts of Montreal.
If we keep it, I intend to reduce it down to this. Would it still be worth keeping? Let's get real and delete it. I can't believe there is any serious debate about it. Deet 02:06, 10 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 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America: From Freedom to Fascism

[edit]

Delete Income-tax protest film that fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Article carries extensive POV concerning legality/constitutionality of the federal income-tax system that goes beyond what is needed to describe the film. Notable director, but only showed on 10 screens during its theatrical run according to IMDB. Was shown “at Cannes” not that it was part of the Cannes film festival; “Russo actually rented an inflatable screen and showed the film on the beach at the town of Cannes during the time of the film festival.” Did get a NYT article titled “Facts Refute Filmmaker's Assertions On Taxes” But that hardly meets the criteria of: “The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.” Page is really being used as a soap-box for someones political views. Brimba 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post script: I took a quick look at the article as it stands now, and I didn't see any NPOV changes to make, certainly nothing so bad that we have to abolish the article entirely. I expected to see editorializing in the article, and what I find is description. The article also has mention of the Portland Mercury review I mention just above (and the fact that it pans the film), and of a New York Times article. I now think it would be absolutely wrong to get rid of this article: the nominator's reasons are factually incorrect, at least the way the article now looks. Nutty as the film seems to be, it's article-worthy.Noroton 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. Total bullshit that is being promoted by fraud, but it has been noticed. Gazpacho 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This entry helped me personally avoid wasting my time by watching the film. Hopefully it can inform others as well.
  • Keep Bad-faith nomination, which doesn't seem to meet any substantive criteria for afd. Ruthfulbarbarity
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry might have controversial content, however allow readers to decide for themselves. Does this really meet criteria for deletion? HersheyPaProf
  • Keep, but remove unencyclopedic content. --Storkk 14:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstention. Obviously, this article is about a film that pushes Tax protester arguments and critiques of the Federal Reserve System, among other things. Unfortunately, the article was created as (or shortly after its creation became) a dumping ground for blatant POV regarding the wacky, extreme minority viewpoints reported to be promulgated by the filmmaker. I and other editors have tried to maintain some balance by pointing out the counter-viewpoints and removing unverifiable statements, etc. An article like this should stay in Wikipedia only if the article continues to present both sides of the debates which are the subjects of the film. This is a tough call. I think if the article meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability for films, it does so just barely. If I had to vote, it would be a reluctant, weak "keep" -- but I am just going to abstain from voting. Yours, Famspear 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the arguments presented in Russo's film should be explored-from both sides-in this article, however I don't believe that this article is the proper place for staging another debate over the merits of anti-IRS, anti-income tax thought, especially when the federal income tax is only part of this documentary. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fix the POV. It is definitely noteworthy enough to warrant an article. It is gaining more and more interest online everyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)
  • Reluctant keep. It's been reviewed in ((local)) newspapers everywhere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep I can't believe we're even discussing deleting it! --Twizzter 05:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I'm surprised this is being considered for deletion. Needs some content cleaned up and removed, but fully notable. Paul Slocum 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It's notable, and doesn't seem very POV. I don't think it should be deleted. - King Ivan 11:16, 12 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 once again, speedy delete (by Mushroom). MER-C 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald F. Bernard

[edit]

This article was subject to speedy deletion earlier in the week -- now the spammer has reposted it.

Earlier Discussion:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. JIP | Talk 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)\


Non-Notable, Vanity, SPAM Francisx 06:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) This article violates [WP:Notability] policy and appears to be a vanity publishing created in order to market this person's lectures.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - citations establishing its significance added during AfD process - Yomanganitalk 11:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay v. Lambeth LBC

[edit]

This case does not establish why it is important. There is no comment about precedence or much evidence of coverage. As far as I can see there are three reasons for including a legal case on wikipedia - (1) it sets an important legal precedent, (2) it generates media interest or (3) it involves a notable party and has a profound influence on that party. This article on its face doesn't meet any of the three criteria.

OK. Nomination withdrawn JASpencer 15:09, 8 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 per WP:CSD#A1, articles with little or no context. -- Merope Talk 14:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LITTLE SHEILA AND MISS TONYA

[edit]

Unencyclopedic and non-notable Jusjih 14:34, 8 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 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlackBerry PIN

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a user manual. Contested prod. Leuko 14:42, 8 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 as copyright violation. Yomanganitalk 11:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Africa

[edit]

As it stands, this is a directory entry, not an encyclopaedia article. Last part reads like an advert to potential advertisers. This radio station may be deserving of a Wikipedia article, but this isn't it. Emeraude 14:47, 8 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 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Dukes

[edit]

Delete. There is no real assertion of notability for this person, except that she's married to a person whose own Wikipedia article is currently being discussed in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Dukes. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:52, 8 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 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Never Mind the Buzzcocks episodes

[edit]

Also including List of Have I Got News For You episodes in the discussion for deletion.

Both are unencyclopedic list, well suited to fan sites but not appropriate for Wikipedia Nuttah68 14:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I haven't got round to doing this yet because I'm not really sure if it's worth doing unless a decision is made to keep the article. But if it is kept, I'll get onto it. Curiousbadger 12:15, 11 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 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Katie

[edit]

I previously speedied this article as it did not assert notability (per WP:CSD#A7). The article as it stands now does not meet WP:WEB or WP:BIO. -- Merope Talk 15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) .

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

The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna LaHara

[edit]

Non notable for a bibliography or a law case. Could be under RIAA JASpencer 15:17, 8 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 Move to Kate Ground - Yomanganitalk 00:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's Playground

[edit]

While the creator of the website might (just barely) be notable, this article is about the website, not its owner. As such, the notability standards in WP:WEB apply, and I do not believe they are met. -- Merope Talk 15:17, 8 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 08:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Nugget Pancake House

[edit]

Non notable company, fails WP:Corp Nuttah68 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see you went ahead and retagged this before I had a chance to finish my explanations on the talk page. You're obviously not from Chicago, otherwise you wouldn't have tagged this as not notable.

    In the first place, it's NOT a company. It's a chain of independently owned restaurants.

    In the second place, it's one of the most recognized restaurants in the city of Chicago. For another example of this, see Harold's Chicken Shack

    Therefore, stating that it fails WP:Corp, is irrelevant, as it's not a corporation.

    Here are my comments from the talk page.

    I object to the deletion of this article for the following reason: Tagging this as spam is misguided. I'm not associated with any of the restaurants, and if the person who added the template lived in Chicago, they would not have tagged this article. The restaurants are notable in local Chicago culture. I see MANY articles about other restaurants.

    Therefore, I disagree with the deletion of this article. I have deleted the "suggest delete" template in accordance with the specifications IN the template. Please read the following, which I have copied directly from it:

    You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

    Please do not re-add the template and do not try to speedy-delete my hard work. The article is short, but NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED rather than deleted. TheQuandry 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:CORP applies to all companies, including franchises. If the franchise is as notable as you claim, you should be able to cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. If you fail to do so, you will have not made an argument for keeping the article. Uncle G 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hostile tone of author suggests actual non-notability. If actually notable, sources should be able to be cited quickly. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 6 restaurants in Chicago, no indication of notability other than longevity (~35 years). 545 GHits. As near as I can tell, they are all by-the-numbers entries in restaurant directories. - Richfife 16:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hostile tone of author?" What does my personality have to do with the notability of this article? Seriously, sometimes this site is ridiculous. So if it doesn't have a pile of hits on google, it's worthless?

    In fact, here is an interesting comment made by User:Uncle G on his own talk page Counting Google hits isn't research.

    Like I've said before, talk to anyone from Chicago and they'll tell you how notable this is. TheQuandry 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia content must not require that readers travel to Chicago and interview people firsthand in order to verify it, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. You've been asked to cite sources. This is your only argument. Conspicuously failing to cite sources, as you are doing, will only lead everyone else to the conclusion that there are no sources to cite. Don't think that this is the first time that anyone has tried the arguments that you are using. People have made such arguments in the past, failed to cite sources, and ended up with articles deleted as a result. Once again: Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm well aware of what others have attempted to do. I have provided two references, comprising reviews and comments by Chicagoans. You have to read through them. TheQuandry 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "sources" you provided themselves are not verifiable, and they don't actually give any indication of notability. You can find reviews for most restaurants in most majors cities online; it doesn't mean that all of them are notable. --Nlu (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The evidence wasn't in the fact that they were reviews, but in the commentary provided by some 17 different people. You asked me to offer proof of notability, and I provided links to people discussing just that. Nevertheless, you might as well just delete the article. I can tell by your tone that nothing I provide is going to make a difference. TheQuandry 22:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is a chain of significant interest to Chicago culture and this article was, I'm sure, written in good faith. I'd like to see it fixed up (as it stands, as the writer pointed out, it is no worse than Harold's Chicken Shack). Unfortunately we have scared off the author by AfDing his article while he was still dealing with the prod, so it is unlikely to be fixed up. This was what he was objecting to rather than the tag itself. Dekimasu 01:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the chain is also active in Dayton, and has gotten a little press coverage here as something that Bush did to show he was in touch with local culture, and non-news sources show Kerry went there as well. This isn't enough to hang an article on, but I'm disappointed that the potential for fixing it up is gone. Dekimasu 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm from Chicago. Everyone who's lived here has certainly heard of Golden Nugget*, even if there is nothing terribly interesting about it. And since Chicagoans are particularly enthusiastic about their local restuarant chains, I say keep. Wikipedia is not paper. :) (*This isn't the sort of thing I can actually verify, but I think the Yelp comments do suggest that some people feel strongly about this place.) Zagalejo 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It appears that the restaurant used to be called Yankee Doodle Dandy ([20]) , and based on a look through the Chicago Trib archives, Yankee Doodle Dandy once had 27 locations. Give me some time to look into this before pulling the trigger. I think 27 locations would be large enough to confer notabilty. Zagalejo 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, if you play around with the search terms, you should be able to read that entire article. (Keep running searches for the last phrase per excerpt.) And I think this article is another step to conferring notability, as the place seemed to have been an important place for certain Chicago subcultures in the 1970s. Zagalejo 06:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richfife and nom. It is a corporation, and therefore is also subject to WP:CORP, which it seems to fail. --Storkk 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I think this article raises the issue of "known" versus "notable". I expect that most Chicagoans know about Golden Nugget Pancake House, just like most Berkeleyites know about, say, La Val's pizza (insert name of your local diner / pizza joint here), but they wouldn't shed a tear if they were all replaced by IHOPs. Does that make them Wikipedia worthy? I don't think so. - Richfife 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think they would cry, and I think that's part of the issue. Usually I stay away from these kinds of arguments because of the risk that I'm biased; here, that's not the case. The article simply doesn't assert the notability that the restaurants have, and that's unfortunate. I'm still voting for delete. Dekimasu 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think broad familiarity represents a kind of nobility. And I'm not sure if it's fair to compare a restaurant chain in Chicago with one in Berkeley -- there are almost thirty times as many people in the former than there are in the latter, and thus many more potential customers. (Although I don't think it would be egregiously bad to have an article on LaVal's, too. But I'm an inclusionist.) Zagalejo 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. Golden Nugget is only in Chicago, but is a restaurant chain and formerly had many more franchises than it does today-- there are numerous "Golden ____" restaurants in Chicago, like the Golden Angel on Lincoln and Montrose and the Golden Apple on Lincoln near Foster that were once Golden Nugget restaurants (many still have the iconic mush of yellow lights on top of the sign). It's also been featured in the Reader more than once as a Chicago "icon", but I don't have refs handy. siafu 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Contrary to what was stated above, I was able to locate 7 Golden Nuggets in Chicago with a cursory google search, not just 6. siafu 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly willing to change my vote to keep if anyone will actually go and fix the article. Dekimasu 07:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd clean it up if I could, but it might take a while, as there are a lot of facts I'd like to get straightened out. After doing some searching through the Chicago Tribune archives, I have to admit I'm no longer sure about the connection between Golden Nugget and Yankee Doodle Dandy. I found an advertisement listing all of the Yankee Doodle Dandy Restaurants in Chicago, and only one corresponds to a present-day Golden Nugget (or "Golden restaurant", in general). Thus, it seems likely that a Golden Nugget just happened to take over the spot of a Yankee Doodle Dandy, and is not part of the same restaurant chain with a different name.
However, I did find some evidence from Tribune listings to support siafu's comments about the other Golden restaurants in Chicago having once been Golden Nuggets. For example, there was a Golden Nugget listed at the same address as the present day Golden Angel (4344 N Lincoln Ave). I also found an ad for one Golden Nugget dating back to 1966, which means the chain is at least 40 years old. (That advertisement also referred to Golden Nugget as a "national chain," so perhaps the Dayton restaurant is somehow connected.)
So, overall, I think there's some potential for an article here, but we might have to do some digging to verify all the facts. I think it's best to give the article a few months, as suggested below, and then bring it back to AfD to see if it passes. Zagalejo 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It seems to have potential to be an article on an important part of culture of the 3rd largest city in the 3rd largest country in the world. I would be open to reviewing the article in a few months to make sure that such an assertation has been properly made. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:32, 11 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 Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.. El_C 07:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012

[edit]

Not notable. --Gabi S. 15:29, 8 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 as per consensus. El_C 07:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trisexual

[edit]

As it stands (and has stood for a long time -- I've waited and waited for improvement to see if there's actually something to the topic), it's an unverified, probably original research, mess, that even if it's not unverified and original research would be unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted just because there is limited information on the topic, it is a relatively new topic and we should at least have this information to refer to for future references. We can always add more or add accurate information if proven to be wrong. DON'T DELETE!!!!tuan_85

