The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is unsourced speculation about a possible tour of South Africa in 2009 ... it has not been confirmed by any relevant organisation, and is assumed based on a recent "pattern" that exists only in the minds of a minority of supporters. The Lions official website doesn't even mention a 2009 tour (if you're bored, by the way, try this flash game from the website). WP:NOT a source of unverifiable speculation. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under verifiability. It says that it assumes that the Lions will tour in 2009 and that South Africa will be the relevant country. Until such time as there is an official announcement is made, not much can be said. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ... well, there doesn't seem to be a nomination. Who listed this article for deletion, and why aren't they writing a nomination? Tell you what, instead of voting, I'll write the nomination, shall I? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverified, mistitled, and, of course, the future is unwritten. Geogre 11:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable plans for such a tour currently exist. Average Earthman 11:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. --Merovingian 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. --Matt 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Sam Vimes 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fictional event in the real years namespace, or crystal ball stuff - Delete anyway Ze miguel 10:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. - Randwicked 10:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Skrewler 11:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fictional event, no statement as to whether this is from some published work of fiction or just made up on the spot. Average Earthman 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom abakharev 11:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional future-history from an unstated 'universe'. Saberwyn 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE to Googlebomb. -Splashtalk 17:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research, PoV, and (probably permanently) out-of-date. I should point out that I just moved this from Googlebomb. Andy Mabbett 00:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page, merge content BACK into Googlebomb. If you don't like the content, edit it in the article instead of using this backdoor tactic. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, 'back door tactic' - this is a perfectly legitimate course of action. I note you also reverted its removal from the Googlebomb page. Andy Mabbett 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange new meaning of the word "legitimate" I wasn't previously aware of. You could have simply deleted the material; instead, your edit summary for the deletion from Google bomb read "Accomplished Googlebombs - move to own page)" Since you almost immediately put up that "own page" for deletion, it sure looked like a way to delete the section without raising suspicions. --Calton | Talk 12:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicions of waht, exactly? Andy Mabbett 13:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett's method was a fairly standard and perfectly acceptable way to break an article section out into a stand-alone article. That being said, "googlebomb" is not such a big article that it is bursting at the seams with material to be broken out in this way. BD2412T 14:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Breaking an article section into a stand-alone article: fairly standard and perfectly acceptable. Article creator slapping an AfD tag 13 minutes after creating said article: uh uh. Did you miss the all-important second half of the process he actually did when you called it "fairly standard and perfectly acceptable"? --Calton | Talk 02:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information has been domesticated. Dottore So 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back, it seems strange to nominate an article for VfD that you created 13 minutes after creating it. Astrokey44 12:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This smacks of WP:POINT. ESkog | Talk 13:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SLAP!Speedy Delete this, and slap the nominator with a trout, he is an experienced editor who should know better. The place to discuss article content is not AfD but Talk:Google bomb. Pilatus 13:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I am an exepirenced editor - and I have experience of similar move-and-VfDs, without any of this fuss and failure to WP:AGF. I also know that this doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy. Andy Mabbett 13:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have experience of similar move-and-VfDs: that you ween't caught before says nothing about the validity of the technique nor about its appropriateness here.
Your comments are outrageous and unwararanted. "caught" doing what? Andy Mabbett 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are perfectly appropriate and completely warranted, your usual knee-jerk sputtering aside. And "caught", as I've said more than once, sneaking a wholesale deletion of text under the guise of a move. I'll note that there is no mention I can see about the text in question being too long before your unilateral decision that it was so, nor have you commented -- before OR since -- on the Talk page of the article. This is good faith? This is the work of an experienced editor? --Calton | Talk 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to break this out and no need to let this fester for longer here. Pilatus 14:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the most part, these are not noteworthy. Any particularly noteworthy Googlebombs should be discussed in the Googlebomb article. --Carnildo 22:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Merge into original article. A bad faith nomination. --Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 06:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you (wrongly) claim it's "bad faith"? (Also, please do not use deprecated HTML on Wikipedia). Andy Mabbett 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, you attempted to circumvent the debate process in the original article by moving the content to a new article and immediately nominating it for AfD. That's bad faith, provably and undeniably. Also, please do not tell me what to do on Wikipedia, you are not in a position of authority here. --Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have not tried to "circumvent" process, but to use it. There is no bad faith, and your comments are verging on being a personal attack. I have not tried to tell you what to do, I have asked you to stop doing something which bloats WP and shows a disregard for users with visual or other impairments. Andy Mabbett 11:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the original article and discuss possible removal there. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular reason to assume that this was a bad-faith nomination, but I do think it's not the most helpful way to deal with this issue, so I definitely think this should be merged back into Googlebomb and discussed on the talk page there. --OpenToppedBus - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 12:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The new article should either be kept, or deleted. Merging back into the main article should not be an option, because the article was over-long. Andy Mabbett 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the case if there was a consensus that removing this information from the main article was the best way to tackle the length issue. As it is, there appears to be a consensus here that it should be merged back in: after that, a different method can be found to solve the length issue, such as splitting out a different section (if there's another one that could be split out), or simply editing the text down so that the same information is conveyed more concisely. However, the appropriate place to discuss such solutions is the article's talk page, not AfD. — HaelethTalk 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure this out... let's say you have an article that is contains what you think is an extraneous section... it seems that one choice is to just edit the article and remove the section... but perhaps you're not sure that the section is extraneous... you want some more sets out eyes on it... wouldn't doing as nominator did -- removing section to a seperate article and putting it up for a 'vote' at AfD serve that purpose? Perhaps nominator was trying to more 'democratic' by using this method? That being said, if this is nominator's intent, then:
Nominator need to explain what he is doing! Nominator's post at the beginning of this section is the first explanation that nominator has offered, belatedly. Suggest nominator explain in original nomination to avoid much mutual misunderstanding!
Could nominator put Article#Section in AfD? And say "I'm going to delete this section, are people OK with that?" If this is proper, I'm pretty new so maybe that's not allowed.
This would be faster than using Article:Talk. But one problem is, AfD is awfully long to wade thru as it is. So maybe using Article:Talk would be better. Herostratus 07:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non-notable person, and a dicdef - CloudedIce 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Luke 3. Ice, please put more effort into your nominations: this is nothing more than a vote. A good nomination is an argument for why the article should be deleted; a bad nomination is a vote: "delete, non-notable". Good nominations are preferred. Help make AfD work better! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jesus genealogy page Sethie 06:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE'JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment relisted due to having only 3 votes at time of close. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I have a suggestion for why there's been so few votes. The whole thing is confusing! All I got out of it was that Addi was someone's son and someone's father. I think he is probably a part of that whole section where they talk about people begatting each other. But I don't understand it enough to know whether to keep it outright or merge it. Zordrac 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Luke 3, as suggested in earlier voting. Joyous | Talk 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the above. At least the resulting redirect will provide anyone searching for this person with context. Biblical people with only one mention, don't deserve their own article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Am I the only one to think that this really doesn't provide any information, whether put with another article or not? It's a Who's Who in the Bible entry, and any Bible one reads with any apparatus at all will identify the proper nouns. What on earth is someone doing looking for this little information in an encyclopedia? Geogre 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Self-confessed original research. -- RHaworth 15:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not the place to spread original thought - but by all means come back if your work gains recognition. — HaelethTalk 22:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. ManoaChild 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Haeleth. –MT 09:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, get a few more thousand webhits or recognition and come on back. Sethie 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been established that Wikipedia is not a web directory; this site does not meet proposed keep criteria Alexa score is poor - [1]Bob 19:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Websites is just a proposal. Alexa score is very high for being a Shia site, Shias being a minority group. Al Islam is one of the most prominent Shia sites, if not the most prominent. please see nominator contribution list [2] --Striver 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
note: "Other sites that link to this site: 336" --Striver 23:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What has my contribution list got to do with it? I saw a load of "articles" written by one person that were no more than an internet directory. --Bob 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see it strange that a editor does nothing more than talk and delet... --Striver 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i publicly apologise for accusing Bob of being a suckpupet, i misstok his contribution list [3] and i am also involved in a conflict with some other users. Sorry! --Striver 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article offers it's readers some good genuine information, and it seems to be noteable. -- Karl Meier 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and will never be notable. Zora 05:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two bob each way, one of whom is the article's creator. Extending due to low participation. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article's afflicted with a severe case of stubness, but I'm going to say that being the top site in Yahoo's list of Shia sites by popularity, coupled with the Alexa ranking (which, incidentally, I think should not be in the article) demonstrate the site is keepworthy. However, it needs expansion, and given that it's an Islam site, I'm going to go ahead and stick it on WP:CSBOT. The Literate Engineer 07:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Logophile 07:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon...--Striver 09:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Literate Engineer. Turnstep 17:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as A7 non-notable biography and A6 attack page. User John Reave who removed appropriate tages has been warned of possible block if he continues to disrupt Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 00:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, possible hoax. An earlier version was speedied but was recreated. Another speedy tag was added to the article only to be deleted by the page creator, so may as well go this route. 23skidoo 22:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will reinstante the Speedy tag momentarily. It falls under speedy deletion criteria, and thus should be speedied without the need to go the VFG route. Solver 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-g3 of the silly variety. PJM 23:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tag has since been removed as has AFD tag. Will be speedy deleted now. Capitalistroadster 23:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this version. This is a copyvio which claims permission. It looks non-notable to me, at least there is no claim to notability in the article. --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Judging from the past few days, it looks like people aren't interested in voting about the copyvios that claim permission. -- Kjkolb 23:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a load of crap. JBH 22:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for copyright violation. would love to see an actual article on this organization Sethie 07:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — PhilWelch 21:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Possible vanity. —Brim 07:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I think this could fall under the {{Db-bio}} template. clearly vanity, not notable. -- malo(talk)/(contribs) 10:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot verify the claims of this article via internet or news searches. Searches for the (fake) names involved also yields nothing. Reads like a hoax/vanity. --W.marsh 22:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it was true, it's still not notable in any way. - Bobet 00:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn college society, "secret" or otherwise. MCB 06:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