  • Delete Totally unsourced, nobody has any idea what it means, and the picture just added by tuan_85 (talk · contribs) makes the value of that vote pretty pretty clear. Fan-1967 06:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DeleteI will admit the picture was totally unreliable and not having to do anything with the subject, but all jokes aside this article should not be deleted just based on the fact that it is unsourced. Every reliable source at one time are another was an unknown source beforehand, as previously stated don't delete just because it is an unknown subject with little to no information based on the subject at hand. I mean what makes a realiable source a reliable source? If it's shown on tv or is spoken about on the media. We all know that media can print or talk about things out of context on purpose just for a sake of a story, which make it just as unreliable as one's words. We should just wait it out and see if any new information comes forth. tuan_85 10:51, 9 October 2006(UTC)
  • All jokes aside, you've offered nothing but jokes. We don't recognize sources until they have become reliable, and we don't include things until they have been documented. We will delete this exactly "because it is an unknown subject with little to no information based on the subject at hand." Otherwise people would come to Wikipedia expencting to find information, and instead get baseless, unsupported, unverified ramblings like this. Fan-1967 19:23, 9 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. Neologism. El_C 08:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skanking

[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable neogolism. WP is not for things made up in school one day. Contested prod. Leuko 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • i've known about this for years, the article speaks to me in so many ways and at so many levels. Well done whoever created it, it would be an absolute travesty if it were deleted. - John Pinkerton
  • It wasn't made in one school day, it's been around for years, and all people I know are aware of what it means, sometimes taking my meaning of skanking above all overs, even surprised it has other meanings. - mickyt91
  • I agree. I have come across this term frequently in my existence. And long may that continue.
  • It would seem the issue is resolved - mickyt91
  • If the AfD's the thing you wrote at first, that was an accident. It is a famous term however - mickyt91
  • Also if you allow an article on the wedgie and other such slang terms, I see no reason for their not to be an article on skanking. - mickyt91
  • If no one seems to be disagreeing, I see it as resolved, in favour of keeping the article on skanking. - mickyt91
  • Delete - "Skanking" in Britain generally refers to a type of dancing done to ska music, nothing to do with "debagging" at all. exolon 16:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it generally refers to the dance, I myself have skanked (the dance) many a time, but it also has a significant meaning as what you call "debagging"
  • i myslef have been skanked quite a few times - people deserve to be informed of this, and maybe even told how to avoid being skanked. Keep this wonderful article! - Mitchell Webb
  • In response to your request I will add a section on avoiding skanking
  • Delete per nomination. ScottW 17:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? - mickyt91
  • Delete per nomination DesertSky85451 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOMEDAY TELL ME WHAT THAT MEANS Don't Delete by nomination? - user:mickyt91
  • Skanking is not something made up in a day. It genuinely is widely used here in the Midlands (I've heard the kids using the term often) and it would be a shame for such a well-written, informative entry to go to waste. I am studying Youth Culture for my Sociology course, this including the slang terms used by young people of today. It has proved helpful thus far. - Sally Chainsweeper
  • At least allow skanking to be kept as a legitimate alternative word for "debagging" on the school boy pranks article, I see to my disgust it has even been removed there, despite it being the term for it, and merely an extra term for what is already written there. - user:mickyt91
  • You may have blocked my IP but I live on, I see you've conveniently deleted the entire "debagging" section, I didn't write that you know, it's been there ages, I merely suggested an alternative name for what it described, so that was uncalled for. As well as this how am I meant to discuss the case for the article skanking if you've blocked my IP merely for asking

why my other article pukka pies was deleted? - user:mickyt91

I imagine because no single brand of pie is worth its own article. Pukka Pies don't have much of a history around them to write about. Sockatume 19:35, 8 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 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscars Grind

[edit]

An anon editor added a claim to this article that it is lifted word for word from a book by someone named Christopher Pawlicki. Pawlicki did write a book on winning at roulette [21], so it seems possible. So this article is either a blatant copyvio or original research. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:47, 8 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 boldly redirected. GRBerry 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Caena Domini

[edit]

Misspelling. Correct spelling is In Coena Domini. (Furthermore, see comment by User:Fastifex in Talk:In Coena Domini.) — Itai (talk) 15:46, 8 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury Hadassah

[edit]

The overall organisation is notable, but we do not need an article on each individual branch. Speedy tag removed by article creator as well. Delete. exolon 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was the one who nominated for speedy delete. DesertSky85451 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This branch of Hadassah is not as similar to Hadassah national as other branches are. This is a larger and more together group of Hadassah. While other branches feature a newsletter and other mail, Glastonbury Hadassah has monthly member meetings, community events, and a large website. Wikipedia is a great place to show ourselfs to the public as the large religous community that we are, even though some may not understand. I am unsure as to the correct way to post in this talk page so bear with me. Thank you. User:ncusa367
  • Think of Hadassah like a TV Show and glastonbury hadassah like an episode of the show. Hadassah gives general information, while glastonbury hadassah gives more specific information. Adding this information to the hadassah page is like giving information on each episode on the show's page. This way is more ncusa367|ncusa367]] 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is no use of independent sourcing to demonstrate notability at the WP:ORG level. GRBerry 02:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, feel free to delete this page. i am sory for all the trouble 68.9.114.47 03:01, 15 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; please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Elementary School

[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Only claim to fame is being a blue ribbon school, which a majority of schools are. Does not appear to meet the proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines. Contested prod. Leuko 16:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, verifiable. As for the Blue Ribbon School stuff, taking a look at Blue Ribbon School, around 3,000 recognitions have been given (some schools have been recognised multiple times). There are about 125,000 schools in the United States, so stating that "a majority" of schools receive this award is incorrect. As for it not meeting WP:SCHOOL, the solution for articles that don't meet WP:SCHOOL is to merge (which I'd be fine with), not delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry about my misconception about the Blue Ribbon award, it's just that all the schools around me have won it, and I thought it was rather generalized. Still don't think that makes it notable enough. I'd be fine with merging. Leuko 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be done. Merged information can't be deleted so you need to vote for only one. --67.71.78.252 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it possible to merge page histories and then delete the redirect? Pan Dan 01:43, 11 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 00:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The War on Freedom

[edit]

Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy cruft book. I searched worldcat and could not find this book in English in the 1.3 billion items in 10,000+ libraries it searches. The Arabic translation showed up in two libraries. I could not find any reviews or mention of this book from outside the 9/11 conspiracy movement by browsing through google results for this book and its the amazon.com page. GabrielF 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep my Delete comment, even with new evidence, per below. Hello32020 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Crockspot 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per less than 1 a billion notability. Sandy 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this book in 221 United States libraries on Worldcat[22], it has three editorial reviews at amazon.com[23], 29 hits at Google Scholar[24], three hits for a google news search[25] and six for a google book search[26]. Here's a review in the Missoula Independent. It was apparently one of a selection of books made available to the 9/11 Commission[27]. It also apparently won the Naples Prize, Italy's highest literary prize, which I learned through this article from Vanity Fair[28] and is mentioned in too many other online publications to begin to list. Thus, appears manifestly notable and meets multiple bases of inclusion listed at WP:BK. I am personally repulsed by the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense but that's not a proper basis for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If kept, the article should be moved to the full name per convention. I am betting that the nominator's lack of search results is an artifact of searches conducted using the shortened article's title, rather than the full title set forth in the text.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't speedy keep after multiple delete votes have been registered. Guy 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fughettaboutit makes a good effort but he really hasn't established notability. Please note that WP:BK is a proposed guideline, not policy, and in the opinion of many it is way too inclusionist. 221 libraries out of 10,000 is still next to nothing, probably millions of books fit that criteria. I noticed the editorial reviews at Amazon, they all seem to be from within the 9/11 conspiracy community. Same with many of the google scholar hits. I see 99 books listed as those made available to the 9/11 commission - I'm guessing the national archives included every book on the subject of 9/11 in this list regardless of notability or quality. The Vanity Fair article is a one-line mention. That leaves what, the Missoula Independent? GabrielF 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fughettaboutit makes a strong case and demonstrates the weakness -- indeed, the outright falsity -- of the case you made for deletion. Nitpicking about the number of libraries is a bit absurd at this point. I have seen this book cited in numerous other works; it is certainly notable enough to meet the criteria we have at wikipedia. I sense this was nominated for POV reasons (and there seems to be a pretty organized movement of the same group of editors to delete books on this specific topic, something very problematic in Wikipedia terms, I think).--csloat 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Fuhghettaboutit. He has established it meets criteria. · XP · 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per negligible Google presence and lack of objective secondary sources for an article. Can anyone point me to the reviews in the Times Literary Supplement or the New York Times? Guy 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Valrith 23:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fuhghettaboutit makes it quite clear that it is infact quite notable. How can people vote delete after seeing the links he posted? AmitDeshwar 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I'm dense enough that its notability still isn't at all clear to me. GassyGuy 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And many label me a deletionist! If any of you think WP:BK is too inclusionist, please drop by the talk page and make some suggestions. We have been struggling against a tide of inclusionists railing that the criteria are too stringent and suffer from a lack of feedback. Okay, back to the matter at hand. Discounting everything else I posted, the Vanity Fair article, while it is not a detailed treatment of the book itself, is a very reliable source indicating that the book won Italy's highest literary prize. Do you dispute the reliability of that fact? If not, isn't a book which wins a country's most prestigious literary prize notable on that basis alone? In any case, as for more reliable sources, how does England's Guardian Unlimited strike you. In that article they indicate that Gore Vidal's essay, Dreaming War is an overview of this book and quote him referring to it.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian piece appears to be a letter to the editor. Gore Vidal is himself notable but the sources that he uses are not necessarily so. GabrielF 12:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's get this one straight. Gore Vidal wrote an article for The Observer, London, Sunday 27th October 2002 and available here, here, here andhere. In it he praised The War on Freedom as "the best, most balanced report" on 9/11.
For further praise ripped from reviews see here - note you do have to scroll down to the bit that says "Praise for The War on Freedom". Mujinga 19:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re two of Fuhghettaboutit's claims for notability: that a Blame-Bush book got some "editorial" reviews is not significant. That the only newspaper to review this book was the Missoula Independent is significant. CWC(talk) 08:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good idea to review the article up for deletion before commenting, as one of your above statements is easily provably false. Regarding the Naples Prize, if you search for "Premio Napoli" -ahmed (to get hits not including this author), you get 28K hits, approx 700 unique. Searching on "Fondazione Premio Napoli" (a more precise name) gives 133 unique hits. Even "Naples Prize" -ahmed, a more restrictive search than what you state above, gives hits beyond just the Institute's Chicago website. *Sparkhead 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sparkhead, it's a good idea to read comments before replying, to avoid making yourself look foolish. My point is not about the (non)notability of the Naples Prize. Do you deny that there are a lot of English-language pages which mention that prize and are apparently intended to promote this conspiracy theorist and his book? This is called Search engine optimization. There are professional search engine marketers who can make money by getting their client's stuff into Wikipedia. There are also amateur Search Engine Optimizers who desperately want to promote various conspiracy theories and will happily abuse Wikipedia to do so. Our rules about notability etc are (among other things) designed to ensure articles don't get created just for SEO. My point is that someone has put a lot of effort into SEO for this book, and that people should take that effort into account when assessing its (lack of) notability. I assumed that everyone reading my earlier comment would understand this; clearly I was wrong. CWC(talk) 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tip, you might want to review WP:CIVIL, as well as take your own advice. As you state, clearly you were wrong. Your demonstrably false statement: "That the only newspaper to review this book was the Missoula Independent is significant." Read the article. Note the Palm Beach Post review, easily verifiable, and the Playboy one, which is less so. Regarding search engine optimization, I ran a more restrictive search than you, and came up with hits from the Italian Cultural Institute's websites for Chicago and Los Angeles, hosted at the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs web domain. Not talking about fringe websites, these are institutions created by the Italian government. If you took the time to run the searches I detailed, you would have seen these results on the first page. *Sparkhead 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responses:
  1. The only copy of that column we who do not subscribe to the Palm Beach Post have comes via http://www.waronfreedom.org/, run by people who just might have an agenda.
  2. That Palm Beach Post column is an op-ed, not a book review. Real book reviews list the publisher's name and usually the ISBN. They do not spend several paragraphs describing the publisher, nor do they give helpful hints on how to purchase the book.
  3. The PBP op-ed itself says explicitly that the book got only one review.
  4. The Playboy article (again, not a review) was titled "A Roundup of Ridiculous Theories". 'nuff said.
  5. I did ask Sparkhead a question; he did not even try to answer it.
  6. Nor has Sparkhead addressed my point about SEO. Whether some Italian bureaucrats have set up some websites about the Premio Napoli is completely irrelevant to my point: someone has done a lot of SEO for this book. Implication #1: Google searches etc will inflate the book's significance, and we need to take that into account when assessing the results of such searches. Implication #2: whoever did (or is doing that SEO) will greatly desire Wikipedia to retain this article, and may well participate in this debate.
OTOH, we should keep the Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed article and cover this book there. Cheers, CWC(talk) 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, check the article. There was a link put in there to the PBP archives before you posted that contains the opening paragraphs, which validates the article exists at PBP. Semantics aside it's an article that talks about a book - i.e. a book review in a mainstream paper. A reference from a reliable mainstream source, regardless of how you wish to label it. I addressed your point about SEO by noting it's irrelevant. Note in some of my searches I took out the author's name to reduce hits. It's also irrelevant that the Playboy article called it ridiculous. What's relevant is the mention. I see nothing new from you here, so I'll bow out of this exchange. *Sparkhead 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been nominated for pure POV reasons. There is a group of editors putting out AfDs on all books or bios dealing with this particular topic; Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) keeps a running list of successful hits on his user page. I think some of the stuff they have been successful in removing needed to be removed, but a lot of it appears notable, and was nominated for AfD only because of the topic. I think this is especially problematic, as the reasons given for deletion are usually items that should be addressed in editing -- things like POV and WP:RS, better addressed through tags and discussions than deletion votes. I think an organized attack on articles about a particular topic like this is totally inappropriate in Wikipedia, even though I tend to agree with the group about these conspiracy theories being false.--csloat 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Per Fuhghettaboutit, Commodore Sloat, et al. A review of the escalating 9/11 truth cleansing here at the Wiki seems in order, since the systematic scorched Earth campaign has become as frenzied here as it became at the WTC crime scene itself (where all the evidence was removed, shipped overseas, or otherwise cleansed, with the willing and eager assistance of the 9/11 omission commission). Ombudsman 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the book is notable enough. I think the subject matter of the book is pure bullshit. I watched the second plane hit from across the river (Brooklyn) and the towers fall. All this conspiracy stuff is nonsense. Do you have evidence to back up the allegations of a cleansing campaign here? From what I've seen, the article that have been deleted on this subject have been because they failed to establish notability and not because of "big brother."--Fuhghettaboutit 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It;s not an issue of big brother - it's an issue of an organized campaign against articles about these theories (which, I agree, are bogus). Look at the AfD on Bill Christison - it's likely to be deleted because of a horribly misleading "google" count thanks to an organized crowd of deletionists engaged in what appears to be a form of groupthink. While there are plenty of articles on this topic that should be deleted, there should not be a group of editors systematically targeting specific pages just because of their POV on the topic. It is especially troubling that several of the pages have been deleted for reasons that are better addressed as content issues -- citations, POV, etc. Personally I agree that any claim that the Bush Administration was behind 9/11 is totally false and probably easily disproved. But the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are a notable and growing phenomena, and for Wikipedia to pretend they don't exist because of a handful of editors is ridiculous.--csloat 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, isn't it interesting that I went to bat for this article becaue I found what I thought were enough sources but voted to delete the one you're citing because I didn't? Doesn't this take me out of the cabal you are alleging, and by inference, suggest that others are equally operating in good faith?--Fuhghettaboutit 00:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said groupthink, not bad faith. I don't think there is a cabal operating in bad faith. I think there is an organized effort to target certain articles. It's not a cabal; it's operating pretty openly - look at Morton's and GabeF's talk pages. And I support some of the goals of it - I too think there are a lot of dumb things on Wikipedia (why does this article keep surviving AfD, for example?) and I don't have a problem with public attempts to delete such pages. But I do think it is problematic if it is being done solely based on POV issues. I also think the bandwagon approach that some people take supports my point about groupthink.--csloat 06:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOOK is a wikiproject on books. If you are referring to WP:BK, that is not yet guideline, but please note that the treshold there of a dozen or more libraries is an exclusionary standard--it means that if a book is in less than that, is highly unikely to be notable--that's certanly what I meant when I drafted that section; the contrapositive was not meant to be suggested and in fact that section states that "...these are exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary; this does not mean that a book which meets these criteria is notable, whereas a book which does not meet these threshold standards most likely is not." The first standard you refer to explicity states that the author must be notable for their writing, and may need to be tightened. It's the Naples award that sticks in my craw here--Fuhghettaboutit 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the first and best researched books on the subject of 9/11 as inside job. This AfD is more POV campaigning by editors targetting anything that claims 9/11 was an inside job. I would like to be able to spend my (these days dwindling) wikipedia time on actually improving content rather than having to defend against all these AfD motions. There are subjects much less notable than this book that exist on wikipedia. If you want to be part of a civil online community, why don't you stick to improving content rather than policing (or repressing) it. For example, I only had to click on random article twice to get Guano Islands Act with this highly notable piece of text: "The Guano Islands Act was federal legislation passed by the U.S. Congress on August 18, 1856 enabling citizens of the U.S. to take possession of islands containing guano deposits. " One of you folks want to write an AfD for it? I didn't think so. I guess 1856 legislation about guano is more important than researching 9/11. Kaimiddleton 05:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others, the fact that the book is not carried in any english libraries apparently and the prizes its won are non notable in themselves. --NuclearZer0 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The book is carried in 222 American libraries according to WorldCat. I wonder how you came by the impression that it wasn't in any. And if you meant "libraries in England," it appears in those, too [29] --Hyperbole 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Brimba 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Nitpicking about the number of libraries is a bit absurd at this point." Pretty much says it all. bov 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some good debate here (along with some unnecessary finger pointing). Fuhghettaboutit convinces me that this book squeaks in on notability.-Kubigula (ave) 01:37, 15 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 A7 (no assertion of notability). Guy 22:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ELECTROMATIC

[edit]

Clearly a vanity article, there is nothing noteworthy with this band and it does not even meet any of the minimum criterias of WP:MUSIC. This self-proclaimed artist obviously wrote the article himself. Plus, all the references are on free hosting websites. --Ludvig 16:51, 8 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 A7 - "important"? How exactly? I can say I'm "important" in some way too, but that doesn't make me notable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todor Rachinski

[edit]

I can't find any information about a Todor Rachinski on the internet, and the article itself is useless "Todor Rachinski is an important Bulgarian botanist." Sonic3KMaster(talk) 17:06, 8 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 15:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall (website)

[edit]

A non-notable web forum, with no indication that it meets WP:WEB. Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:23, 8 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 spam, work of a single purpose account plus anons. Guy 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winchart

[edit]

Delete - This article does not establish the notability of the subject software, failing to meet any of the WP:SOFTWARE criteria. The proposed deletion process was unsuccessful but the articles has not been significantly improved. The articles reads like an advertisement and has mainly been edited by four single purpose accounts: Furion the prophet (talk · contribs), 202.188.87.231 (talk · contribs), 218.111.163.182 (talk · contribs) and 60.48.188.140 (talk · contribs) whose input may not be neutral. JonHarder 17:27, 8 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 - Yomanganitalk 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al

[edit]

Article was prod'd and prod removed and restored (a common misapprehension). To my mind this is an article which would now be dealt with by {{db-spam}} speedy deletion as it was created specifically to generate interest by Msbjustice (talk • contribs) [i.e. M. Bragg]. As the case has not yet come to court and lacks much third-party reporting, I fail to see any encyclopedic value in keeping it (which means that Ignore all rules applies here). Relevant alphabet soup includes WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not a soapbox; WP:AUTO - writing about yourself is a Bad Thing; and WP:NPOV - the other party in the case is not going to have their say here (but perhaps this might be a new sideline for MyWikiBiz ...). So, delete, speedy delete, or what ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At first it looks like merely crystal-ballism and puffery. However the case asserts its importance in that it claims to have an effect on hundreds of thousands of users and that it is "first of its kind". These claims should be deleted (and neither is at the moment verified) before I'd be willing to change to delete. JASpencer 08:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity and soapboxing. A case does not set a precedent unless it is cited. So far there isn't even a judgement to cite. Gazpacho 04:01, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon E. Hengen

[edit]

Non-notable professor. This was a speedy candidate but {{db-bio}} removed with a weird reasoning. Currently the article says nothing encyclopedic in terms of her notability; all we know is that she has a few subject specialisations, teaches somewhere, and publishes some books - nothing that the profs in my own university don't do, and I know most of them aren't notable. Thus, bringing here to seek a consensus for deletion. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 17:50, 8 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 A7 - no assertion of notability. Being feminist, having a PhD from Warwick U and doing research don't count, and the article only mentions these things about her. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi_Bakare-Yusuf

[edit]

where is the notability? Igbogirl 17:53, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Omega International

[edit]

Non notable group, according to the article with 27 members. I get 40 hits at Google. The two main contributors, Omega Genesis (talk · contribs) and Eternaldeath09 (talk · contribs) have two edits in this article and nothing more. Article is linkless, probably since it was created in April. Would have speedied, but there is a very small notability claim (The most recent and notable was at SJC Denver on June 24th and 25th, 2006 where Omega Member, Lindsey Mantos, went a perfect 9-0 on the first day) -- ReyBrujo 18:04, 8 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 15:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Cheu

[edit]

Associate Professor [30], seems like a good guy but does not pass WP:PROF. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 8 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 - consensus is that while it may be about a junk theory, it is notable and needs cleaning up rather than deleting. Yomanganitalk 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where Troy Once Stood

[edit]

Please see the debate on Talk:Odyssey about whether or not this book meets notability requirements. I am nominating it for that reason. Also, note that Anthony Snodgrass, a well respected arechologist and Homeric historian refered to this book as an example of lackluster scholarship and his thesis as 'infinitely less serious' than most things out there, which scholars don't even think is worth the time to refute. text here. I, for my part, will remain Neutral right now until I see and participate in some discussion. CaveatLectorTalk 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose deletion. Wikipedia has articles about lots of books, only some of which are scholarly. You might as well delete the article on The Da Vinci Code, about which the same statements, attributed to Snodgrass above, could be made. Andrew Dalby 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose. I believe this is a notable article, which should be in WP. Antiphus 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I weakly oppose deletion. It not the greatest book by any stretch, but it appears to be significant enough - a couple hundred copies listed in WorldCat, some citations of the title by other authors, not self published, published in a couple languages and countries, etc. That said, there are plenty of other, better books that deserve to have the same amount of time spent on them. cbustapeck 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the book seems to be the exponent of an interesting albeit very minority view. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28 8 October 2006 (GMT).
  • I oppose deletion of any article on a book that presents a well-rounded Wikipedia article, simply because it is not considered up to academic standards. Andrew Salby's reference to The Da Vinci Code is apropos. With this setting a precedent, many references might be suppressed to books whose conclusions are not liked. --Wetman 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: weak deletion reason. See WP:N. Feureau 21:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The criterion that seems to me to apply: is anyone likely to want to refer to such a page? In this case, yes, the page serves an adequate reference function. Charles Matthews 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the article needs work, in that it ought to be very clear to one who reads it just how outside the pale of respectable academic theorizing about this subject this particular theory is. Still, one might say the same about the theories in the books of Eric Von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, and lots of other notable authors. --Christofurio 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I checked through the few undred Google hits and could not find a single reliable source for an article. Amazon sales rank is over the million mark, there is no evidence of the significance of this book and there is no obvious secondary source for the article itself - I am unable to verify the neutrality of this article from independent secondary sources of any evident authority. Guy 22:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please ask for verifiable sources to be provided before you vote delete. Just because you cn't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist. It is verifiable that the book exists, thus the argument should be over how best to clean up the article. Please, consider cleaning up before automatically reaching for the delete button. Carcharoth 12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There is nothing there that says an article lacking NPOV must be deleted. Please see WP:DEL#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed, in particular: "Article is biased or has lots of POV; List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention; tag with {{Template:npov}} or {{Template:POV check}}. Please limit your arguments to whether the existence of the theory is verifiable, and whether the theory is notable enough for inclusion. The existence of the theory is not in question, and the length of time the theory has been around for, and the amount written on it, makes it notable. People will come here looking for an article on this, and we should be able to provided them with such an article. Carcharoth 14:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no criticism, that implies the non-notability of the book. The inability to write WP:NPOV articles in the absence of multiple independent reports is why WP:V is a core requirement. One could argue that a stub article would be NPOV (in making no claims beyond the trivial ones of the book's existence, authorship, &c), but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of bibliographical cruft, so that wouldn't be an improvement. For books to have articles they have to be notable ... but we've been here already. There's no way an article on this book can meet the core requirements, whatever a proposed guideline like WP:BK might say. Notability isn't determined by ISBNs, or being included in a few libraries, but by being written about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CaveatLector's initial post refers to an article by Anthony Snodgrass that includes criticism of Wilkens. To be honest, one of the reasons why I'd like to keep this article is because every few months new editors come on to articles like Troy or Odyssey trying to add in Wilkens' theories. If we have this article to point to, and it contains Snodgrass' criticism, it's much easier to say that WP already contains sufficient material on Wilkens. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that simply begs the question "should Wikipedia include information on Wilkens", to which my answer is "no". Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see the redlink there. Actually, Snodgrass helps to make Wilkens notable, simply by speaking against the Cailleux-Wilkens theory. So who's going to write the article on Snodgrass? He's more notable. Andrew Dalby 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose deletion. At one point or another in history Schliemann and even Homer himself would have been "deleted". Snodgrass too... political correctness knows no bounds... I expect Prof. Snodgrass himself would be horrified by the idea of censoring Wilkens: not of criticizing him, certainly, or of dismissing his ideas -- but the notion of removing the ideas of Wilkens or any other non-conformist, "nut" or otherwise, so that they might not even be read, if only to be dismissed, runs against the grain of the Western free-thinking tradition of which both Homer and now Snodgrass himself are parts. I've just read Wilkens' book, myself: greatly entertained, if not convinced -- it has motivated me to re-read Snodgrass. Paraphrasing a now-very-old online debate (kudos to Steve Cisler): "And first they came for Wilkens..." --Kessler 17:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly alarmist. If this article is deleted, I doubt the Wikipedia police will show up on Wilkens' doorstep and drag him off for reeducation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not alarmist at all. Feel free to doubt if you insist, Akhilleus, but if you and others wade in and censor views here with which you don't personally agree, Wikipedia will turn into just another "political correctness" vehicle, manipulated news of the type we see too often nowadays in Big Media, and in the history textbooks in Japan. So I believe we should let Wilkens have his say, even if some of us don't agree with him. --Kessler 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Akhilleus, he has voted to keep the article! Andrew Dalby 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So noted. Just editorializing on his editorializing. :-) --Kessler 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is our job to summarize the significant published viewpoints--whether or not those viewpoints would get us an A on a classics exam, is that not right? The reviewers advising librarians say this book presents a compelling argument, even as they note that this book should be bought only by large libraries. --Rednblu 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What reviews are you talking about? I have been able to turn up anything from a reputable publication except the Snodgrass piece already mentioned. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I paraphrased and cited the Library Journal review that I found in the article, Sir. --Rednblu 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't found that article, even though I've been looking for reviews of Wilkens. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better to clean up the article than to remove it entire. Jcfiala 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The book is junk, yes, but I think it's notable junk. One, arguably not so reliable source, [31] mentions it as a highly sought after book. There's a review apparently here [32]. Anyways, I distinctly remember that theory being mentioned at the time the book was published. Some respected people have taken the time to explain how unreasonnable the theory is[33]