one week old article consists of one paragraph smear of subject fitness club. Possibly defamatory material needs to be removed or at least balanced with company's PoV. Otherwise delete the whole thing. FRS 21:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thanks to W.marsh for the improvements. FRS 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I was surprised we didn't at least have a stub on this company. Thanks for bringing it to AfD... it was in pretty bad shape. --W.marsh 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have rewritten and cited sources for the claims so hopefully the POV issues are solved. Could still use some expansion, particularly info about the company other than complaints. But I think it establishes notability and isn't just attacking the company like the earlier version. --W.marsh 22:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks for the rewrite, W.marsh! FreplySpang(talk) 22:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable company - 98 Google News result [4] currently including a Reuters report. Well done W. Marsh for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up more. Jtmichcock 23:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the Bally companies that were created over time. Quite a few articles link here so a cleaned up article is really needed. Vegaswikian 07:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 12:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an attempt to use WP to coin a neologism. 4 results for "Basnoo" on Google [5], only one in English is from another forum trying to popularize this word. Basnoo! There you have it. --W.marsh 04:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good gawd. Delete neologism. Bearcat 05:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"A small band of forum dwellers..." Yeah. Delete. - AdelaMae 06:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. DVD+ R/W 08:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball... article is about a web comic that might launch in December 2005. Doesn't provide a link to the comics site. Would seem to fail proposed guidelines in WP:WEB for webcomics by virtue of not existing yet. --W.marsh 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:NOT 1.8. DVD+ R/W 08:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good nomination, W.marsh! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Docask? 19:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline speedy I realize, but it asserts notability in that he A) is superhero and B) wrote some important paper. I can verify none of this... his name gets 0 results on Google [6]. --W.marsh 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and unverifiable. An article describing its subject as a superhero, but not describing the subject as a fictional character, would require much more documentation than this one, which doesn't have any. The supposedly important paper is not even named in this article. --Metropolitan90 02:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as silly vandalism under Category G3. Extraordinary claims such as being a superhero requires extraordinary proof and we have no proof at all. Nor can we expect to see any. No verifiable evidence of the paper.Capitalistroadster 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I don’t believe that claiming to be a superhero is a valid assertion of notability. ♠DanMS 04:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Flibbertygibbet. BD2412T 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – Mysekurity 20:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"You cannot deny their rockness" nor can you deny that they fail WP:Music. Apparently just one release, not on a notable label. Might be AMG but no data at all but their name (if that is even them). Band vanity. Article right now is a blatent advert. --W.marsh 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 08:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
nn, 100 google hits? Skrewler 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-notable, no verifiable information other than links to a couple personal blogs + advertisements. --Timecop 02:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unjustified vanity. -- Femmina 02:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-authored vanity/promo page. Could be userfied. Dottore So 08:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Depakote 05:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This is barely notable to begin with, and certainly doesn't deserve an article. --Timecop 03:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It stinks. -- Femmina 05:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with the trolls that this can be covered on the list of blogging terms article, or in Blog. - Randwicked 07:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Dottore So 08:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence is provided that demonstrates notability, of course. Pathetic Google, nothing in news. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above --Depakote 12:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if it's not a commonly used term, it shouldn't go in the list. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per nom, it can always be added back later if it gains notability. --Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 08:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 12:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable forum not in Alexa top 100,000 Oldelpaso 20:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Webforum vanity, article looks promotional and is perhaps a copyvio. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete
The article isn't for vanity, it's an amusing entry for an amusing message forum that has become reasonably famous with fans of lower league football. The forum goes from strength to strength, and the fact that it has posters from such diverse places as Fort Worth, Texas or Oslo, Norway shows that it has a worldwide appeal.
For Wikipedia to be the "Encyclopedia of the Internet", forums such as The Barrel should be included, as it has brought a lot of humour and friendship to the lives of many, many people. It may be a clique in some ways, but that's because its repuation hasn't been built up enough yet to the wider populace. Gone are the days of it being a football forum, indeed - now it is a scribbling board for the thoughts of its users.
Keep the page, let us keep it updated (and perhaps remove some profanity if you'd rather) and it'll become something you'll wonder why it was considered for deletion.
Thanks,
TMLS -
Dan Francis FOYNLS
Delete — non-encyclopedic advertising for a web forum. — RJH 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 12:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (I get one google hit though, so maybe it's catching on!) - Bobet 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JJay 04:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 12:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The gang from the show mentioned isnt very notable, nor are they widely known as the Candy Banits. Article mentions "The gang has never been referred to as the Candy Bandits on screen, but the name has become somewhat common among Degrassi fandom, and is believed to have been coined by the Degrassi fansite Boycott the Caf". User:Boycottthecaf, who made the article, is said website's moderator. User:Boycottthecaf also has a history of vandalism. --DrBat 14:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it. These minor characters are just one of Boycottthecaf's obsessions and don't deserve their own article. --Patrick T. Wynne 20:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally I think it's speedyable, though I doubt there's a speedy criterion that would agree with me. Bearcat 04:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT. These characters are an important part of the Degrassi: The Next Generation history and have been referred to by the name "Candy Bandits" on a wide variety of websites outside of Boycott the Caf. --TheExaltedOne 20:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the sockpuppet of 167.206.82.34, a.k.a "The Exalted One". Karmafist 18:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Only 37 google hits and most of them aren't about this concept. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute concept, but neologism. Bwithh 03:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid concept. Feng Shui literally means Wind-Water, which is a harmonious balance. Cat Shui on the other hand is but a coined term which isn't even well-known, not worthy of an entry here. 03:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unless someone is willing to merge and redirect. Deltabeignet 00:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please put a bit more effort into your nominations. This nom, as it stands, is indistinguishable from a vote ... and not a very good vote, at that. The ideal nomination should explain why an article merits deletion, in an effort to convince others to vote accordingly. It's not just "delete nn", and it's certainly not "delete nn or merge, I don't mind, I couldn't be bothered." fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No redirect is necessary because it is unlikely that someone will search for this exact title. Per WP:FICT any useful information should be included in Bratz. "Useful information" does not include speculation about the astrological sign of this fictional character, as currently included in the article under debate. --Metropolitan90 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is notable enough to be merged if we had a decent article as per Wikipedia:Fiction. A Google search shows 147,000 results [7] so she is well-known and at this stage of development a merge would be best. However, this article has little worth merging. A redirect wouldn't be much use as few people are going to search for this title. A redirect could be created at Cloe as a search shows that the Bratz article is the only one where that name is mentioned. Capitalistroadster 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Cloe" as a redirect would be more useful at Chloe, I think. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons that have been stated already. On a side-note, I HATE BRATZ! --Grande 16:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bratz, no merge. The content of this article is almost completely fancruft (trvia about the character's hair, personality, etc....why?). --FuriousFreddy 01:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete (or Redirect to Bratz). I'm a little unsure because I can see someone wanting this Info, and if was cleaned up why not? But it just doesn't fit my idea lf encyclopedic. There's a place for this, a fan 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 of the debate was speedy delete - copyvio, advertisement, or vandalism. -- RHaworth 15:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertisement and not even spelled right —Brim 08:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advert. Possible copyvio... might be worth looking into. Blackcap | talk 08:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Blackcap, seems like a copyvio, yet I can find no such page just yet. -- malo(talk)/(contribs) 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy delete. Copyvio, advertisement, or vandalism: there's not good angle on this material. -Willmcw 12:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand if this is an hoax or a very obscure and interesting subject: 7 google hits. As far as I can tell, only one seems valid (but does not tell much). Any ideas? Delete for now. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR - seems nonsensical to me. PJM 21:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. I can’t even figure out what this means. ♠DanMS 02:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, CSD:G1. That really is patent nonsense. MCB 06:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1)Non-verifiable claime to fame -- no Google hits 2) Chambermaid? Seems to be a joke. 3) Created by user 207.200.116.197 who seems to have many vandalism warnings (User talk:207.200.116.197 if it is same user (its an AOL proxy) 4) Even if person is valid, article is less than even a stub. --Herostratus 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Fixing AfD nomination). Delete as non-notable and unverifiable at best. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. DVD+ R/W 08:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 06:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Deleted as blatent copyright violation. brenneman(t)(c) 22:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisment for a hotel. Steg 14:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was an obvious copy-vio so I've tagged it with {{db-copyvio|url=www.crownpromenade.com.au}}. brenneman(t)(c) 15:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A television show that "will not appear on television anywhere." howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline A6 speedy about a television show that won't be shown on television. It is an attack page on because "The show follows Nick and shows the deviant that he really is, many comic moments and penis jokes will be enjoyed at the cost of Nick Georgiou." Not notable. Capitalistroadster 19:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. PJM 20:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete waste of our time.Gator(talk) 21:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KeepMarskell 09:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Daggerspell is a book whose sales rank on Amazon is 200000. Pilatus 17:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See Katharine Kerr and Deverry - the author is quite successful, and this was her first novel: if it hadn't been notable, she wouldn't still be writing today. Which of our guidelines mentions Amazon sales rank as a criterion for inclusion? I'm not actually sure if this should be kept or not, but if it's deleted, then the redlinks to Kerr's other novels in her article should be removed. — HaelethTalk 22:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is she so successful? I never heard about her (which doesn't mean much). On Amazon all her books have a sales rank less than 200000. For comparison: the Thomas Covenant chronicles range around 30000, and those are more groundbreaking. Pilatus 23:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what a book's Amazon.com sales rank have to do with anything. The Deverry books have been well recieved by critics, as well as by readers. Consider also that Daggerspell is still in print after almost two decades. Chris F. 01:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As fantasy authors go I think she is relatively successful. I've read several of her works and she's a solid, respected author in the field. But personally I don't think it would hurt to relocate this to "Deverry novels", and capture her entire series. — RJH 16:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Site in question hasn't been updated since February 2005, nn Skrewler 05:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. --Timecop 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 06:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn blog. Dottore So 08:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a vote. Simply saying "non notable" is a waste of everyone's time. Instead, do a small amount of research, then provide the links. Like this: Google shows nothing notable, although it did make a list Vanity Fair... a long list. Alexa is almost two million, and Google news comes up empty. Thus, until evidence of notability provided, I recomend Delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article, I checked the blog, I looked it up on google and my conclusion is nn. Better? Dottore So 10:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually! Even better to provide the links, as you've done on another AfD where I've given you Wikilove. ^_^ brenneman(t)(c) 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn -Incognito 12:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Depakote 23:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can "Daily Recycler became a frequently linked source for the Drudge Report during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election." be verified? If it was an important source in the Drudge Report, I think it deserves an article, despite being defunct now. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also replying to myself, drudge report looks to be some kind of automated link-gathering site, so the chances of recycler being listed on it by automatic feed/news gathering are probably high. --Timecop 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KeepMarskell 09:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity/Not notable Skrewler 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. --Timecop 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable google presence [8]. Dottore So 08:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Daily Source Code is one of the most popular podcasts in the world, made by "the father of podcasting", former MTV VJ Adam Curry. As I understand it, the show has hundreds of thousands of listeners (the files have to be served by four load-balanced high-bandwidth servers). Most podcasts are tiny and articles about them would amount to vanity, but this one does not. Haakon 08:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dottoreso and Haakon. DVD+ R/W 08:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable podcast. 400,000 results on Google for Daily Source Code see [9]. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Kudos to Dottore So and Capitalistroadster for providing links, scowls to Haakon for making claims without citing sources. But blogs always have lots of google hits, they're incestuous, so lets look a bit harder, ok? Alexa is average at 180K, there is nothing in the first five pages of the search I did to make a splash, with similarly uninspring results with Dottore So's slightly different search. So I'd be saying "delete" but Google news saves the day, showing it mentioned in a few places with some credibility. Whew! - brenneman(t)(c) 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for researching for me ;-) My only claim, though, was "as I understand it". Haakon 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bah! I'm such an easy mark. I won't be fooled into doing your dirty work for you again... today... on this afd... brenneman(t)(c) 11:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination appears to be part of a GNAA troll campaign. Note that this does not mean the article should be kept, but is merely something to bear in mind before casting a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What! But those jolly fellows have never led us astray before, why shouldn't we trust them now? brenneman(t)(c) 13:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of violating WP:BEANS, if the GNAA wants to troll WP by cleaning out vanity articles in an orderly way according to policy, they're free to do so. I haven't seen any disruption caused by these AFDs; consensus has been clear in almost every case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, may be the best-known podcast in existence with thousands of listeners. Note: I briefly served with Adam Curry, the creator of this podcast, on a technical advisory board. But I don't think that colors my opinion here. Rcade
Not to cast aspersions, but this isn't much more good than "NN D". How do we WP:V that it has thousands of listeners? We should all get into the habit of, whenever making any factual claim on AfD, cite our sources. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See the history of podcasting and you will see how heavily this podcast figures into that. That will at least prove how well-known it is, even if it doesn't have numbers regarding listeners. Jacqui★ 19:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google hits and the fact that Adam Curry is the father of podcasting. Jacqui★ 15:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. Balcer 00:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep but cleanup. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be copied and pasted from elsewhere, and it was already speedily deleted earlier for being a copyvio. Further, the subject of this biography does not appear to be notable (800 or so hits on Google). I'm on the fence right now, but leaning towards delete. (see below) --Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Dan Smoot was very prominent as a right-wing kook in the 1950s and '60s, and was a prominent bigwig with the John Birch Society. At least one of his books, The Invisible Government, was widely reviewed and discussed. The current article is terrible, may still have copyvio sections, and is not remotely in Wikipedia style, but the subject is definitely article-worthy. MCB 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree w/MCB. HGB 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A hoax, I believe. Joyous | Talk 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedied it. JFW | T@lk 01:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Sock puppets or no sock puppets, there is only one "keep" vote, so the "delete" side wins either way. — JIP | Talk 19:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no nomination for this, I'll create one. This is un-alexa-able, has no presence on Google news, vanilla google has nothing grand in the first few pages, the links from the page are unverifiable without login, barring the single entry which only refers to "a blogger". Unless some details are forthcoming that can satisfy WP:V, I'd recomend that this article be deleted as unencyclopdic. - brenneman(t)(c) 15:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who? Not notible in my books. supers 05:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than 50 edits, the first of which was to AfD. Alphaxτεχ 15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one verifiable link from original article, and first few 100 google hits are blog directories. --Timecop 05:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn blog. Dottore So 08:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of this user's contribs are to AfD. Alphaxτεχ 15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take serious umbrage at this misguided attempt to disparage my vote. Dottore So 15:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, see the note I left on your talk page. Alphaxτεχ 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity in its purest form. -Incognito 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmm. This subpage doesn't have a nomination. Why is that? There is, in fact, not one single valid reason for deletion listed on this subpage (oh, except "nn". Sorry.). The article was listed by a known Internet troll as part of a GNAA campaign. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see User:Aaron Brenneman had to provide a decent nomination, because the trolls couldn't be bothered. C'mon, guys, put your backs into it! Do you want to disrupt Wikipedia or not?
Delete per the new, Brenneman, nomination. The Land 15:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brenneman's nomination. Generally unverifiable. Saberwyn 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure what the "notability" criteria are, but folks should be aware of some points. The print media references in the article are in fact legit. If that is enough to make this entry notable, then it is in fact notable. The links are unfortunately "verifiable" only to those registered with the publications in question. The NY Sun and Editor & Publisher refer to the blog by name, but the WSJ refers to it only via a link. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the 6/28/05 NY Sun:
"While Mr. Lemann intended Mr. Navasky to oversee CJR, his exact role at the magazine wasn't agreed upon until this week, after a New York-based blogger, who goes by the name David M, wrote on Tuesday of the CJR's high profile hire. Shortly after that blog entry, Mr. Lemann and Mr. Navasky settled on the title of "chairman," and said Mr. Navasky's name would be on the masthead in the next issue of CJR...."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. — JIP | Talk 19:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a combined AfD for three low-traffic websites.
Dawn's Place is a porno website with an Alexa ranking of about 115000, Figanomics and Union Jakks are webforums devoted to wrestling that are ranked so low that they don't even have an Alexa rating. Pilatus 13:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly ought to go and are have been combined to reduce load on AfD. Pilatus 16:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pilatus.Eusebeus 23:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on Dawn's Place and no vote on the other two websites. How exactly is it going to reduce load on AfD to have exactly the same amount of discussion, merely clustered into fewer but larger and less coherent AfD entries? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nomination, but I agree with Antaeus Feldspar that this is not a good use of a multi-AfD, which should be reserved for cases where the subject articles are related (a good example is a band-vanity article and individual articles on its members, or a non-notable business and its principals). The implication is that all of them stand or fall on a common issue; here, there are three different issues. MCB 01:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom - Tεxτurε 19:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Websites should have major cultural or economic significance to warrant an article. McPhail 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is really great. Over skepticism is warranted at this point. I posted the entry in question. Delete away.
Also I now realize I would need to cite sources. Clearly, I haven't thought about encyclopedias as much as many here have. I apologize for waisting your time. Once again, great project!
Delete as advert and author's apparent capitulation. MCB 01:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge to Camp LazloJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the What links here link, it's apparently an episode of some show called Camp Lazlo. I added a brief introductory paragraph to establish that context. Needs some major cleaning up though. —Brim 06:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put relevant information into Camp Lazlo; individual episodes of this are not notable enough to warrant individual entries. Dottore So 08:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dottore So. A TV show needs to be very notable indeed for individual episodes to deserve individual entries. Such shows exist, but Camp Lazlo is not among their number. — HaelethTalk 17:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dottore So. --Metropolitan90 05:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. MCB 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, but I don't think this needs to be redirected. --—Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 09:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN-bio. The man was the global spokesperson for McDonald's, but otherwise he fails WP:BIO. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity bio FRS 04:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above Pete.Hurd 22:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems hoax-ish. Article is self-contradictory (died in 1989 or 1990?) and Google finds no such info about "Emma Jane Hunt". The term "bear biling" also only gets 4 hits. Finally, Capital punishment in the People's Republic of China does not list hanging as a method of execution. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- probably a hoax. Reyk 10:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – certainly a hoax. The intended victim blanked the page as soon as she discovered it. Also, Google says so. Well-researched nomination, Howard – good job. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete, Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Band vanity. No releases on labels, no AMG entry, no notability outside of Denver, Colorado, USA. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: because the CAPS LOCK and lack of links and formatting REALLY give it away. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even though their 'box set' is pretty spiffy. Not. PJM 21:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a mediocre, non-notable hoax. Voting to delete. :) RJH 22:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. PJM 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- SGBailey 00:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, fantasy, fiction, or whatever. ♠DanMS 02:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 06:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A web forum that "has not yet had it's [sic] official opening." howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. - Bobet 22:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a single google ref., and a previous edit by the original editor [10] makes me think it is a hoax... (Sorry forgot to sign earlier, I am Herostratus)
Delete not on google. Banana04131 03:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant hoax ("real-life zombie hunters", oh, please). Hmm, the nominator doesn't seem to have signed her nom? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete waste of our time.Gator(talk) 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sent to Speed I've put the notice on the article. Banana04131 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy redirect. This is a clear plural redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article meaningful?? I suggest it should be deleted if there is no article this is a good re-direct to. Georgia guy 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the article is far too specific, appearing to apply to one particular school district. Redirect to Primary education. Joyous | Talk 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this artical is good because it tells what the grades our.
Yes, but that might not apply to a school district in another country, let alone a nearby city in your state. Nice effort, though. Redirect per Joyous. May I suggest you read WP:NOT to get a better idea of what not to do here? You may wish to create an account later. Young users are quite welcome. We've had some terrific editors here who were only about 12 when they started. - Lucky 6.9 01:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to Grade, which is a disambiguation page. What about grades meaning A-B-C-D-F? What about road grades on the highway? BD2412T 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirectper Joyous.Srl 01:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC) to Grade as per BD2412. Srl 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MOOT. Speedy deleted per WP:CSD General Principle #1. --MarkSweep(call me collect) 10:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax, but I don't know if it can be speedied. There's another person called Gregory Caridi that google finds, but he's an actor. Bobet 11:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. If you look at his website, you can see just what kind of 'author' he is. - CloudedIce 13:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious??? wtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalepie (talk • contribs) , who is the only non-IP address who's worked on the article.