. Others have written about it with a more sympathetic tone [34] but the overwhelming opinion from respected archeologists is that Wilkens' theory is easily debunked. Still it has some sort of cult following and this is exactly what the article should discuss. That being said, it probably falls somewhat short of WP:BK but not dramatically so either.Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The editors above are focusing on the quality of the book. The issue here is not quality but notability. We have proposed guidelines for the notability of books at WP:BK. In order to be notable a book really needs to generate interest outside of its own field - yet this book generates only about 600 google hits [35] very few citation from Google scholar [36], is in only about 300 libraries out of 10,000+ in woldcat [37]. The only review cited by the article is from Library Journal, a publication which reviews thousands of books a year with very limited regard for notability and is specifically disqualified from establishing notability per WP:BK. There is no evidence so far that this book has been the subject of significant works in publications serving a general audience as required by WP:BK. GabrielF 16:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • This request for deletion comes from someone who openly declared that he might "pick up the book from my library at my next convienence and page through it." CaveatLectorTalk 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC), and then, eleven days later, when I asked: Did you manage to get a copy? Antiphus 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC), stated: "I, unfortunately, did not find the time".CaveatLectorTalk... Antiphus 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should be arguing about the books notability rather than the correctness or otherwise of it claims. It generates 718 Google hits and all editions rank about 1,000,000 in sales on Amazon (the first edition is of course much lower than the new one). Does this qualify as notable? --Cúchullain t/c 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Just about notable, I think, though the article wants improvement. WTOS is certainly the handiest current reference on the theory concerned, which has been running for more than a century. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be a great deal of meatpuppetry going on here. Check the talk pages of the "oppose" voters: many have a comment in their talk page telling them to vote here, and if you check the talk page of the person who made the comment, in some cases they also have a comment on their talk page of the same sort. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 00:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, if you look at Talk:Odyssey#Geography in the Odyssey, you'll also see that many of the editors commenting here have recently discussed whether Wilkens' book is a reliable source, so it's pretty natural for them to be interested in this AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a meatpuppet, I'm a person (I think). I am not in favour of Wilkens' theory, not by several light years, but I believe Wikipedia readers need references on such material. I advised one other user to vote because I know of his interest in the subject. I don't suppose he even knows what a meatpuppet is. Since he asked me how voting was done, I told him, and said he could recommend others to vote so long as he didn't push them one way. (See my posting on his user page here.) I was right, wasn't I? Andrew Dalby 08:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out to Antiphus that I have not made a REQUEST for deletion, I have merely listed this page in AfD because the book's notability seemed questionable. I still remain neutral on this vote. I'm not sure how those quotes from my talk page are relavent. CaveatLectorTalk 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes from your talk page are relevant because they show how this book is treated. You have listed the article in AfD without having read the book! Antiphus 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is debatable. It depends on whether the vote should be made up of AfD regulars, people who have the article on their watchlist, people who are interested in the subject (some WikiProjects are organised enough that they have pages acting as group watchlists so they can contribute to deletion discussions for pages edited by their WikiProject), people who are expert in the subject (probably need someone to ask them to contribute), random passers-by, other random groups of people rounded up and herded over here to vote. I think if you know of someone you know would want to contribute to the debate, then telling them about it is OK. Of course, it would help the closing admin if everyone voting admitted their interest, and revealed how they found out about the debate, but that is never going to happen, is it? Carcharoth 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Storkk. I'm certainly not one of those, thank goodness, and don't ever want to be one. Personally, I doubt if any of the others who have voted on this page could be described as such. Andrew Dalby 15:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antiphus (talk · contribs) created Iman Wilkens and Where Troy Once Stood, created a few other articles that contain Wilkens-related material (e.g. Myrina, Queen and Stuntney), and placed Wilkens-related text in many articles (most of which are locations in East Cambridgeshire). It would have been rude, I think, to have this AfD and not let him know about it. Similarly, this AfD follows upon a discussion at Talk:Odyssey about whether Wilkens is a reliable source, which many of the commenters here participated in; obviously, people who participated in that discussion have an interest in this one. CaveatLector referred to this discussion in the initial post of the AfD, so it's not as if any of this is a secret. Furthermore, CaveatLector, Andrew Dalby, and myself are members of the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, so this discussion is of obvious interest to us. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. :-) If we are being all nice and open, I am a genuine passer-by, popping in to AfD to see what things are like at the moment. I prefer to see articles cleaned-up and improved, rather than deleted, and if an article seems OK and doesn't immediately set warning bells ringing, I'm happy to see it stay. Carcharoth 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about a "Disputed" template, for this case? That doesn't require deletion or correction, as I understand it, but simply notes disagreement on article substance and directs readers to the article's Talk page for discussion & debate. Seems to me that might be the healthiest solution, here: using Wilkens' far-out ideas perhaps to shore up but at least to question received opinion -- nothing worse than the latter unquestioned. The "Disputed" label, at the top, might attract attention but at least would alert the truly innocent. --Kessler 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The full "Disputed" template label reads: "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed. / Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." -- sounds fair to me, for this instance -- helps engender reasonable discussion & debate, good things. --Kessler 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I check out Afds every once in awhile for fun, because there's often an interesting dispute like this one to be found, and I end up reading articles (and learning about non-mainstream theories) I might never otherwise have encountered. I have told one other member about this one -- not because I knew how he would vote, but frankly because I was curious about his reaction. He's had none (in fact, I've subsequently discovered he's been inactive for two months). I've also mentioned this article and the Afd on my blog, cfaille.blog-city.com, but doubt that will stir much reaction. --Christofurio 15:04, 11 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 16:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest codeshare Alliance

[edit]

Unsourced neologism for a two-airline codeshare. This is not an airline alliance, and is not comparable to Star Alliance, oneworld or SkyTeam. FCYTravis 18:40, 8 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 16:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VickiAnn Chrobak-Sadowski

[edit]

Totally non-notable. Patrick 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't even figure out why this was created. Yes, she's noteworthy to Price Is Right fans, but she's only notable even for that because she happened to win a lot of stuff through completely legitimate means on an episode that was designed to give away a lot of expensive prizes. There's no reason the page should exist. -TPIRFanSteve 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete biggest winings for a game show? No. Biggest winnigns for a daytime game show? No. Biggest wininngs for a daytime game show on CBS? not good enough. Guy 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google News yields nothing for just "VickiAnn," so clearly this isn't as notable as other game show record winners. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said on the nominated article's talk page, interesting contestants (young women in random people's opinions, like, for example, Amy from the 6000th show or Skyler from the 10/6/06 episode, etc.) and throwaway Showcases (in the case of top winner (usually women) passing Showcases to the runner-up and making his/her day worse by hoping he/she overbids on his/her showcase, yet the top winner prevails and brings many of her friends onstage to celebrate) are definitely non-notable. I removed the redlink from The Price is Right a week ago, as nobody knows anything about VickiAnn except for that win. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being indiscriminate. Well put by User:WTGDMan1986. Ohconfucius 03:50, 13 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 Wizardology: The Secrets of Merlin. --Satori Son 04:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardology

[edit]

There is already a more comprehensive article on the book Wizardology: The Secrets of Merlin, which is the book this article is about. Pretty much the same reason as Dragonology (book).ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 19:06, 8 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. This band has actual media coverage. Friday (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strata (band)

[edit]

Vanity, and non-notability. See below Green hornet 19:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Renominated for deletion this second time in accordance with Wikipedia: Deletion Review because no consensus was reached in last debate. Band has not demonstrated notability. Evidence of vanity. Stand behind earlier arguments and wikipedia policy in WP:MUSIC requiring two releases, and a lack of reliable sources outside of their own website giving details of a tour. See also WP:NOTE, WP:RS. Having read the earlier arguments I am anticipating a string of google hits as an argument. Don't bother, as I can get a string of google hits for any number of random people, words, and concepts, but does not demonstrate the slighest notability. Furthemore, the onus is or should be on those who wish to keep the article, to demonstrate notability and adherance to WP:MUSIC especially, using verifiable sources which can not include the band or fan gossip due to their biased self-promotional unreliability. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for fancruft. Band has one album out, not REQUIRED two. Green hornet 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per green hornet. --Storkk 14:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nothing is wrong with the article. There is something wrong with re-opening an AfD a day after it closed. Sour grapes. Bad faith nom. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no citations from non-trivial publications (or any citations for that matter) to demonstrate notability. No listed releases on a major label. Fails WP:MUSIC. Note to Parsssseltongue (talk · contribs) AfD is not an attack on the subject, it's a crucible for the article. Try improving it. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Just came out of an AFD, extraordinarily bad form to keep renominating an article when you don't get the delete result you like. All that aside, being in Madden 2005 certainly raises them above garage-band status. Turnstep 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- "keep renominating" makes it sound like I have renominated it more than once. In fact, I only renominated it one time, but that renomination was immediately closed by a non-admin citing WP:IAR. Someone else reopened it at that point. According to a Wikipedia policy article that I am too sick of repeating, it is a common practice for a quick renom if it is due to non-consensus. If there was a consensus to keep then I would not have renominated the article. It is not bad form. In the end though, Wikipedia is not a democracy and all articles should conform to policies and standards set up to keep Wikipedia at an academic level...notability and verifiability criteria should not be neglected or placed at lesser importance to subjective opinions about an articles worth. Green hornet 02:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not MySpace.— Arbusto 05:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedia is not MySpace"??? How is that relevant to this AfD? I don't think anyone is using this article for social networking or band promotion purposes. It is just an encyclopediac article describing a notable band whose notability has been asserted with reliable sources. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is band promotion. Its a mentions members and links to their myspace. Proof of notability? Arbusto 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's looking like a fairly even divide between keep and delete as of 13OCT. I'm anticipating a ruling of no consensus yet again. This even match on so many AfD's is getting to look like American presidential elections. Such a close match means each side thinks that they are really the winners. Whatever. Anyone else going to vote, just please vote according to your conscience and honest interpretation of WP notability policies, whatever that may be. Green hornet 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, guess what? They release an album next year and all this bickering will be moot. There are lots of bands on Wikipedia with only one album to their name, and you guys aren't arguing about them, but they're all notable in any case. For a group that wants to be the biggest encyclopedia on the web, you're sure putting down a lot of ridiculous restrictions on who or what can be included. I would think you'd be happy that someone took the time to add a new article to your collection. And before you jump to any conclusions, I did not write the article in question, but I know a stupid debate when I see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.193.105 (talk) .
  • Oh, and by the way, the band does have more than one album already. As Downside they released three albums independently prior to becoming Strata. Is that satisfactory?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.193.105 (talk) .
  • 65.33.193.105, you need to sign your comments. You also need to stop vandalising AfD tags and then arguing with people about WP policy regarding notability standards until you understand what WP requires to meet those standards. The appropriate policies have been noted. Independant releases do not neccessarily meet the requirements. If you have references then it might be a legitimate argument. Also be civil because a lack of civility makes me cease being civil. Also Strata are most likely not releasing their second album at the expected time as a large portion of their output was rejected by the label. They were supposed to be finished with it, but it was largely scrapped. They are starting to record and rewrite again and might squeeze out another album on Wind Up by late 2007. At that time they would meet the minimum notability standards and can have an article. Green hornet 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repect everyone's vote, but it shouldn't be based on the earlier vote, especially as the earlier vote was no consensus. Vote based on your understanding of WP policy and remember that WP is not a democracy. There are standards that are not optional no matter how many people say this or that. The only valid vote is one made according to a honest appraisal of WP policy. Please vote keep or delete based on this rather than your concept of whether it is in bad taste to renominate. I have also already shown WP policy that regards a renomination under these circumstances as regular. Green hornet 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strata themselves have noted that the current recording sessions will not affect their planned spring release. They scrapped only a third of the album and probably some of those songs will only be reworked, not totally thrown aside. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot have an album out by April or May and therefore no basis for your assumption that they "maybe will have it out by late 2007". Furthermore, your attitude leads me to suspect that you might hold some kind of bias since you are the one who keeps asking for the article's deletion and will not let it go. There are several bands on Wikipedia with only one or two albums to their name that could be viewed as "non-notable" and yet you are not fervently attacking those articles. Therefore, I see no reason to be civil to someone who is spending all their time begging for the deletion of a perfectly good article, especially someone who is part of a group dedicated to the very goal. I find your cover of "keeping the Wikipedia pristine" laughable. It seems more like your goal is to eradicate the articles that you don't like. Yes, Wikipedia has standards, but the standards should be working toward expanding Wikipedia, not dissolving it.Blah 11:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the above comment attributed to Blah when it was placed by 65.33.193.105 (talk), a known vandal? Of course Strata are going to say that they are reworking the songs and it won't affect the release date, assuming that a new album really will be released. That's not relevant. The planned release is far enough in the future for no verifiability. It is irrelevant to the discussion. So are the self-released albums. Anyone anywhere can put them out. Self-released albums do not have sufficient notability to have their own articles, nor does it take Strata from being a one album band to a three album band. Wikipedia shouldn't just be a ragtag group of articles expanding to include every little bit of fandom and every local band and endless lists of trivia and whatnot. It should be ever-improving in quality more importantly than endlessly expanding in content- unless that content is truly encyclopedic...otherwise wikipedia should drop the -pedia in its name and go by wikispace or something. Furthermore you have no grasp of what deletionism really entails. Your perception of bias fails to take into account that I have participated in many AfD's, and even have voted keep! Many of the AfD have been on diverse subjects as I often have run across them on the Articles for Deletion page. Whether they had to do with bands or not is irrelevant. I oppose articles for any band with less than the required two! I don't think it matters whether you think that is important or not because it IS policy! Wikipedia claims to not be a democracy, which it shouldn't be since knowledge is not democratic but rather objective. It doesn't matter if every WP editor votes that 2+2=5 because it certainly does not. WP needs to enforce its standards more thoroughly. Nearly everyone else other than 65.33.193.105 on this debate has been very civil. First you said that this is a stupid debate, which it is not. You also said that there is no reason to be civil to me. Go ahead and do whatever you want with this article, give everyone everywhere anytime their own 40 page wp article. Whatever. It is sad that anytime I do a web search...yahoo, google, whatever, several links are wikipedia pages that have glaring editorial errors. This is a major problem. Editors constantly writing and editing non-notable, unverifiable, POV, and unreferenced information here. Now I cannot even find relevent information on a search engine because of the shortcomings deriving from a lax enforcement of policy here. And finally, I am not pushing for a delete. I am nominating for it. I am not trying to force anyone else's vote. I am asking for honest votes per policy. Vote according to your conscience, although I hope my points are understood. I'm done defending my reasons for nomination, and think I'm going to leave the debate to finish on its own so I can clean up some religion of India articles. Godspeed. Green hornet 19:39, 16 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 Shinigami (Bleach) - Yomanganitalk 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigai

[edit]

Hardly notable aspect of the Bleach series. even though it does have some significance, it's just one of the items/things used in Bleach and is therefore almost inherently non-notable. Moreover, it's hard to create good Bleach-related articles when info about the series is split into nearly 100 articles and new users are creating new articles like this one fairly often. A precedent is the redirection of Shawlong Qufang (move of article's content), Hiyori Sarugaki, etc. The info from the gigai article can also be found in Shinigami (Bleach) -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:16, 8 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. Needs reliable sources. El_C 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cave_of_Roses

[edit]

I'm nominating this for deletion as it's a factoid. On looking into it, it seems to originate from Rambaud's history of Russia and Saltus's English translation thereof, where it's mentioned in passing as the "cave of roses"/"trou aux roses", a dungeon with reptiles. This as part of a paragraph on Gustav III which is generally exaggerated and distorted. I find no such description in any account of Swedish history and doubt anyone ever will because what's actually being referenced is Rosenkammaren ("the rose chamber"), which was merely the torture room at Nya Smedjegården prison. It was short lived (1740s-1772) and rarely used even before the 1772 abolishment of torture. By no account were snakes or reptiles used; cold water was the instrument of torture.

I don't think the historical reality here is notable enough to warrant mention outside of an article on Smedjegården (which en-wikipedia doesn't have). And as a myth, it doesn't seem notable enough either - Google books finds the term mentioned in only one place outside Rambaud, a US congress hearing. (Quite possibly where the cited book got it from) Which I think makes it unworthy of any mention at all. --BluePlatypus 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if a mistranslation/misunderstanding which created a minor myth, this article can still stand as a referenced article about that misunderstanding Bwithh 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it can't though, since there's no source describing it as a myth. (Which in itself speaks of the non-notability) The above conclusion, however likely, is still Original Research on my part and can't be included in an article. To put it simply: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an errata. --BluePlatypus 20:07, 8 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 spam, no assertion of notability. Guy 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise To Glory

[edit]

Nn webgame / advert. Deizio talk 19:41, 8 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 16:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategies for individuals in an influenza pandemic

[edit]

Pure how-to guide. -- RHaworth 19:46, 8 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 spam for Mason-Dixon Knitting. Guy 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect sweater

[edit]

Results of a survey to find the perfect hand-knit project. Is it encyclopedic or just an advert for www.masondixonknitting.com Mason-Dixon Knitting]? -- RHaworth 19:52, 8 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 as nonnotable. El_C 07:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party (UK)

[edit]

This "party" never really achieved much. They have never stood in an election (or at least can't verify any claims to have done so). The evidence of any activity is limited to a blog that has not been updated for more than a year and a meetup group that is almost defunct. I voted Keep when this was last put up, but now I think that it should be ended. It looked like it could be active, but that's gone. I thought that I would add this nomination as I can't be accused of being part of "The Left". JASpencer 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable political party. Googling for it brings up Wikipedia articles in the first hits. When there finally is a non-wiki hit of this particular party (googling for "Populist Party" Britain brings up the Populist Party of America immediately after the wiki hit), it's a blog on a free blog host, which, as noted above, hasn't been updated in over a year. No media coverage to be found. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we appear to be the major reference "out there". No evidence whatsoever of significance, and given that I (a Brit with an interest in politics) have never even heard of them I think that the lack of evidence is due to a genuine lack of significance. Guy 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apparently unverifiable, apart from a blog whose last entry was made over a year ago. -- The Anome 22:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No candidates in any elections, no evidence for significant membership. Not notable. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:44, 8 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 (Not so) Speedy Keep - the proximity of the previous AFD and the nomination reason points to this being used for dispute resolution. If a particular editor is causing problems open an RfC - do not resubmit a recently closed AfD as it just wastes everybody's time. Yomanganitalk 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran and science

[edit]