If you feel my explanation is too terse, googling his name gives 96 results, all of which are on the actor. There is no Hugo award for speculative fiction and if there was, his name would be listed on their site [11]. - Bobet 13:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, so it wasn't speculative fiction. It was, it was... science fiction! Yeah, that's the ticket. Science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalepie (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 November 2005
Of course it was a hoax. Stalepie 07:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
or, rather, a joke. :P Stalepie 07:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The creator calls it small, so nn company spam not meeting WP:CORPIan13 19:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable forum, not in Alexa top 100,000. [12]Jasmol 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Obvious delete. I only bothered voting because someone has to. Reyk 23:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than 1500 registered users, only two of them active in the past 15 minutes. Only three active topics in the most active forum: "general chat". Looks pretty dead to me. --Carnildo 23:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is "how active a website" is the only criteria for deletion? Is traffic the deciding factor?
In the town of Prince Rupert, BC, this is _the_ local website. It is significant to this town. I vote keep it, if "significance" is important. If you realize it's a town of 10k people, then 1500 registered users is a lot.
Then put an external link in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Forums and website only deserve their own article when they have an audience of a significant size. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I'd also suggest the article author do as Mgm suggested. --—Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 09:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. -Splashtalk 17:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Hage Wars Saga is a series of short films that clock up 18 unique Google hits. Most of these are for a subtitle site that offers no subtitles for that particular movie. The IMDB entry is empty.
The article relates that the series "has established itself as a pretty non-successful project." Pilatus 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic pretty non-successful projects. —Cleared as filed. 22:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question of notability. She's a hospital administrator and married some prominent people but doesn't seem to be that noteworthy herself, at least not in the encyclopedic sense. Very few Google hits. Also, look at the user name of who created this page. Possible family vanity. —Brim 07:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Spondoolicks 10:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Harriet Mazel was a prominent hospital executive and ran Edgewater Hospital in Chicago. She was active politically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.134.160 (talk • contribs)
Merge with Paul Szanto. It would be a pity to lose the information about Ms Mazel, but (on the information provided), she probably doesn't warrant her own article. Good nomination, by the way, Brim: you explained why you believed the article should be deleted, and refrained from voting or hurling smartarsed insults. Well done. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more women listed in this Encyclopedia. Wikipedia could distinguish itself in the long run by including info and articles not included in a more conventional encyclopedia.
Are we trying to recreate the Encyclopedia Britannica? I don't think we can do that, but we can make this even better.
I think if we follow the ideas of Brim, we will have very few women included. I'm a little bit tired of having the vast majority of biographies in encyclopedias only about men.
I also think that Wikipedia could distinguish itself by including articles on subject not included in conventional encyclpedias. That's what I hope to see. People will have the incentive to go to Wikipedia if it has interesting articles not already covered in Britannica. I don't want people just going to Wikipedia just because it is free. Is that the real goal of the open source community?
The Chicago Tribune had a very large eulogy about Harriet Mazel. I don't really see why this is something that should be deleted.
We need more articles about women in encyclopedia articles. Fuddlemark, very good idea about merging, but I do think there is a good case for keeping the article. Finally, I think that this article will eventually be expanded to include more details about her life.
Google should not be a test of whether something should be included in this encyclopedia. We certainly don't want to include information about only things that are popular and well known.
I think that when somebody is doing a report on women in hospital administration, it would be nice to have an example of a woman ceo from 1982.
I also think making a reference to family name of poster is not the best argument. We should rely on the strength of the information available and not make conclusions based on somebody's family name.
I am impressed by your enthusiasm and well-thought-out defense in support of keeping the article. Perhaps other Wikipedians will see your side and vote in support of keeping the article. To convince others to vote with you, I think you'll need to convince them of the notability of this person. Notability is obviously very subjective, as it depends on the readers experiences and personal biases. However, Wikipedia has made attempts at establishing rough guidelines to notability, in particular notability for people in biographies. You should read Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies.
There are a lot of people in this world. People living and people living long ago. Obviously everyone has done something notable to some degree. But not many people have done something notable enough to be included in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I think my mom is pretty notable. I could write several screenfulls about my mom, and she and I would think it's really neat, but would the general readership want that? No, of course not. The rest of the world doesn't care about my mom, because to them, she is no one special. That's a bit of a silly example, but I hope you get my point. What if every person of even the slightest notability were included in Wikipedia? It would be ridiculous. There are a lot of people who are notable in the community, a lot of very industrious people, a lot of business owners, policemen, but we don't have articles about all of them. As such, we don't have articles about all hospital administrators, because, there are just too many of them, and outside of doing their job of administrating, they haven't done much more notable stuff. Would anyone want to read an article about my hospital's administrator? No, probably not.
Not everyone agrees on what we should include. We have guidelines, but not everyone agrees with those. That's why we have voting, and a somewhat democratic system here. You may want to make your voice heard over on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies. Once again, I'm sincerely glad to hear you stick up for your cause. Good luck. —Brim 01:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 23:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Harriet Mazel was the first woman head of a hospital in Chicago. This even by itself makes her noteworthy enough for this encyclopedia. Unless it is the goal of those concerned to limit this encyclopedia largely to men, I cannot imagine good cause to delete this article.
Wikipedia is not an affirmative action program. Other than fulfilling some desired quota of vague parameters, I don't see any argument that this person is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Jtmichcock 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable enough. Many other people who have been given substantial obituaries in leading newspapers are also not notable enough for Wikipedia, regardless of their gender. Bwithh 04:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable enough simply for the matter of being the first woman director of a hospital in Chicago and one of the first in the nation. I really think this type of attitude is going to result in 90% of the biographies in this encyclopedia being men, and that's rediculous.
You're the only one who sees her as a woman. Nobody else has mentioned her gender in their reasons above. Man or woman, this person simply is not notable enough for inclusion in this type of encyclopedia. There are plenty of actual noteworthy women you could write articles about. Why don't you go look at a list of requested biography articles and choose one of them to write about? Just glancing at the list, I noticed there are several women on it. —Brim 08:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-
There are plenty of women who are more notable and have achieved more than the subject of this article. Why not choose one of those other women to write an article about? Or you might consider writing an article about the Hodgini Circus Family, of which Harriet was a member - a brief bio of her could be part of this page. Incidentally, if you're taking a feminist position on this, Harriet becoming a director by stepping in for her husband when he passes away (in 1986! is she really one of the first hospital female directors in the nation?) is not really the ideal feminist lesson (perhaps, if it were 1886) - and even less so is her being married to several famous husbands. Her circus career might be highlighted instead.
I would like to weigh in on this discussion as well. I think Harriet Mazel Szanto has led an extremely interesting life. Going from a circus performer, to wife of a lt. governor, to finally head of a hospital. And do you think she achieved this only by being married to Dr. Mazel? Would you argue the same about this with Hillary Clinton in the Senate in 2002? Also, it appears here that all of the posters are men.... Would this have some influence on the process? It's unfortunate that it seems like there are so few women involved with Wikipedia. Cokie Roberts just published a book called the "Founding Mothers" in it she analyzing the lives of the women married to the men who founded this country. Their influence and ideas did have a tremendous impact on the formation of country. Even as late as the 1980s, the only way women could often get important roles were through their husbands. It's still rather rare for a hospital administrator to be a woman. I firmly believe Harriet Mazel Szanto led an interesting, noteworthy, and achieved enough to be included in this encyclopedia. This is what an open source community is all about. Hannah Podlevsky, 19 November 2005
Additionally, I think that Harriet Mazel was an important part of Chicagoland history-HP
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "this is what an open source community is all about". This is a selective encyclopedia with submission guidelines enforced through voting processes (like the voting happening here - you need to state your vote and sign your comment with your User name and time), community editing, and administrators. Also note that comments from new users with nothing in their user history except their entries in the discussion in question might be ignored by the administrator under the prevailing guidelines. Harriet Mazel is not comparable to Hillary Clinton. I'd still like to see her as part of a Hodgini circus family page though. The Hodginis sound like fun.