Blatant apology for Islam, repeated refusal to allow dissenting material Arrow740 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahimfaisal, who is writing this article, refuses to allow basic scientific observations which contradict the Qur'an, or alternative explanations for verses in the Qur'an which Zakir Naik has tried to depict as presaging modern developments. As such this article is and will remain a blatant apology for Islam. Arrow740 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A second nomination within hours of the first discusion closing with an overwhelming Keep? No examples are provided at all for these charges. We don't delete articles because editors are, or are not, playing nicely with others if the topic merits it. There are other ways of handling this.
I think this "second" nomination is what's blatant — blatant vandalism. No change to original vote: Keep. MARussellPESE 20:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete: If you had been following the debate on this article's talk page and the previous deletion page you would know what I am referring to. I was fine with keeping the article until after the decision to keep the article was made Ibrahimfaisal completely changed it, removing almost all additions I had made.
He refuses to allow me to include an alternate explanation for the "7 worlds" line, he refuses to permit me to include the fact that a human ovum is necessary for conception and that man is never a clot of blood, and he refuses to allow any mention of the fact that ants do not communicate with the same level of complexity that humans do. He also ignored my request to include the fact that the Qur'an implies that the moon is farther from the earth than the stars are, and he also refused to include the fact that the Qur'an claims that mountains prevent earthquakes. He also refuses to mention the fact that the Qur'an depicts someone finding the muddy pool into which the sun sets. If there is a repeated and steadfast attempt to keep the article one-sided, is that not grounds for deletion? Arrow740 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Itaqallah has convinced me that there are probably valid sources for this, and at this point I trust Ibrahaimfaisal to only advocate his point of view using sources for which an argument can be made. Arrow740 06:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if we could have a balanced article on this subject, but we can't. Like I said, I only started supporting deletion after Ibrahim completely changed it right after it was kept. Arrow740 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Well if people are actually going to be re-voting on this , I vote to speedy delete. In my opinion the article, as it stands does not meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards as it attempts to match highly ambiguous verses of the Qur'an with scientific principles and fails to do so
  • Example Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? equals Big Bang? I think not , Earth did not exist at the time of the big bang, and how are we to interpret the word heaven in this statement ? Sky? Universe? The big bang was not a separation of sky with Earth or Universe with Earth .
  • Oh wait , I just noticed , while we are at it , the word "we" in "we made every living " implies a more than one , yet the tenets of Islam assert only one GOD, so right there is a contradiction in the Qur'an itself.
In summary this article should be filed under the topic of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks and has no place in Wikipedia--CltFn 23:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wrt "we" comment jfyi: 'tis called royal plural. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wrt contradictions in the Quran, you can find some real ones in the talk pages for Muhammad or the article in question. Or just use a search engine. Arrow740 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote twice. You already voted to delete earlier. If you want to change that vote to speedy delete, then you should strike out your first vote. It helps the closing admin. - Lex 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking to me, you'll quickly see that there is only one bold "delete" under my name. Isn't that the only way to vote? Arrow740 06:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That was largely the issue around which the first AfD revolved and a number of reliable sources were suggested. The fact that they have not been incorporated 18 hours after the previous one closed is perhaps less than surprising. If they haven't been incorporated sometime later - whether due to neglect or the intransigence of one or more editors - then we have more of an issue here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be the correct way to view unsourced material; the reason for the failure to incorporate reliable sources may well be that they do not exist. I believe I saw Jimbo quoted as warning specifically against this line of reasoning, and may return to share this quote. I for one have never heard of any of these people, and am not clear that they are even notable, much less reliable. Faisal is more than welcome to work on this essay in his userspace and recreate it if and when there is something real here.Proabivouac 03:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We may be talking at cross purposes here. There were a number of reliable sources suggested over the course of the original AfD, most of which have been sitting on the article's Talk page. Failure to incorporate same into the article in 18 hours is hardly a hanging offence, regardless of motivation. If the only thing that's preventing the incorporation of the sources suggested (and any others anyone can find) is the intransigence of a particular user, the problem is with the user, rather than the article and should be dealt with via other channels. Again, however, there's the time interval: I find it hard to believe that 18 hours of intransigence indicates a usage pattern that will continue ad infinitum. If it does, however, it's intransigence by the user rather than by the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid it's not. Try responding to something I said.Arrow740 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my vote to Delete. I haven't been able to find even a single academic source either supporting or denying, or even explaining the issue of the Qur'an and Science. So, I think we should hold on till somebody publishes something on this topic. --Aminz 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) changed to keep. explained below. --Aminz 07:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy Keep - I'm not a deletionist regarding to an article. Give editors some time to develop. There are many stubs, future events/products, self-promoting, current events/issues, controversial issues and other articles in WP, which have a heavy POV. They only need time and other contributors who can give reliable sources to the article. — Indon (reply) — 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After I saw the first debate that was only 18 hours ago, I changed my mind to speedy keep. The intention of the proposal is solely based on personal bias toward a certain religion. Thank you for Arrow740 for spamming me. — Indon (reply) — 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Arrow740 has been selectively spamming several user's talk page about this AfD. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43],[44], [45], [46]--Aminz 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the first AfD, it appears to have been similarly spammed by the creator of the article, apparently without sanction, and to good effect. I find it difficult to blame Arrow470 for resorting to the same behavior (indeed, with the same defebse re Pablo Flores).Proabivouac 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by "selective" you mean as per my selection, you are right. But I "spammed" a neutral person (pablo flores), people whose opinion I didn't know (Indon, alecmconroy, see above), and even told Ibrahimfaisal about it when he didn't weigh in. I even contacted someone I have had arguments with about these issues (Jimwae) and tried to contact another such, dab, but his talk page is protected. I'm honestly trying to have all kinds of people respond to this issue. Arrow740 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Arrow740 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arrow740. Article is full off misrepresentations, falsehoods, and is purely propaganda. Article is non-informative. Article is non-encyclopediacal. Article is unscientific, and filled with bias. Delete!Green hornet 01:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is changed, see below for my usual long-winded explanation. Green hornet 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green hornet, you are a sockpuppet. Do you have an special account for AfD? Too strange --Aminz 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to his contributions page does not prove that he is a sock puppet. You should have a better tactic than just trying to say that everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet (which seems to be your pattern). Too strange --Arrow740 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it obvious to you that this entire article is original research? That at best it is a bunch of excerpts from a book written by a medical doctor, not an expert, which has not been published by a reputable publisher? Who are you trying to fool? Arrow740 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This second AfD is inappropriate because it is so close to the first AfD and the first AfD closed as a keep. I have been in this thing since the first AfD I am trying to research the topic, since I am rather ignorant in this area, so I can make some meaningful edits. I feel that people who dislike the article should do the same and stop wasting time with these deletion debates. Ratherhaveaheart 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any such edits have been repeatedly reverted. That's the only reason I think this article will always be worthless except to Muslims proselytizers such as Zakir Naik. Coincidentally the whole article is basically a rehashing of a speech he gave to a Canadian Muslim association, which is available on YouTube. Arrow740 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC
First I don't appreciate you nonchalantly saying the article is worthless and on the articles talk page refering to it as stupid. This is not WP:CIVIL. The article is not "worthless except to Muslims proselytizers," since I think it is worth and I am not a Muslim proselytizer. Second the edit reversions issue is not a problem with the article but perhaps a problem with an editor, so an AfD is inappropriate. I don't even know how to respond to your reference to the Zakir Naik speech since I think it is completely irrelevant where the inspiration for the article came from. Ratherhaveaheart 03:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Speedy Keep vote - bad faith nom. If you have issues with the editing they can be discussed on article talk; if necessary, flag it POV or OR, get an RfC, there are many things that can be done. The previous AfD discussion already decided the topic is worthy of inclusion. - Valarauka(T/C) 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article is junk. Allow re-creation if it becomes a real article. Arbusto 06:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User Arrow740's concerns are completely valid here. The article speaks for itself. Filled with unverified, tenuous at best links, heavily POV, I don't see how or why it should be rescued. I also find Amiz's allegation above of Arrow740's "selective spamming" laughable, as it's like the pot calling the kettle black.Nodekeeper 10:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article summarizes some of the notions which have been in Islamic community for a while now. And those who say that it doesn't have any scientific background, they better search with Google scholar: Quran and science. Cheers! --TruthSpreaderTalk 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. "Still, science currently does not support creationism." (Of course not, they are totally incompatible; science will never support creationism.) This sums up the tone of the whole article. Emeraude 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The note "Still, science currently does not support creationism." is added by the person who nominated the article for deletion. It is funny that you choose his edit to base the reason for delete. --- ابراهيم 12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me. Arrow740 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only because this is way too soon for a second nomination. Back then I said I would re-nominate the article myself if its problems weren't addressed in due time, which would be in no less than a month I guess. The topic is huge and very difficult to work with in a NPOV manner. I suggest that Ibrahimfaisal (and other Muslim contributors) could silence the claims of POV pushing by reviewing and adding content based on non-Islamic sources which speak against the scientific validity of the Qur'an; each section should have a balanced coverage. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am increasingly busy with my studies and finding it very difficult to make the article good myself working alone. I will give it whatever free time I will have but I need your help. There are sources available I could list them for anyone interested in working on the article but I need some people who are willing to spend some time on it. Also I do not delete criticism unless it is added in good faith and in proper way. Some people are removing all the material and adding criticism like writing on talk_pages. That is not acceptable. So this is a general call for help if someone is listening. --- ابراهيم 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Pablo-flores. It almost meets criterion #5 for Speedy keep. Wait a while for things to change before re-nomming article. --Storkk 14:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Whatever the outcome of this process, this is a pretty wretched excuse for an essay. The later half of the article consists almost entirely of proof by analogy. I've seen similar apologist pieces for the Bible. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proabivouac did an excellent job of removing all of Faisal's original research (i.e. tenuous interpretations of the Quran) and leaving only Maurice Bucaille's (not that he's much better). Faisal promptly reverted all of it and whined about it here. It should be clear to everyone from the facile analogies and silly captions that this article is more like a book you would give little Muslim children in third grade than it is an encyclopedia article. Whatever the outcome of this vote, it should be clear to everyone that Faisal (and probably Aminz too) doesn't care about wikipedia rules, or refuses to understand them. Arrow740 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look above, you'll see that Aminz has changed his recommendation to Delete, having written, "I haven't been able to find even a single academic source either supporting or denying, or even explaining the issue of the Qur'an and Science. So, I think we should hold on till somebody publishes something on this topic."Proabivouac 19:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call everyone's attention to the Physiology section of this treatise. It says, the Quran says milk comes from cows, and it tastes good. It think we should add, just for the "science" component of this section, "And it's right! Milk is tasty!" Arrow740 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this http://www.islamvision.org/Physiology.asp . The verses says it comes from "which specific location" which is scientific and explained in number of articles (including above URL). --- ابراهيم 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One verse specifies this "specific location" as "From within their bodies", the other gives, "coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood." I imagine most scientists would concur with the first assertion; not so sure about the second…Proabivouac 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for same reasons as the recent AfD. The article needs to be reformed to something more akin to Science and the Bible. As it stands it's original research but come on it's only been a few days since last AfD. (I'd like to point out I'm completely unbiased in that I'm an atheist so no Christian crusader here; all derivative Abrahamic religions are equally wrong regarding science). Arrow740 needs to understand that it is part of Islam's reformation and Enlightenment for Muslims to go through the exercise in futility of showing the correlation between the Quran and Science. To me it is a template for what is not science so let them play with pseudoscience as eventually (and it will be a number of generations) they will realise the gap between what is faith and what is science can't be closed. This is what happened to Judaism, to Christianity and will happen to Islam. Odd as it may seem the scientific truth is only found in things which we can falsify and faith is not falsifiable. They need to make a call on the faith or reason dichotomy. Sometime in the next 600 years please ideally !. Ttiotsw 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There he goes again with his "dichotomy". But as to the recent AfD, since then at least one of the people behind this article (Aminz), having made a good faith effort to find sources, has come to the conclusion that there is no academic source for any of this material, pro or con. He quite reasonably suggested that we wait until such sources surface before proceeding with the article. Arrow740 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that would be an inaccurate observation. ITAQALLAH 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, she had told me her views about sources on my talk page even BEFORE this AFD. Hence your assumption that she looked after this AFD and changed her mind might not be true. --- ابراهيم 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is inaccurate that Aminz came to that conclusion? See above. Also I meant since the previous AfD, but she might have written that on your talk page before it closed, I don't know. As regarding the sources itaqallah found, one is Maurice Bucaille's book, one appears to be published by the Saudi government (it is probably propaganda), and the third, Peter Hodgson's book, actually claims that Muslims go too far "by attempting to find detailed adumbrations of scientific knowledge there [in the Quran]]". It discusses Muslim scientists, and does not go into any of the wonderful detail that Ibrahimfaisal has. So keep looking, and read what you link to next time. Arrow740 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no, i think Aminz's observation is inaccurate, read the comment in context of what you said. first: show me where i linked to Bucaille's book. i didn't. second, do you see where it says Bridgeview, Illinois? thirdly, Hodgson discusses the issue of Qur'an and Science, his own opinions of it, as well as notable Muslim opinions on it. that is certainly material which can be included in the article, esp. in the first three sections, and proves that the topic of qur'an and science is notable to merit inclusion in contrary to your claim that that "there is no academic source for any of this material, pro or con". so maybe it is you who needs to read a little more closely before rushing to respond with aggressive rhetoric. ITAQALLAH 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You linked this list as proof that there are sources. However the list contains: Bucaille's book; a book only owned by one library in the western world (if the website is accurate. you yourself indicated that you could not get a hold of it on faisal's talk page); a book called Islam Questions and Answers, which doesn't appear to be immediately relevant; and not much else. Regarding Hodgson's book, he does not address what Faisal is trying to address with this article, which is the subject of coincidences between science and the Quran. He doesn't address the other side either, which this article should address. Regarding the book that I suspect to be Saudi propaganda. Publisher: Makkah, Saudi Arabia ; Bridgeview, Ill. : Islamic Academy for Scientific Research, 1990. The fact that there is a front company in the US does not give the Saudi publisher and legitimacy; Saudi spends loads of oil money in the US funding mosques and Dawah, so their involvement in publishing here is to be expected. And if the website you linked to is accurate this book is owned by exactly two libraries in the West. Arrow740 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so Bucaille's book isn't "one" of the "sources" i "found", is it, Arrow? it's on a list, along with other notable books. "not much else"? try going through the several pages, a notable book pops up once in a while. don't forget the other books i mentioned which you did not comment on. "a book only owned by one library in the western world", a lot of books on that site which are notable or even reliable contain no library info at all. the categorising is, understandably incomplete, and your conclusion may be untrue. Hodgson's analysis is entirely relevant here, in the light of Aminz's objection ("I haven't been able to find even a single academic source either supporting or denying, or even explaining the issue of the Qur'an and Science"), unless you misunderstood what he said. Moore's book is also notable, and again his analysis is certainly relevant here. ITAQALLAH 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what is Bucaille's area of expertise?Proabivouac 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in what way is Bucaille relevant to what i have stated? ITAQALLAH 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who wrote it, if a book (Moore's book) is only published by the Saudi government it's worthless. I don't know about the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, though. I would say that if something is on a list you are citing as proof of your point then yes, you found it. I entirely agree with that sentence of Hodgson's that I quoted, however by my standards it should not be included in the article, as he does not try to justify his opinion. However by the standards of this article it should be featured quite prominently. I will reiterate that if his book were to be used for any article that article would be called "Muslim science", as he does not attempt the point by point correlating that Ibrahimfaisal has been doing, and in fact dismisses it, as we should do.
Would you support removing quotes from Bucaille's book? You keep distancing yourself from it. It is not reliable. It is published by American Trust Publications, which is owned by the North American Islamic Trust, not an academic publisher, and probably financed by the Saudi government.
Why don't you just make a list for us of sources you think are relevant? Arrow740 01:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whether you "care" or not is irrelevant, what matters is if it is suitable for use on wikipedia, and it is. again, your "standards" are not relevant here. so you are saying i "found" 300+ publications? why then focus on Bucaille to the exclusion of the rest, including some that i explicitly mentioned from the list? you are clearly trying to shift the discussion by introducing red herrings, as you seem to do frequently. the issue was about whether there are actual sources which even discuss the topic of the qur'an and science, and there are. accusations of saudi govt backing are pretty meaningless, pointless, and merely an attempt to poison the well. i am not distancing myself from Bucaille, you keep trying to misrepresent my position by making it a debate about Bucaille, as you clearly feel more confident about criticising it than you do backing up claims that there is "no academic source", which is exactly what this particular discussion is about. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But besides stuff by Moore there is nothing. Why not just write an article called "The Quran and Embyrology?" Arrow740 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep; Overhaul There is potential with the article, based on the title alone. But, the article is currently in a terrible state. What we have right now is a collection of verses juxtaposed with scientific facts, many of which do not relate to their respective verses. Citing Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp and a shining moon as a prophecy of the fact that moonlight is a reflection from sunlight seems quite dubious; the connection is a far stretch. These juxtapositions throughout the article are presented in a manner that is not encyclopedic and neutral, but rather a manner that appears to imply that the Qur'an is a scientific marvel. We, as an encyclopedia, should be trying to avoid the appearance of promoting one holy book over all others as well as trying to source interpretations of holy texts. These issues can be resolved without deleting the article, however, and so I'm sticking to a weak keep; overhaul. -- tariqabjotu 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Nominator is bullying. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we please hold off the speedy statements? The article does not fit any of the terms of speedy keeping (no, the nominator is not nominating the article on a regular basis; (s)he didn't even participate in the last AfD debate meaning this second nomination could just be coincidence). Likewise, the article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion either. -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that the nominator knew of the previous AfD, as he participated extensively in the article and on the talk page as anon while the first AfD was taking place. also, he says (above), "I was fine with keeping the article until after the decision to keep the article was made Ibrahimfaisal completely changed it, removing almost all additions I had made."- so his main reason for the filing a second AfD was a content dispute, which i don't believe is a legit. reason for an AfD (esp. less than a day after the prev one which he was aware of), and why i also feel that a s. keep is justified. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. --Islamic 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Meaning no disrespect to any particular user, there is an unmistakable correlation between religous persuasion and recommendations on this issue of an article which alleges that the sacred scripture of this religion may be proved to be the words of God himself by references to contemporary science. Furthermore, it it clear that users of this persuasion significantly outnumber those who don't share it on the majority of matters related to this subject, certainly including this AfD. It is difficult to see how, in these circumstances, Wikipedia's consensus-based procedural policies can be expected to yield encyclopedic results. The possibility of a vigorous open-minded non-predetermined debate is, with only a few exceptions, almost entirely absent here. I strongly urge you to consider the precedent that would be set by the "community"-based retention of articles like this one. Without a change in approach, or the involvement of a large number of editors who aren't particularly interested in these subjects (but how, when RfC's are nearly useless?), it is virtually guaranteed that we shall see a good deal more of the same. Please take a long hard look at this article and ask if this is the direction we should be taking; no gentle recommendations to follow source policies in the future will speak nearly as loudly as the fact that this nonsense was allowed to continue without check or sanction.Proabivouac 06:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your "correlation" claim is entirely false: If you'd look at the comments, A large number of editors have voted Speedy Keep or Keep on the basis of the nomination itself being way too early after the previous AfD closed, with no bearing whatsoever on their religious inclinations. Or are you supposing that MARussellPESE, BigHaz, Indon, Alecmconroy, Ratherhaveaheart, Pablo D. Flores, Storkk, Ttiotsw and Irishpunktom are all Muslim? Really now. - Valarauka(T/C) 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least three of the editors you've named are in fact Muslims. The correlation is not, however, that non-Muslim editors "vote" as a bloc - they do not, as you observe - but that every Muslim editor has "voted" to keep (though one subsequently changed his mind). 100% is a non-random and notable correlation, or would you disagree?Proabivouac 07:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. That correlation does exist, I agree, but I don't see how that makes the votes suspect, unless you're assuming bad faith on the parts of all the Muslim editors involved. I personally agree with most of the objections regarding OR, etc., and I think that removing them all to a subpage is a good first step; however, the fact is that the "Quran/Science" debate itself does exist, and is a valid topic for Wikipedia. The fact that the article isn't up to par yet isn't grounds for deletion, as was amply demonstrated in the previous AfD. - Valarauka(T/C) 07:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re good faith, Take a look at some of the usernames we see here, Truthspreader, Truthpedia, Islami…They've not attempted to desceive you, have they? If you nurture the possibility that they mean to be neutral, it is not their bad faith that is to blame. Similarly, consult the userpage and contribution history of the editor who created this article. They are admirably upfront about why they participate; no assumption of "bad faith" is warranted or necessary.
"that the article isn't up to par yet…" - "yet" is projection of a future outcome we've no reason to believe will ever exist. Such logic can support the retention of most anything on the grounds that reliable sources don't exist yet, when in fact this article should never have been created without them.Proabivouac 08:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just said: The 'yet' issue was already decided in the previous AfD. The question is, why are we here again, so soon? - Valarauka(T/C) 08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources they're using. Aside from Keith Moore, who is being misrepresented (12 years after he published the piece they're quoting he endorsed the view that Muhammad got it all from Galen, who lived 400 years previously), the authors are not worthy of being quoted in an encyclopedia, especially on such a sensitive topic. Arrow740 07:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is Moore being represented? aside from the statement in his bio article which is unsourced and could easily have been a misrepresentation, do you have any solid sources for this? can you tell us what exactly he says? page #? edition? ITAQALLAH 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have it by Friday. And the statement in his bio article is no doubt taken from here [47]. Arrow740 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Proabivouac has had a tendency from his very first edit (27 September 2006) to baselessly accuse Muslim editors of meatpuppetry and involvement in a massive cabalistic conspiracy. these are, of course, totally unfounded. the problem i see is when he chooses to dismiss the mass spamming of Arrow740. to say the least, i find his constant accusations unacceptable and distasteful, and if he is interested in working with Muslim editors he must first stop demonizing them. ITAQALLAH 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like that you've copied your vote from the old AfD without even noticing the changes in the article. - Valarauka(T/C) 08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's quite amusing and it's not more trashy than the rest of the Islam-apologetic articles around here. --Cyp.
  • Itaqallah provided sources including one written by by Mehdi Golshani and published by Binghamton University press. Golshani, whom I've personally heard of him, was graduated from UC Berkeley and is the winner of several awards. Good job Itaqallah. I change my vote to keep. --Aminz 07:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this is a perfect example of AFD being used as dispute resolution. AFD is not WP:RFM. No valid argument for deletion has been provided, and to relist less than a day after the prior AFD is a clear attempt to game the system. Close this afd and block the person who started it for WP:POINT.  ALKIVAR™ 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This renomination, made within 24 hours of the first, is disruptive plain and simple. Take your issues to dispute resolution as suggested by Alkivar or fix up the article yourself. Silensor 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep already, per Alkivar - what a waste of time. Sandstein 09:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I changed my vote while writing out these thoughts: I might be leaning towards changing my vote to keep as some of the edits have addressed some of the problems. I do not think its fair to say that this is a waste of time since the debate has definately improved the article in ways that might not otherwise have been accomplished. AfD often force a editor to take charge of the situation to improve an article that they want to see kept. I really feel like there should be an expansion of the criticism portion. I want to see an even balance between alleged proofs and alleged disproofs. I would like to see lots of references for both sides. I imagine that some of the references for each side could be the same as for Creationism in general even though much of the lit on that more directly addresses Christian claims. I think it would be nice to expand the article to include extra-Quranic sources such as the Peak of Eloquence. Perhaps then the title Quran and Science would be inaccurate though. Someone else can deal with that. No one's argument has affected my possible vote, but I am seeing an article that is sincerely trying to opt a less POV style, and incorporate more references. My main concerns are mainly the alleged history of revert wars to keep criticism out (please allow all sides into this article, otherwise it is not encyclopedic) as well as the extensive original research and unverifiabilty and non-notability of references used in the article as it stood when I first made my vote. I'm also sore about the lack of civility of Aminz to me, but that has nothing to do with the article. There is a general lack of civility here, and it is on both sides. You should not harshly criticize someone who renominates for AfD even if it is soon, since the renom was in good faith, made valid points and caused vast improvement on the article. OK I'm changing to keep so that I can see how it turns out. But I think we should keep an eye on it, and bring it to the crucible again in a month's time IF it doesn't continue to improve. Godspeed! Green hornet 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You write as if you are not a sockpuppet. Your accound has less than 60 edits, but yet at least 80% of them are AfD votes. Why don't you vote using your regular account? It is not only you, Proabivouac is also a sockpuppet. How is it: I create 10 accounts and switch among them for every now and then. --Aminz 21:30, 16 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 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Farrell

[edit]

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell, comments along the lines of "come back if she's elected". She wasn't. This is not the same content (so not a G4 speedy), but there is still no claim to notability other than an unsuccessful candidacy in an election. Per WP:BIO we keep successful candidates, not failed ones. Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here. Guy 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to disrupt this AfD? Not hardly. It just makes no sense to have multiple simultaneous votes on the status of this article. Do you agree or disagree with that?--Francisx 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin opens a new AfD, while specifically noting that "Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here," I'm going to go with the admin. His action has rendered the DRV moot. As for pulling AfD tags off articles, you can get blocked for that sort of thing. There's even templates about it (e.g. {{drmafd4}}). --Aaron 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't see the note, nor did I know that the person who added the AFD tag was an admin. As WP is supposed to be friendly to newbies, I expect that you'll pardon my oversight. Thanks!--Francisx 23:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, come on, FrancisX, you've been editing for more than a year! (You're newer than me, I guess, but still...) --Aaron 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then why did you label me a vandal [[48]]? In my not-quite-a-year of editing (your math is off), did you notice a long, striking pattern of vandalism? You can't have it both ways. Am I an experienced user who should know better or a disruptor?--Francisx 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used that tag because (a) as a courtesy to the admins because it provides them with quick links to relevant pages (while not actually labeling anyone as a "vandal" in the text of the page) and (b) because removal of AfD tags is considered vandalism by Wikipedia policy (see "avoidant vandalism" on Wikipedia:Vandalism; age of account and number of edits has nothing to do with it. --Aaron 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Where did "newbie" come from? Your contribs show you've been on Wiki since Dec 05, you uploaded Farrell's image, and you've been active on many political articles. Sorry, couldn't help but notice that, since you accused me of having a pony in this race because I oppose admins circumventing community consensus on IRC chat. Sandy 00:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, chronologically I may not be a newbie, but I haven't exactly been immersed in administrative or backroom protocol either. I've made a relatively small number of edits, almost all of whom have been superficial and minor.--Francisx 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:C&E. While technically only a proposal, failure to adhere to WP:C&E has already been used as a criterion to delete the articles of other legitimate House candidates. I don't see where "Well, this race is too important" is a particularly compelling argument. The entire point of WP:C&E was to stop this sort of "some animals are more important than others" creation of articles for people who haven't even won election yet. --Aaron 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain due to SandyGeorgia's creation of Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006, for which multiple people ought to be awarding her barnstars. --Aaron 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Glad you noticed: that's the work that should have been done to begin with. I now know more about both candidates than I ever wanted to know about either of them. Sometimes it's just easier to do it yourself, I guess. Nonetheless, process should have been followed by those who wanted the article: why did *I* have to be the one to write, reference and clean up all those articles? As for process, I wonder if the article will really be deleted is she loses? These guidelines need to be examined: Farrell now has an article, while two other candidates in the same election who haven't achieved notability don't, and one was AfD'd. There is still nothing notable in Farrell's own article, which can't be covered in the election article, so I don't really understand why we bother with process, guidelines, AfDs, and so on. IRC chat must be the way to go! Sandy 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on C& E, a proposed guideline, "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Farrell is notable enough for an article. FloNight 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BIO:

People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.

...
  • Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
...
  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
According to WP:C&E:

Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written.

Random candidates for House seats do not meet such criteria. That Farrell is especially competitive in this particular election (one in which the incumbent has held the seat for what will soon be 20 years) has led to national-level news coverage[49][50][51][52]. This makes her qualify under WP:BIO standards listed above. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 497 current news articles listed in Google News.[53], many of which are national (US News & World Report, Washington Post, LA Times) and even international (The Guardian). This is a top 10-race, Farrell has been previously been elected to office, and this is clearly a notable person. Moreover WP:C&E are only proposed guidelines, and are not enforceable.--Francisx 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think people are missing the point. She gets lots of local coverage, apparently, which is often sufficient for inclusion. But the fact she's repeatedly been on the front of the NY Times, one of the 1) most highly circulated newspapers on Earth; 2) distributed globally, and at the least available in virtually every corner of english speaking North America; 3) merits her article to stay. Lets not also forget that the NY metro region is one of the most populated areas of the entire country/world. Being notable in the New York area means you're due for a Wikipedia entry, simple due to volume of population: simple fact. Or, as they say, if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere... · XP · 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, so anyone of local interest in New York is automatically of global importance? Guy 08:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wellll...Meh. (and I live in Manhattan). this is about CT anyway - that extra piece of drivetime between Boston and NYC. Bwithh 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and anything in Connecticut that the good gray Times actually bothers to cover is notable for that alone.:-> Septentrionalis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --Tbeatty 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck. Septentrionalis 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. I would have no objection to merging this article, and much of Chris Shays, into the (not yet existent) Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. But I do not see how deleting the information helps the encyclopedia or that article. WP:C&E is a guideline (or, rather, will be one.) It's good general practice, but {{guideline}} is right to say guidelines "are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Septentrionalis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least through the election. -- DS1953 talk 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, WP:C&E is a guideline, and in this case it's both reasonable and germaine. Once we have an article for the district election this candidate has entered, only then will it be clear whether we need an article for the candidate herself. —ptk✰fgs 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This elevates the proceedure recommended by the guideline over its purpose: to ensure that articles on candidates have enough credible information to be an article. Well, an article exists; no delete voice has yet questioned the information, so we seem to be past that hurdle already. Septentrionalis 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's not much of substance in the article, her own website was the source for most of the information there (inappropriately so), and her notability appears to all stem from articles about Shays. If she loses the election, she's still a schoolteacher turned small-town mayor. Sandy 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a few links that could be used as reliable sources for the article text. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties. I found multiple articles discussing Farrell in a brief Google news search. The article has the potential for expansion. Assuming that the article can be sourced to the multiple news sources that are out there (I have no reason to assume that it cannot), it will be The article is verifiable in reliable sources and neutral. Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Jerskyo. Jorcoga  04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Simões and Jerskyo. - Lex 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep election is only a month away and there is no clear leader in this election race. I added about 6 sources to fix V issues.Arbusto 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, the amount of coverage typically garnered by a competitive house candidate is significant, as in this case. We should definitely use that coverage to include biographical information on those candidates. Very few such candidates will fail WP:BIO, since they are "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." Which isn't to say that articles like this couldn't be merged, but that isn't particularly necessary in this case, and certainly discussing it here would cloud the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy (et al), are you saying that despite the widespread media coverage in multiple reliable sources, this political candidate is inherently non-notable beecause she is merely a political candidate (regardless of the competitiveness of the race, the profile of the candidates, etc.)? I don't mean to antagonize or mischaracterize your position, and I'm certainly assuming good faith here (I think we're all motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia). I just want to make sure I understand your position. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:15, 9 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. —Centrx→talk • 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evol (band)

[edit]

Contested prod, had a prod 2 before the tag was removed. The argument, roughly, is that this band fails WP:MUSIC with no information to prove otherwise.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Government Simulation

[edit]

Non notable "online" simulator run in a forum with 203 members. Fails web notability. I get 44 hits at Google for "Congressional Government Simulation", with many Wikipedia links. Prod was removed without comment.[58] Article was created on June, yet it is still linkless. There were only three edits (one reverted per POV), all other edits were due maintenance (categorization, cleaning up, bots, etc). -- ReyBrujo 21:29, 8 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 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rizal Football Association

[edit]

A football association for philippine school teams. Does not assert notability. – Elisson • T • C • 21:30, 8 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 16:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Legends, Never Die, Face (rapper), and No More Fun and Games

[edit]

Probable multi-article hoax. The article for Real Legends, Never Die claims that the songs on the CD were produced in conjunction with just about every popular US rapper in existence, and that the Rolling Stones[sic!] have reviewed it as "proably one of the best rap album's ever". The page for Face (rapper) also claims that he has been signed by multiple labels at the age of 13. All of this seems rather unlikely, especially with the complete lack of any Google results for any of the names and titles involved. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding No More Fun and Games to the nomination - it's a supposed single from his first album. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good lord. Add <Relive The Moment and Over C's and Dogg Chit. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further analysis, Dogg Chit isn't his creation. Ignore that one. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Face, rapper and Face (rapper) have both been deleted a number of times under . It might be nice if an admin could chime in on what sort of specific content those pages contained. Also, do note that Real Legends, Never Die shouldn't be confused with Real Legends Never Die, which is an apparently real hip-hop album by Big L. Confused yet, anyone? Zetawoof(ζ) 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin! (I ... I guess I forgot?) I prodded this article one of the times it was posted. In looking at the older versions, the previous content was either blank or very similar to what we're seeing now. I'll be glad when this goes through AfD so I can speedy any future reincarnations of it. -- Merope Talk 21:44, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth theory

[edit]

Page survived 2 prior AfDs (1,2), yet it was later redirected to Truth by the same person ([59]) who nominated it the 2nd time ([60]). That certainly appears to be a way to circumvent the conclusion of the AfD, which was no consensus. Attempts to restore the original article have been prevented vigorously [61], therefore again a listing here. I'll abstain for now --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the sake of clarity, I have in principle no objections against this article being deleted or redirect, but going against AfD consensus, even if the main author of the article was banned for being abusive, is not the way to go. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Changing the article to a redirect is within the bounds of reason subject to the AfD (2). If one were to count "votes" (most of which have reasons, which I won't try to weight....)
    • delete or userfy
    • redirect
    • keep (3)
    • delete (3)
    • delete or merge
    • keep or merge
  • Noting that, for the purpose of the AfD, keep, merge, and redirect are all counted as "keep", but for the purpose of deciding whether a merge is in order, "redirect", "merge", and possibly "delete" would be considered favorable, I would say that a merge "vote" probably would have succeeded. I'd lean toward merging the WP:V parts of the article (back) into Truth, but I'm not sure there are any. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Truth. As with above, but any pertinant information moved over would have to be re-written as it does read like a small dissertation paper. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging following a keep consensus would be legitimate. Merging following no consensus is even more legitimate. There isn't a problematic overriding of AFD consensus visible here. GRBerry 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then drop this AFD and merge! The problem is that the content of the article is a POV fork from truth, so in effect there is nothing (or very little) that the authors of Truth would agree to including! And that is why the article has been made a redirect. Banno 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a poster child for WP:OWN, and a candidate for poster child on WP:NOR. We were handed a bill of goods by an extremely astute but highly tendentious editor who's turned out to have almost 30 sockpuppets to date. The stated purpose of this article at the time was to have a place for the more highly technical material, but it turned out to be a one-man article and not a useful one at that. Time to get rid of the headache please. ... Kenosis 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and be rid of it. Banno 22:33, 12 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 Merge to Where Troy Once Stood - Yomanganitalk 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Wilkens

[edit]

An author whose books are asserted to be much sought-after, but who nonetheless manages to score less than 600 Google hits, of which about 150 are uniue and none appear to be neutral authorities for a biography. Guy 22:29, 8 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 Merge to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Yomanganitalk 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Paul Bakke

[edit]

I really want to merge this with Regents of the University of California v. Bakke but I think that this deserves more debate. The question is does a party in a court case have his own notability if seperate notability is not asserted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) .