Neutral & Comment: The rational for keeping this article is an example of what I call "cumulative notability": none of the subject's individual experiences or accomplishments, in my opinion, really meet WP:BIO, but when added together (circus performer + prominent hospital administrator + married to weakly notable person), might recognize that the person has achieved a particular degree of public recognition and notability. There are a lot of articles like this, most of which are (rightly) deleted; hard to say about this one. MCB 01:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but most likely delete Maoririder 19:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Currently under arbitration.[reply]
A slightly odd nomination, but in hopes of helping Maoririder understand why many of his articles are deleted: This is a single restaurant lacking notability (a food review in the local newspaper does not confer sufficient media attention, though finding it was nice). The article remaining a substub doesn't help matters. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Bob 18:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep "excessive lists can dwarf articles"? What article? This is a article about internet sites, how is it going to get dwarfed by doing what it claims, listing them? please see nominators contribution list: [13] --Striver 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
commentWP:NOT does not forbid this article, it does not contain a single external link, so in no way is it a link farm. It list prominent and notable sites. --Striver 22:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete because the criteria for inclusion are not clear (what makes a site prominent and notable?) and the Alexa rankings are likely to become unmaintainable. If these criticisms are addressed before the end of the AfD, please disregard this vote. Also, if keeping, either move to List of Islamic Internet sites or expand the article to contain discussion as well as a list. — HaelethTalk 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about having more than x "Other sites that link to this site" or some other circumstance? I do suport a rename to List of Islamic Internet sites. A discusion and description can be in the article of the relevant site.--Striver 00:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a web directory. --Carnildo 00:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't believe there are more than 5 or so really notable sites about Islam online... so, they don't really deserve a page... and I think this page is helping to make it seem like it's okay to create articles on lots of non-notable sites. For any type of keep we'd have to have a well clarified policy of what was acceptable. grenグレン 03:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The only notable character mentioned here is Beppe Grillo, who already has his own page on wikipedia. Femmina 04:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable original research. --Timecop 04:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously Afd'd with no consensus, but I believe it should have been left open longer, there was hardly any participation. I see nothing here but unsourced original research and links to a few blogs. I suggest a delete or maybe a redirect to Beppe Grillo. Friday(talk) 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Blogging is a rapidly growing medium. There is no reason why we can't have a summary of blogging in Italy like there is no reason why we shouldn't an article on Television in Italy or Newspapers in Italy. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, should be renamed as Blogging in Italy. Capitalistroadster 05:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is verifiability. If proper sources can be found for this, by all means put them in the article. Otherwise, it's just original research. Friday(talk) 05:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The additional reason is that blogging is in no way akin to a newspaper or television. How is blogging in Italy any different from blogging in Slovakia? Arbitrary, unencyclopedic, unverifiable. DeleteDottore So 08:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Italian blogs are in Italian, and Slovakian blogs are in...whatever people speak in Slovakia? (Delete this, as OR and unverifiable.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's any redeeming information on this article (I don't see any) then merge with blog if it's not already there. Skrewler 08:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unecyclopedic. If there is later enough material here to warrent it's own article, re-create it. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like all articles on blogging in a particular country that do not give any reasons why that country's blogs differ from the ones described at blog. If the problem is that blog is too America-centric, then it should be fixed by replacing some of the American examples with examples that show a decent international spread, not by adding extra articles that say the same thing about other countries. — HaelethTalk 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Depakote 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 13:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At least this isn't a poorly written or overly boastful article. --anetode╔╝ 07:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pieces of this might be salvageable into articles, but as a whole it does not belong in Wikipedia, but perhaps in Wikibooks. Delete given the Transwiki already happened. - Andre Engels 13:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be a pretty helpful page, but unfortunatly not a Wikipedia article. TranswikiMylakovich 13:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now it's been transwiki'd. Note that I can't see any encyclopedic content here which isn't already covered in our wide range of generally pretty good articles on the Japanese language, so there's no point keeping any of it here for that purpose. — HaelethTalk 18:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete post-transwiki article per Haeleth. Saberwyn 23:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a nice guide to the Japanese language for new learners and appears perfect for Wikibooks. Fg2 01:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already a Wikibook about learning Japanese. While the article is said to have been transwikied to Wikibooks, a little more thorough integration of it into Wikibooks would have made it look a little less like this was just a case of "dump into Wikibooks and delete". --DannyWilde 00:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a whole lot about WB, but I imagined that they would have room for various books with different approaches. One might be an introduction to students who have already undertaken academic study of a different foreign language; another, a phrasebook for people planning travel or a homestay; a third, an overview of business Japanese etc. Also, I figured that on WB, it's up to the author to either integrate the material into an existing WB project, or keep it independent and distinguish it in some way from other books. "Dump and delete" is one point of view; another is "identify the right Wikimedia project for it and move it there." Fg2 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KeepMarskell 09:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personal and stupid wiki entry. Deletion for obvious reasons.--QuarterlyProphet 14:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please exmine the history of an article prior to nominating it. I've reverted this to a really measly stub that doesn't meet WP:V but can probably be expanded into an average article. Also, please don't write "obvious reasons", actually write the reasons. I know it's tedious, but it doesn't take that much extra time to say "per WP:BIO this is not encyclopedic" or something like that. brenneman(t)(c) 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Verifiable see New York Times Movies entry for example [14]. Capitalistroadster 16:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reverted, and warn/block anon vandal. MCB 01:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 13:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been established that Wikipedia is not a web directory; this site does not meet proposed keep criteria. Alex score is very poorBob 19:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Websites is just a proposal. Alexa shows better score for Jihadunspun.com. Smit 19:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please look at the nominators contribution list: [15]. Further, the site is notable since it has atracted the suspecion of many people, not talking about it being included in Google news. If a Jihad site in Google news is not relevant, then what is? To nominator: Dont think im stupid, i know what you two are up to. --Striver 22:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What has my contribution list got to do with anything? There is only one of me, not two. Jihadunspun.net matches nothing in Google news. --Bob 23:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That claim comes from here [16] I would guess the site being down for a week or so being the cause of not being included among the Google news. --Striver 00:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, try .com. Smit 01:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm... strange, i cant find anything either... is this a hoax? --Striver 02:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google News proudly features this “news” article from jihadunspun.com, a known pro-terrorist propaganda site... No, instead we start with the fact that Google News was the focus of an article by honestreporting.com on this same pro-terror site back in January. Six months afterward, Google still features the pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic web site as a valued news contributor...There are many sites of questionable veracity to draw news articles from, but in light of the well-documented pro-terrorist background of Jihad Unspun, one might start to question the motives of those at Google News that still consider Jihad Unspun a valid news source. [17] --Striver 02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Striver creates a great many new articles -- my count was ten a day, on average. Lately, he has been achieving this figure by creating a new article for every book or website that he references. There are a great many more articles like this one, all of them just as useless (IMHO). Zora 07:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
coment so a internet Jihad site, that is higly controversial du to CIA allegaitions and Google news cooperation, not to mention its unsusual layout, is non-notable? --Striver 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (should have been deleted as non-notable bio but for the original author's vandalistic actions). --Nlu 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When newly created, was a CV/vanity page. I speedied it but the speedy was removed by the original author, so I am AfDing it. The article reads a bit better now though -- SGBailey 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, I don't know enough about this to vote meaningfully. However the fact that the author removed the speedy without due process weighs slightly in favour of delete IMO. -- SGBailey 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's his website award [18]. FRS 03:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but note that the page author has only edited this page and one other and has a use name starting jmax wghich seems close to john maxwell, and the original text for this page has now parked itself on his user page - so I conclude it is a self-edit. The award appears genuine - is it notable? -- SGBailey 09:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE'JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment relisted due to having no votes at time of close. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is apparently either a hoax take on Newtonmas or else a private celebration so obscure there isn't one google hit for "Keplaris".--Pharos 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to actually exist. Reyk 23:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--24.110.6.198 01:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Holiday is not a hoax, nor is it a small private celebration. Holiday is widely celebrated in agnostic/intellectual/scientific communities.[reply]
--
It should also be removed as a subsection under main Kepler article. I've never come across this holiday, nor know of anyone who has, so unless there is further evidence I think it should go.
Delete. I mean, really. "Internationally celebrated"? Someone forgot to tell the astronomers... Shimgray | talk | 01:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed references from other articles, on the ground that there's no need to propagate a hoax any further than necessary - and I'd be amazed if any evidence this wasn't a hoax turned up. Shimgray | talk | 01:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty obvious hoax, no references or sources. MCB 06:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 13:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an album to be released next year. WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is a slur rather than an argument. You have presented no evidence that the information in the article is incorrect. CalJW 02:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete per above. Dottore So 08:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim of its existence. Edwardian 06:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC),[reply]
Abstain for the time-being. I can't find any authoritative references or quotes but fuddle me!'s search shows that it is at least very strongly rumored to be Ice Cube's next album. Edwardian 00:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google turns up a healthy cross-section of people (including a columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal) who not only believe that this will be Ice Cube's new album, but that the man is e'en now heavily promoting the album and has released singles. However, there's no mention of it on his official website. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks bona fide. JBH 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Since this was an admittedly bad-faith nom, I'd like to see much better than a numerical tie to delete. This is a good example of why one can't effectively retract an AfD nomination: other editors, acting in good-faith, have expressed their desires for the article and should still be listened to. I read the talk page too, by the way. -Splashtalk 21:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No real evidence on many of these. Many of them are not noteworthy for their agnosticism. And so forth.--T. Anthony 19:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Creator of this AfD, me, has since admitted bad faith in making it. He also thinks this debate is getting overly long/endless.--T. Anthony 09:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more useful than a category. And Inaccurate on the face of it, since agnosticism was originated by Thomas H. Huxley—as noted in the list itself—and the first recorded use of the word was in 1870, so saying someone born before Huxley was "an agnostic" is as wildly speculative as calling someone born before Christ "a Christian." There is no obvious connection between the religious beliefs of many of these people and the things for which they are noted. As with some other lists of this kind, it is poorly defined and badly sourced. For example, it includes "Tenzin Gyatso, (1935-), the 14th and current Dalai Lama," but our article on Tenzin Gyatso does not say he is an agnostic and our article on Dalai Lama says (as you'd expect) that "The current Dalai Lama (the 14th) is a respected Tibetan Buddhist religious leader." So, this is really a "List of people who some Wikipedians thinks are agnostics, or would be if they had lived after 1870, and regardless of what they themselves declare their religious affiliation to be." Dpbsmith(talk) 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're consistent, I like that. My initial intention was slightly insincere. And I realize it pretty much was insincere now. I apologize to everyone.(edited by--T. Anthony 05:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And by the time you trim it down people who were important as agnostics, assuming you include only people who self-identify as agnostics as adults, you've got a mighty short list, self-identified agnostics being quite a bit scarcer than self-identified Catholics. Dpbsmith(talk) 00:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh possibly "Category Agnostics" is rather underpopulated. I picked this one mostly because it's about the oldest "List of people" at Wiki.--T. Anthony 00:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agnostics are scarcer than hen's teeth—rarer than atheists, I think. I just checked out the category, and really, it's about what expected, except for the obvious omission of Thomas Henry Huxley... and I thinkHerbert Spencer qualifies as well but I'm not sure. Dpbsmith(talk) 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasons given here justify improving the article, not deleting it. List of agnostics is one among dozens of lists at List of people by belief, all of which serve as useful supplements to their respective "ism" articles, since they help put beliefs in a cultural context by linking them with widely recognized people. I see no reason to suppose that List of agnostics cannot be made just as useful as these other lists. Since agnosticism is a general epistemological position with regard to a belief held widely throughout history (theism), it is perfectly legitimate to apply such a label to persons who lived before the word was coined. The position existed long before the word was coined. Agnostics who lived before Huxley coined the word may be listed, as may people who have not used the word explicitly to label themselves, provided it can be substantiated that their position is consistent with the position described in Agnosticism. Buddhism is consistent with agnosticism, since Buddhism is not a theistic religion. The Dalai Lama might not be an agnostic, but his Buddhist faith does not preclude that possibility. There are people on this list whose agnosticism ought to be verified. There also might be people who ought to be removed from the list. But the article itself ought to remain. Rohirok 05:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you've said explains why a list of agnostics shouldn't go in the article on agnosticism. Why split it off from its context?