That said, the answer to JASpencer's question is that it would appear that Bakke does NOT have notability of his own outside the case. The title should redirect as many sources will refer to the "Bakke decision" without necessarily mentioning the UC Regents. The fact that Bakke hs gone on to a "quiet career" as an anesthesiologist rather than becoming a leading, notable anesthesiologist suggests that most people would never have heard of him were it not for the case.
--Richard 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale would exclude most notable people at WP; people who are only notable for one thing, should we delete Sirhan Sirhan and redirect the link to Robert F. Kennedy assassination? should we delete all the various survivor contestants who haven't done anything notable besides their all-too-brief walk in the spotlight and redirect all them to the appropriate show? Should we delete all one-issue famous people to the event that made them famous? A delete here would signal that the answer is "yes", and IMHO would be a mistake. Carlossuarez46 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a "Delete" vote would have the wide-ranging implication that you assert it would. Nonetheless, your general point is valid: my argument was perhaps badly stated. There is obviously a need to document the lives of notable people even if there was only one event that made them famous. However, if the article on person A does not provide more information other than A is notable because of his/her involvement in event X and the article on event X contains all the information that is in the article on person A, then there should be no article on person A but rather A should redirect to the article on event X. --Richard 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the continued assertion that he has gone on to a quiet career that supposedly nullifies his notability is something beyond what the lawsuit was. Look at the article on Neil Armstrong and tell me if the academic career was of Joe Blow instead it would pass WP:PROF; that's what he's done since his notability was established. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 13 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 Merge to Scandal'us - Yomanganitalk 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Jaber

[edit]

Non-notable performer. This article reads like an advertisment for Tamara. I feel it would be more appropriate to merge elements of this article with the Scandal'Us page Goremay 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish Keep I disagree with deletion. I think it's borderline, but she does fit into "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" as well as having 9,830 hits on google. I do agree with the comments made on the standard of the article, but perhaps it could be tagged with NPOV or marked for a clean up. --Jirrupin 21:40, 4 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, Keitei (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but it needs to be cut down a lot. She's done absolutely nothing of note - Sandiland's conflict of interest is the most notable part of the article. -al 01:49, 12 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 nomination withdrawn. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1902 LSU Tigers football team

[edit]

a whole article for a single season of college football seems completely wasteful. These should be complied as a list perhaps, or maybe in the LSU Tigers football main article DesertSky85451 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated several other of the LSU season articles 1903 LSU Tigers football team, 1901 LSU Tigers football team, 1900 LSU Tigers football team, LSU Tigers football, 1893-1899, 2006 LSU Tigers football team, 2001 LSU Tigers football team, 2002 LSU Tigers football team, 2004 LSU Tigers football team, 2005 LSU Tigers football team, 2005 USC Trojans football team, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, 2005 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team
These college football related pages are managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and meet the acceptable standard determined by the project managers. This user has only targeted one team, name the LSU Tigers, and ignored the fact that nearly every major Division I college football team has individual season pages on Wikipedia. These pages should not be deleted. Seancp 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated several other team articles for deletion. This is not an LSU bias, this is a desire to cleanup single- season, single- team articles DesertSky85451 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know not everyone is a college football fan, but a great many people use Wikipedia as a college football resource. The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football project has established standards for everything college football related, including standards for individual season pages (see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Yearly_team_pages_format. If you are hell bent on having this information removed from Wikipedia then why don't you target every team page? Here's a few just to get you started:

And that's just 2006....I don't have time to list all the rest of the years. Seancp 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all Of course I want to assume good faith, but I wonder if the poster has read all (or any) of the articles they are nominating? For example, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team has 80 independent sources cited, which is far more than many featured articles. I suggest this nomination be summarily rejected. If the nominator beleives some seasons to not meet notability requirements, then I think it might be fruitfull for them to discuss the matter at the relevant wikiproject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Johntex\talk 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not nominating these articles because I think they are bad articles, or are poorly referenced, I'm nominating them because its silly to have a unique page for each season of each team for one sport for each school in Division 1. Any easy fix for this would be to merge them into one article for each team, with a different section for each season/year. If you all don't agree, then you're blind to your own bias, and life will go on. DesertSky85451 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is far too much content to merge. For example, the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team article is already at 55kb of well sourced information, and the season is not even half done. I won't use the phrase "blind to your own bias" as I think it is a bit rude, but I suggest DesertSky consider his own biases before making claims about anyone elses. Johntex\talk 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Joey Hope- If you come back, I'll give you a blow job. DesertSky85451 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best. Response. Ever. Thanks for brightening my evening a bit with that comment, DesertSky. This is unrelated to the AfD, but (as an equal-rights-for-everybody heterosexual) anyone who is still homophobic in 2006 needs to get a damn clue. -- Kicking222 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is that time to revisit last year's previous discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results? What about articles like 2006 English cricket season, 2006-07 South African cricket season, and all of the other cricket regular season articles managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket? How are they different? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had to chime in here. This is insane to even be considering and I am not that big of a college football fan. It is encyclopeidic, think of a sports almanac. Keep all. A mcmurray 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all until broken into smaller AfD discussions. This is ridiculous, and a good portion of the articles nominated above are extremely obvious "keep" candidates, whether nominated by themselves or in a mass nomination. -- Kicking222 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, seems to be some sort of bad faith/WP:POINT nomination. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I am a member of the College Football WikiProject. College football has more average game attendance than all other sports in the world except the NFL. Failure to include information about College Football would not lend credibility to Wikipedia being a complete and useful encyclopedia. See List of sports attendance figures for attendance stats. College isn't "pro" so it's not listed in the same table, but if you put that 46,000+ average into the pro table, it's #2 in the world. Completely inappropriate AfD. --MECU≈talk 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - This is stupid. Just because the guy does not consider the information that important to HIM doesn't mean it shouldn't be important to others. It definately does NOT meet the criteria set out for an deletable article in Wikipedia. It is both verifiable and notable in the sense that the information contained in these articles can be found in multiple outside sources. Notability should not be subjective to an individual editor. Secondly, these articles are part of an ongoing project, with dozens of participants. The person who nominated these articles is in essence putting an entire WikiProject on AfD. That is unreasonable.
  • Comment- While some may not agree that these pages should be deleted, I think it is very unfair to call this nomination stupid or bad faith. I believe DesertSky has a truly valid point, but perhaps just went a little too far with it. I'm not sure if every single season of every single college football team is encyclopedic, especially if it is not a notable season in some way (for example, the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team that Johntex mentioned is notable). Many such pages can probably be merged into larger articles. However, in the mean time, my recommendation is that we keep all these, have a long discussion about such things at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, and all have a nice cup of tea and a large serving of assume good faith. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology - OK. The use of the word "stupid" was inflamatory on my part. I make an unqualified apology for the use of that word. But that does not belie the fact that this AfD nomination is inappropriate. There may be a valid point that EVERY season is not necessarily worthy of an individual article, but likewise there is an equally valid point that SOME seasons ARE worthy of individual articles. Discussion of which seasons are notable or non-notable should be made within the scope of the relevent Wikiproject, and addressed in talk pages there. Simply marking an entire class of articles as prima fascia unworthy is unfair. If there is something SPECIFIC about a SPECIFIC season that makes it unworthy, than that SPECIFIC article should be AfD'ed. A 2-10 season may qualify for non-notable status (or it may not, especially if it happens to a normally excellent team.) But teams in contention for conference and/or national championships in any given year SHOULD be notable under even the most strict definitions. --Jayron32 04:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To my knowledge, no one from the WikiProject on college football has ever said that we need an article for every time for every season.
There are many teams, such as Baylor, Harvard and Duke that we have not even contemplated making individual season pages regarding. It is quite possilbe that some of these teams need only a team article, or that an article could cover a specific period of time for the program, like the tenure of a specific coach, for instance.
However, one of the articles up for deletion is LSU Tigers football, 1893-1899, so it seems the nominator is not content to merely nominate pages related to signle seasons. The WikiProject is just a few months old and already we have 27 participants who have established a system to help us focus on the articles that are likely to be of the greatest interest to the most people. I think the project should be given some space to continue to refine criteria and bring articles to a consistent standard of quality. I have already called for us to "Kep all", now I am wondering if this AfD be closed as a Speedy Keep. Johntex\talk 04:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The blanket nomination of all these articles appears to be in conflict with WP:POINT. The article 2005 Texas Longhorn football team has been nominated for deletion in this grouping (afd points here). They were last year's national champions and certainly an article appropriate. How can this nomination, covering articles that are not even listed on this page, be in process? If an editor comes across this nomination from the main AFD page, it would appear that a vote to delete was only for the 1902 LSU team. At the very least, the nominator should list all of the articles considered under this nomination at the top of this afd section. — ERcheck (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - I also feel this mass AfD is completely misguided. If DesertSky (or anyone) wants to nominate a single season and give a specific reason for the nomination from the criteria, the folks at WP:CFB are going to give it a serious look. If you check the deletion logs and the AfD discussions, you'll see that we are pretty well self-policing and if you read the discussion on our project talk page you'll see that we are as commited to making Wikipedia a great repository of information as any other group of editors you'll find. Follow the links above, read our policy, then if you disagree with it, raise your concerns where they can be discussed in the open. z4ns4tsu\talk 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - I've merged the LSU 1900-1903 pages into a page for tha 1900s decade, just as I did the 1890s, so those are just redirects. This user seems oblivious to the fact that these pages are part of a WikiProject and essentially have consensus approval already. This is a terrible, time-wating nomination, and possibly an abuse of deletion process. — Sampo Torgo [talk] @ 14:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - As part of the CFB WikiProject, I feel these pages contain valuable information that many college football fans can use. However, I also feel that no individual season page should exist if all it contains is the schedule and results. There should be more critical information on page that warrants the need for an entire article. If all that exists is the schedule, than a solution similar to the one employed by the Colorado Buffaloes football article should be used. I guess our WikiProject needs to set better guidelines on what warrants its own article. Given my own guideline, some team articles do need to go (such as 2005 USC Trojans football team and possible 2006 USC Trojans football team unless they are updated).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmajdan (talk • contribs) 07:26, 2006 October 9 (UTC)
Those two Trojans articles need major work. I have some (ahem) knowledge of the how the 2005 season turned out for them, and I think I know (ahem) where we can 'borrow' some relevant content for that article. The 2006 article clearly is an important article that needs major work. They are undefeated and ranked 2nd in the nation. Our article on their current season is a dissapointment in its current form, to put it mildly. Johntex\talk 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAW AfD per ERcheck's comment regarding WP:POINT. I never meant for this information to be deleted, all I wanted was a discussion about a possible merger to prevent what I saw as the distinct possibility of this all going way overboard, with an article for every season of basketball, football etc. for every D1 school nationwide. DesertSky85451 16:10, 9 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 Nomad (Star Wars Tales) - Yomanganitalk 23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darca Nyl

[edit]

Non-notable Star Wars character. I requested speedy deletion and the tag was removed, I asked why the character was notable and was told nothing more than that he was the favourite char. of the creator of the page... And the SW comic book he is part of even has an entry - Nomad (Star Wars Tales). Lundse 23:11, 8 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 complete bollocks and A7. Punkmorten 06:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Tuesday

[edit]

I highly doubt this is a real person. Spam/inside joke. Cold December 20:44, 8 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 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locked and Loaded

[edit]

This unsourced article cannot be verified by web search -- 29 unique results for the title plus the artist name yield no suitable sources for this article. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Erechtheus 23:33, 8 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 - Yomanganitalk 23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumental Rock Guitar Hall Of Fame

[edit]

Unverified (and unverifiable as far as I've tried) that this organization even exists, let alone is notable. Seraphimblade 23:28, 8 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. Nonnotable. El_C 08:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Bend Crime Prevention Patrol

[edit]

This entry fails to meet noteablity guidelines any tags to fix or upgrade article are removed by the groups members. TheRanger 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I was able to remove the parts you beleived sounded like a recruiting ad (namely, the FAQ). I added a references section and wikified the content. I hope this is closer to your reqeusts so we do not get deleted.
I have made updates and added notability. This article clearly has as much relevance and notability as the S.S. Badger article. Will someone please answer my concerns as to why this is any different from other articles? RRCRich 00:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: rrcrich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The best place that I can refer you to for your answer is found at this link WP:ORG. It basicly needs to be noteable to a encylopedia entry and not just of local interest. It looks as if you have a fine local group however, as your example with the S.S. Badger that is of interest to both the local cities it stops as well as the traveling public as a whole. I have used google and found no newspaper or major media coverage at all for your group, the only sites were your group site and the city of West Bend site and very little on that one. TheRanger 03:07, 4 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, Keitei (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either non-local impact or press coverage that deals specifically with the organization seems to be required for notability under WP:ORG. Neither is documented in the article. EdJohnston 02:37, 9 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Ja

[edit]

Also nominating for same reasons:

Dubious claim of notability. No sources cited. No real information. First of four or five articles that are basically copies of one another. Glendoremus 23:45, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_8&oldid=1116878328"