The list can't be "improved," it can only be rebuilt from scratch, because nothing in it says what the criteria for inclusion are or what the justification for including each name is. There's so much garbage in there that every name needs to be checked individually. The only way to fix it would be to remove all of them and add names one by one, with proper citations of other articles or sources. There are less than fifty names now, and in all likelihood there would be far less than fifty after you eliminate the Buddhas and the Protagorases and the people whose agnosticism is a footnote completely unrelated to their notability. It's not as if the list were too long to include in agnosticism or as if agnosticism were to long to include them. By my reckoning, agnosticism is less than 16K.
Lists such as these tend to accumulate borderline articles because they can be perceived as trivia challenges. "Can I think of someone to add to the list?" Worse, they become unintentional POV forks. Main articles are watched closely by people familiar with the subject matter. I don't think you could get someone into the article on agnosticism without its receiving some degree of review. But lists are treated far more casually. Someone who has agnosticism on their watchlist wouldn't even necessarily know that the list has been created. And, people treat lists as a sort of challenge: "Can I contribute to this list? Can I think of someone who could possibly go on this list who isn't there now?" So, they tend to accumulate borderline items, rumors, vague memories of vague claims, and so forth.
As for agnostics before Huxley, would you accept a list of Christians who lived before Christ or Muslims who lived before Mohammed? Suppose someone were to argue that Christianity and Islam do not exclude each other, for which a good case can be made—I believe Muslims make precisely this claim. If someone made a good case that some Christian prior to Mohammed had Muslim-like beliefs, would you accept that person on a list of Christians?
Conversely, you say "Buddhism is consistent with agnosticism." Well, Christianity is consistent with Judaism. Would you accept Christians on a list of Jews? Episcopalians on a list of Catholics? Unitarians in a list of deists?
But it doesn't matter what you or I think. We are not authorities—well, I am not, anyway—and Wikipedia is not founded on the authority of its contributors. This list itself as a "list of agnostics," not a list of people who Rohirok thinks are agnostics or list of people whose beliefs are not inconsistent with agnosticism. Can you find any verifiable evidence that the Dalai Lama calls himself an agnostic? What business have people got putting the Dalai Lama on a list like this without providing such a reference? Dpbsmith(talk) 13:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporating the verified agnostics (those who self-identify as such, or those who express a documentable view on the knowability of God that can correctly be called "agnostic") into the main article might be a good idea. I still believe that a list of agnostics is not inherently inappropriate for Wikipedia, and that such a list can be made every bit as edifying as the many others also in the List of people by belief. I believe there is a double standard in viewing those other lists as acceptable, while rejecting the List of agnostics whole-sale.
The list can be improved, by making the criteria for inclusion specific, and insisting on documentation for each entry. I agree that the criteria shouldn't be "whoever a particular person thinks is an agnostic." It should be whether this person is/was in fact, and verifiably, an agnostic (and this does include people who don't necessarily use the word to identify themselves, since the concept of divine unknowability existed before the word was invented to fit the concept. For example, certainly Huxley was an agnostic before he came up with the word). A list in the main article might be ok, as long as it doesn't get too long. A category has the drawback of not allowing for clear and easy citation to justify a person's inclusion in the category. List of atheists is a good example of how List of agnostics could be improved by making inclusion criteria specific. The temptation to add unverified trivia will be diminished when such criteria are explicated up front.
The case of revealed religions is not at all comparable to that of agnosticism with respect to adherence before coinage. Belief in revealed religion is dependent on the revelations of a prophet or prophets, and it is indeed untenable to claim that such a religion had adherents before it was "revealed." However, agnosticism is not a revealed religion dependent on the teachings of any prophet. As I said before, it is a general epistemological principle with respect to God, and does not depend on any revelator for its existence. Did Huxley "reveal" agnosticism to the world? Of course not. He merely invented a word for an already existing concept.
Concerning Buddhism/agnosticism compatibility: I never suggested that anyone who has a belief that is not incompatible with agnosticism ought to be listed here, but only that identification by another label is not necessarily grounds for exclusion. Some belief systems are compatible or overlap with others, while others are exclusive. Many Unitarians were Deists, and many Deists were Unitarians, so it's not unreasonable to have some people on both lists. In fact, Thomas Jefferson is one such person. (Note the call on the List of Deists to "redefine the list, complete it, prune it, or discuss its parameters on the talk page." This would be an appropriate notice for the List of agnostics, and better than outright deletion. Again, there is a double standard at work here.) I take issue with some of your claims about the supposed compatibility of other belief systems, but will skip over those objections and cut to the salient point: Making distinctions between belief systems can be complicated, but it is possible to do it with reasonable care and verification, and the existence of these lists of people by belief can help clarify the overlaps and distinctions.
I grant that List of agnostics needs more specific criteria, it needs pruning, and it needs verification. Deletion is too extreme a solution. Rohirok 06:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad - and impossible to verify as a whole. --Docask? 09:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list need not be verified as a whole, but its particular members need to be verified. I'll admit that most of the members are not verified. This does not mean that they are unverifiable. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently unmanageable, subjective criteria almost always will have to be deployed. Jtmichcock 13:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Change vote to Keep and Rename to List of notable agnostics. Jtmichcock 14:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not inherently unmanageable, for reasons mentioned above (criteria can be tightened and made explicit, verification can be made a must for inclusion). No subjectivity is necessary for inclusion of self-identified agnostics, and very little is necessary to reasonably include those who express agnostic views without explicitly labeling them "agnostic." Wikipedia would be mostly empty and useless if all partly subjective evaluations were eliminated. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, better served by a cat, hopelessly broad...take your pick. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the list are unverified, not unverifiable. Criteria is not hopelessly broad, since a generally accepted definition of agnosticism does exist, and all that is needed is to more rigorously apply this definition to the list. A category might be appropriate, but why should a list of agnostics be unacceptable, whereas the other lists of people by belief are acceptable. This seems to be a very arbitrary and hasty call for deletion of this particular list. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. This is only one of three bad faith delete votes I've ever done. Every time I do it I feel fairly guilty. Well except the one most widely seen as bad faith, List of virgins. That was only not totally bad faith, I really do think that list is silly. However if "list delete mania" hadn't caught on I admit I wouldn't have bothered. My first "bad faith delete" vote was "Nationmaster" because I got so irritated with the snarkiness of the editing process there I thought it might shake "things up." I was newer them. This one was because I got mad about religion related lists being hated so I wondered if irreligion lists would get the same treatment. I guess they do, although in a sense this is another belief related list. Can someone explain why things concerning Category:Lists of people by belief hacks many of you off so bad? Anyway I did start believing what I was saying so thought maybe I wasn't in bad faith. That came after about 30 hours of no sleep. After a good sleep I realize now I have made a terrible error as it seems this really will get deleted. That's not what I want. I would like it to be cleaned up and essentially "tightened up", meaning limited to people who strongly identify as Agnostic, but I regret the idea of deleting it. I'm wondering if I can withdraw my nomination. If not I change my vote anyway to Weak keep. Weak because I admit there are still problems with the idea.--T. Anthony 05:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the semi-retraction. I will do my best to improve the list, and hope that it will not be deleted. First step: pruning the unverified. Rohirok 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and deleted all of those listed whose own biography pages on Wikipedia did not verify their agnostic status. Note that Protagoras remains, though he predates Huxley's coinage of the word agnostic. This is because he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." That's agnosticism, folks. Those I've deleted might be added in again later, but only if whoever adds them can verify their agnostic status with a citation. I'm watching the page, and will be vigilant in enforcing this standard. I believe these changes adequately address the important concerns of those who have thus far supported deletion, and invite them to change their votes. Rohirok 07:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's going in the right direction then. I change my vote to just Keep and apologize again for making it.--T. Anthony 12:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go one step (admittedly medium-large step) further and I'll support.
A current problem with the page is that although it says "Those whose agnosticism cannot be verified are not listed here," that passive-voice leaves unanwered the question "verified on whose authority."
If each name were to be accompanied by a supporting quotation and a source for that quotation, preferable a quotation from the person listed, then there'd be no problem because the reader could then judge for himself whether or not the person used the word agnostic, and, if they did not, whether they were agnostics in the opinion of the reader.
That solves the verifiability/authority problem and it makes an interesting page that seems to have some reason to exist beyond categories or the individual articles. For example:
Protagoras, (d.420 BCE), Greek Sophist and first major Humanist: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." [But a source is needed] [Funny, it's quoted a skazillion times but a source didn't pop up instantly for me...]
Charles Darwin, (1809-1882), founder of the theory of evolution; member of the Anglican church and attended Unitarian services. Wrote: "my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Ch. VIII, p. 274. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905
Keep. Lists can provide something categories never can: specific information on each entry in the list, vitally important to something as vague as "agnosticism", with its numerous definitions and gradations. If anything, a category would be much worse than a list because it wouldn't be able to explain the nuances or situations surrounding each individual's specific agnostic beliefs, or provide sources or citations to justify the claim that the people listed are indeed agnostic. Categories are only better than lists when (1) having everything in a single, alphabetically-ordered list is preferrable; (2) no information whatsoever needs to be provided for the individuals so categorized; and (3) the category's topic is not significantly disputed or overly complex, such that any of its entries would require sourcing to justify inclusion. 2 and 3 fail, and 1 may fail as well (if we decide to expand the list to include all variants of "agnosticism" and have different sections for each), so clearly a list is better than a category in this case—though I see absolutely no reason not to do both.
??? And the reason why this should be a separate article, rather than a section in agnosticism, where it would be under the eye of people interested in that topic, is... ???? Dpbsmith(talk) 21:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for it to have its own article is because we expect it to become much larger. If we merged it, it would just have to be unmerged as soon as someone put any work into expanding it; easier to leave it separate. Merge it if you really want, but I prefer merging articles where there's not a strong chance that it will have the potential to be a good article on its own in the near future. And the argument about a separate page keeping away the agnosticism editors is invalid, because it could be used to argue against any page separations—anyone interested in agnosticism can easily monitor this page as well, as it should be linked to quite prominently on that page. But aside from that, it makes little difference either way. -Silence 05:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at this article on occasional, I've looked at the agnosticism article maybe once. I know what agnosticism is and if I don't I have plenty of books to explain it better. Who is agnostic I don't necessarily know.--T. Anthony 05:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a strong oppose! to moving this article to "List of notable agnostics", as Jtmichcock suggested above. Such a suggestion demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Wikipedia article and list notability qualifications (all articles and lists are inherently assumed to only include "notable" entries and information) and lack of experience with the thousands of lists and categories that do not have "notable" in their name— because it's always assumed unless stated otherwise. The current article title is fine. -Silence 19:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the way to being more verified. I think a verify tag for a few weeks would be enough. I rarely put things up for deletion so I don't know how, or if I can, withdraw this. It was very close to being a joke nomination, I'm a little irritated it's still taken seriously. This article has been around since September 2001 and if done right can have a purpose. If it gets deleted I oh all you interested in this topic a huge apology. This is not what I was expecting and I reject the whole vote again in strong terms.--T. Anthony 07:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The motivation for the nom is not important to me, even if it was in bad faith, and your change of heart is reflected in your Weak Keep and then Keep votes. I don't think the AfD can/should be withdrawn. I am opposed to almost all listing by religion because an individual's religious beliefs are far too complex to be neatly summarized on a list- most people struggle with religion throughout their lives. What list does Bob Dylan go on? Jew, Christian, atheist, agnostic- all of the above? Was Karl Marx a Jew, a Christian, an atheist? Jewish law would have one answer, the Nazis another, and historians debate these types of questions for decades if not centuries. The proper place for us to address the issue is within the context of their bio pages. --JJay 07:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that, but in a way a Category has a worse problem on this. In a list you can in least annotate and explain. In a category a name is just there and kind of effects the article. If a priest was on record saying sometimes he wasn't sure about the existence of God a poorly thought out person could add Category:Agnostics to his name almost as easily as he could add him to this list. Maybe moreso because lists seemed to be watched much more strictly now due to the proliferation of, what I'd mostly agree, are stupid ones. Added to that nothing on his article is changed by being on a list, whereas Categorization does. If you're in favor of removing agnostics as a category then disreagard the following.--T. Anthony 10:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You make some good points. I'm going to try and rethink my vote in the context of this list before the end of the day. --JJay 10:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Discussion of voting that followed has been moved to the discuss page--T. Anthony 04:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Please read before voting. -- JJay 16:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE Composers and NO CONSENSUS on artists, but NOM WITHDRAWN. I've read this quite carefully to make sure I've seperated people's preferences for the two articles. I think there is rough consensus for the decision, and although this is a case where the numbers really are less important than the discussion, the numbers back it too. -Splashtalk 21:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a combined AfD for the List of Catholic artists (actually painters and sculptors) and the List of Catholic composers.
These lists could actually be useful, one might list people devoted to religious art, such as composers of hymns or painters whose Catholic faith is evident in their work.
Unfortunately the entries are so sloppy ("the great majority of French and Polish composers") that there is no point in having them.
Delete unless fixed. Pilatus 14:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn for List of Catholic artists. As per User:T. Anthony, delete the List of Catholic composers and list any composer in the list of artists. Pilatus 22:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft, however if someone can fix the artists list to list those painters who exclusively paint Catholic themes and/or worked for the Vatican, then I'd be willing to support such a list change to keep. But otherwise this is no different than the other religious lists. 23skidoo 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to do just that. I added that they either have to be known for Catholic religious art or be priests. Unless people ignore that warning it should in least be a step toward limiting.--T. Anthony 18:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified my vote to a conditional as a result of T. Anthony's efforts. If the list can be pared down to artists/composers who do specifically Catholic/religious-based work, then this can be kept (and the same would go for any other similarly religious-based list for composers and artists. I just oppose listing someone here simply on the basis of their religion.) 23skidoo 19:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and 23skidoo. Anville 16:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Unfortunately the entries are so sloppy," is an argument to fix not destroy.--T. Anthony 16:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I see no issue with lists of accomplished individuals belonging to a particular faith. Information like this is encyclopedic and can be a source of pride as well as role models. — RJH 16:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, the problem with the case for "fixing" is that unfortunately these lists have been constructed in such a slipshod way that it is impossible to fix them, because the list a) does not specify what the inclusion criterion are, and b) does not provide any shortcut to determining whether an entry fits the criteria other than to research each one from scratch. They are intrinsically unfixable and unmaintainable. If the first sentence had say, for example, that this is "list of composers whose Wikipedia articles cite them as adhering to Roman Catholicism during their adult life" something could be done. But, in any case, b) this list serves absolutely no function that a category would not serve better. Finally, c) "to be a source of pride" to a specific group of people is not Wikipedia's mission. In fact it is somewhat at odds with neutrality, and in the long run could even result in silly list-duels. You know... someone constructs a "list of Mennonite composers" and someone retorts by constructing a "list of Mennonite felons." Dpbsmith(talk) 17:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - taken it total it is unverified and unverifiable, and any inclusion criteria would be POV.--Docask? 19:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise could we ditch the composers list, but keep the artists one? Because the way I rewrote it I think the explanation given practically requires a name be verified to be added. The composer one is just too difficult to rework along the same lines, for now.--T. Anthony 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote as you suggest, because the "artists" list is now more than a simple list, criteria for inclusion are stated, and at least rough reasons why the artist meets the criteria are given for most artists. I'm doing this on the assumption that you've checked the names on the artists list and that the information in them is, at least, confirmed by our own articles; and that, reading the articles, a reasonable person would agree that they show that "Catholicism was vitally important" to the artists named. Dpbsmith(talk) 20:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons 72.144.139.115 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep, artists article is much-improved now. Rather than moving the article to "List of Roman Catholic artists", consider expanding into List of Christian artists, since such an article doesn't exist and there must be many artists noteworthy for their Christian iconography who aren't Roman Catholics. :) And, surely, many Roman Catholics who are noteworthy for their Christian themes but don't have necessarily specifically "Roman Catholic" themes, per se. -Silence 22:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"consider expanding into List of Christian artists" I can see that. Let's see how that works, but I'd be good with that. I was just working with what I had.--T. Anthony 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't have to happen. If you look at present the list is primarily about people who are important in religious art. Like they did the main art for cathedrals or one of the masterpieces of Catholic art. I don't think Kinkade would count even if some of his works are Christian.(Which I didn't know) Instead make it generalized Christian would be like being able to add Rembrandt or Rublev--T. Anthony 00:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per revised nomination (i.e. keep artists, ditch composers). Eusebeus 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object if I add composers like Vivaldi, who were Catholic priests, to the artists deal when that deletion is done.--T. Anthony 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I think the most concrete argument presented is that the religious beliefs or birth heritage of all these lists of people do not inform the careers or accomplishments that accompany. If the definition of any faith is go to be so broad such that someone who was, for example, born to a Jewish mother and Catholic father and raised without any religious input, could be listed as a Catholic _______ (insert your favorite category) and as a Jewish _______, then there is no information of any value wnatsoever. Jtmichcock 23:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is why we have lists for Catholic countries Antidote 23:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now good with the composer one going away, but I have to say this statement is very bad logic. A great many Catholics of historic importance didn't come from Catholic countries. The current Pope didn't really come from a Catholic country. Neither did Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Francis Arinze, Nicholas Steno, J. R. R. Tolkien, or others.--T. Anthony 04:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be one-fourth Catholic. Anymore then you could be one fourth atheist or or one fourth Muslim. It's not an ethnicity, as Jewish or maybe Zoroastrian(as traditionally they downright discourage conversion) would be, it's a religion. Either you believe, or believed, it or you don't. Even if you accepted one fourth of it, (this doesn't quite work but to give some sense that'd be like, "I like two of their sacraments, but I could do without the other five" or "I like Purgatory, but I can't go for intercession of saints or Papal infallibility or transubstantiation" or "I accept priestly celibacy, but as a non-priest I want to have lots of gay sex, group sex, and non-marital sex"), you wouldn't be one-fourth Catholic.--T. Anthony 21:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Catholics are a community. JBH 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and maintain as separate lists. Religion is essential to artistic creation. --JJay 10:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to play you an excerpt from a symphony you've never heard before, without telling you the composer's name, could you tell by listening whether the composer was Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish? Dpbsmith(talk) 13:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, and I doubt that I could identify the nationality/sexuality of the composer, the particular symphony or even the style of music. The same goes for painting. The fact that I can’t is not a disqualifying factor. Since I think religion/sexuality/nationality etc. can all strongly color artistic expression, I have no problem with listing artists and composers on this basis. These facts may not always be necessary to judge/appreciate an individual selection, but are often essential to understanding meaning and context (i.e. knowing William Byrd was Catholic does seem critical; that Copland was American and Jewish adds meaning to his work; just like Picasso’s nationality adds force to Guernica_(painting)). I understand the inherent dangers of all these lists. In the present case, Mahler would seem to be a bit of a stretch. If this was a List of Catholic symphonies rather than composers, I might vote delete. Nevertheless, if List of Catholic artists is worth keeping, why not List of Catholic composers?-- JJay 21:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will never be used. 72.144.71.234 04:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a list on Catholic composers is to be deleted, following that logic, the "article" List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers should also be deleted. Shouldn't standards be the same throughout Wikipedia? Should gay lists and jewish lists be allowed yet white, catholic straight lists be deleted?--Bob 22:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. However, the presence of other inappropriate articles in Wikipedia is not a justification for including this one. If it were, there would be a rapid "race to the bottom." Human judgement being what it is you can't expect there to be perfect bright-line criteria and there will unavoidably be inconsistent judgements for borderline articles. Dpbsmith(talk) 00:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whether separate or combined lists (aren't composers artists?) please keep. Was thrilled to find this site for the first time today - till reading of possible deletion. Don't do it. It's unusual, helpful and very, very cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.71.107 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The delete vote on the artists one was actually withdrawn. That won't show up on that article until the overall vote is settled. However if I understand it correctly the Catholic artists one is staying no matter how this vote turns out. Ideally it'll someday have a greater number of modern people who work in Catholic art.--T. Anthony 10:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm moving the most "Catholic" of the composers to the artist article. Personally I think they'd fit better in the musicians article, but odds seem high it will be deleted. If not I'll move them over there.--T. Anthony 07:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 13:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time to rid wikipedia of these foolish lists. StabRule 20:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: StabRule, please rid this AfD of your two foolish sock puppet votes above. -- JJay 20:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same as with the others. I don't see anyone on this list (and can't think of anyone) whose Catholic faith has had any bearing on his work as a director. Pilatus 00:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — A perfectly reasonable list for somebody trying to look up such information. — RJH 01:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, a list of Catholic publishers who produce devotional literature would be encyclopedic. The two classifications have to be related in some way or else it's just random data as in List of Methodist dentists. Durova 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To further elaborate Catholicism, and religion in general, can have a strong role in films produced or directed. For example things like Dogma (film) or Francesco, giullare di Dio. This is rarely if ever true of dentistry.--T. Anthony 17:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To further illuminate the irrelevance, two of the most reverent Catholic films of classic Hollywood are The Bells of St. Mary's and A Man for All Seasons. Ingrid Bergman, who co-starred in the former, was Lutheran. Robert Bolt, who wrote the latter, was an
atheist. Durova 20:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To further illuminate relevance "A Man for All Seasons" is in large part a historical movie as much as a Catholic one. Bells of St. Mary is clearly patronizing. It's about the equivalent of what Witness was for the Amish. So are you sincerely arguing that knowing the subject and not knowing it are completely the same? Really?--T. Anthony 22:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to prove your thesis if you want to proceed on a presumption that personal faith equates with creative validity. Most of us draw a distinction between art and life. A bit of Robert Bolt follows: Durova 15:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke of Norfolk: Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!
Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
Delete. I concur with Durova (especially with his counterexample). Nandesuka 05:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I echo Durova's comments as I made a similar point when I voted to delete the list of Jewish publishers. A list of movie production houses that specialize in Catholic-specific films would be perfectly acceptable to me. 23skidoo 05:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning above: Making a list according to religious affiliation can only serve to boast or target, and such lists cannot be verified nor comprehensive. Geogre 11:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Durova, Dpbsmith and Geogre. I also agree with 23skidoo's proposed list, should anyone ever build one. Anville 11:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. — HaelethTalk 13:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep More listophobic silliness.--T. Anthony 16:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Db Smith's arguments -Docask? 19:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 23:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again, this is what categories and list of countrymen are for. Antidote 23:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Catholics aren't a nation. I get the sense from some of these lists of Catholics that the assumption is "Catholics are whoever is from Austria, Italy, Spain, Poland, or Ireland." It doesn't work that way. I'll try to work on this one too though.--T. Anthony 02:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ejrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 07:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and every other list nominated to make a WP:POINT --Elliskev 19:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both lists, this is crazy! JBH 22:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This vote was JBH's 7th edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bobtalk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)
So? Is this an implication that his opinion on the matter is irrelevant? --Elliskev 00:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Religion is integral to an artist's world outlook and has direct impact on artistic creation thus extremely notable. --JJay 10:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note-I said my piece here. However if this is motivated by people who are concerned that Category:Roman Catholics is overcrowded I hope some of you will look into placing the biographical names that are there into subcategories. If you are worried about "listmania" I hope some of you will work on putting lists in Category:Incomplete lists into subcategories. Thank you.--T. Anthony 17:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT --Bob 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this useful info.--File Éireann 23:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly enough about this one to risk getting into trouble.(Science and religion are of interest to me so I felt a bit more passionate on the topic) However This should give you some sense on Catholic movies and directors if this gets deleted. Please do not copy that information to recreate this list if this one gets deleted. I'm just saying if you're interested in the topic you can try them. My only problem is in some respects they're less reliable then Wiki.--T. Anthony 13:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a collective nomination for the List of Catholic musicians and the List of Catholic actors. The fact that the people listed there are Catholic is incidental to their profession as artists.
Do not categorize members of the lists as Catholic unless they are prominent as followers of Catholicism.
In case someone says "But Sinead O'Connor is notable for being excommunicated" I'd answer that she is indeed notable for that but that fact that she is Catholic has no bearing on her career as a singer. Pilatus 00:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cooment on that, FWIW: I would guess that the fact that she is (or was) Catholic had a lot to do with why she has strong feelings about the Pope. Which led her to tear up the Pope's photo on national TV (most Protestants, Hindus, etc. wouldn't do that 'cuz they would care that much about about the Pope). Which severely impacted her singing career, nagatively.Herostratus 16:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The nomination criteria fails to specify how this meets the criteria for not being suitably encyclopedic. On the contrary I think this is a perfectly valid list, although it could be done just as well be managed with a category. — RJH 01:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a Catholic theologian is Catholic has a bearing on his work. The fact that any actor is typically has not. One is useful information, the other is just incidental data. WP:NOT a grab-bag of data. (I said that above.) Pilatus 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unpersuaded. Sorry. A list of accomplisted members of a particular faith is of interest to some. It doesn't need to be of interest to everybody to be encyclopedic. — RJH
Delete. Being Catholic has no inherent bearing on the way an actor reads a line. Durova 02:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT Nandesuka 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 23skidoo 05:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since our categorization system doesn't allow us to -for example- find unions of classifications ("Catholic musicians" or, say "American Female Catholic Episcopalian Singers"), this is information contained nowhere else. - Nunh-huh 05:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several major search engines offer Boolean search functions, allowing users to customize unique searches just as you describe. Durova 14:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We offer no mechanism for this, nor would a search engine be of much use unless articles were tagged in a manner other than the way we currently do it. As an exercise, devise the search which would locate all of Wikipedia's biographies of women. Use any search engine with any functions you care to. Saying it can be done is, you will see, far easier than actually doing it. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia entry of this sort in itself would be of little use, other than to provide a starting point for further research. I have done Boolean searches on ostensibly unrelated topics. A laundry list of names wouldn't have made much impact on the research. Durova 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And your search for "biographies of women on Wikipedia" would be....what? - Nunh-huh 00:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for cogent reasons stated above. Denni☯ 05:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles per nomination. I wonder if George Harrison would have been amused to find himself on the List of Catholic musicians with no further comment as to his religious beliefs. The list of Catholic actors isn't even limited to actors (contrary to the article, not everyone who appears on television is acting). --Metropolitan90 06:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the musician one it did need clean up. I request viewing the current version with edits I've done. For example George Harrison is no longer on it.--T. Anthony 02:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above reasons. Edwardian 06:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all the other lists nom for AfD recently. All part of a WP:POINT campaign. --Elliskev 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks. Pilatus 05:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. JBH 22:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepList of Catholic musicians but redo it the way I helped redo the Catholic artists one. Meaning make a note stating they have to be singers of Catholic music or musicians whose Catholic faith is otherwise important to their music. For example Mary Lou Williams was involved in the first Catholic "Jazz Mass." Delete List of Catholic actors because I don't see the relevance. Final comment, please don't do these two in one deletes unless they are absolutely the same kind of thing.--T. Anthony 00:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to redo Catholic musicians that way. I am also moving some composers I put on Catholic artists to it.--T. Anthony 00:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly I request you take a look at the redo of Catholic musicians before voting. Also that if it is deleted you'll in least consider an article on Contemporary Catholic music which does have some differences from what's popularly called Contemporary Christian music. (It's a bit more Celtic or Latin American for one. Folk and jazz seem more common from what I've listened to)--T. Anthony 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I forgot I'd voted here already so I deleted previous vote as this one more reflects my view.--T. Anthony 20:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete As with similar lists, creating a list of two items of low correlation seems pointless. Sure, some actors are Catholic, but what of it? Do we create lists for every possible combination of religion and occupation? If religion is important, then gender is more so - why not List of male musicians? How about combinations? List of female vegetarian musicians anyone? Turnstep 02:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Catholicism has no bearing on the career of Sinead O'Connor??? Very, very weak argument. --JJay 10:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The current edit I've done, unless it's been reverted, on Catholic musicians is such that I think virtually all of the ones currently listed are musicians where Catholicism has some bearing on their careers. Sometimes strongly so.(The Singing Nun(even including her later escapades), Father Stan Fortuna, the Papal count guy, etc)--T. Anthony 12:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's nowhere near that insignificant. Look we have no List of plumbers, List of dentists, or List of unicyclists of any kind. Arguments should in least try to compare Grannie Smith apples to Jonathan's apples, instead of comparing any apple to rutabagas. For example you could say this should be deleted because there is no List of Methodist musicians, or List of Hindu musicians. Comparing the popular interest of religious music to religious dentistry or plumbing is flippant and weak.--T. Anthony 04:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible this should die as there's no other list of specific denomination music. Still how should I place the modern ones in List of CCM artists? They don't exactly fit the CCM genre, but it's the closest thing I can think of. Just dump them in without explanation or add notes?--T. Anthony 10:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind I see there are other CCM lists they might work with better.--T. Anthony 10:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is part of an effort to whittle down the Lists of professionals that observe a certain religion.
Delete as the faith of none of those people had an influence on their chosen profession.
Do not categorize members of the lists as Catholic unless they are prominent as followers of Catholicism. Pilatus 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The nomination criteria fails to specify how this meets the criteria for not being suitably encyclopedic. On the contrary I think this is a perfectly valid list, although it could be done just as well be managed with a category. — RJH 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, it's impossible as a list, as all Western scientists prior to Henry VIII were "Catholic," and scientists don't have to declare their affiliation when they get their special Science Card and secret handshake in graduate school. Secondly, it's bizarre and inappropriate to have lists of people by ethnicity and religion. While this list of Catholics might be designed as an RCC boast, others, such as "Jewish TV stars," are designed as boycott and hit lists. Geogre 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what the heck country are you living in? >:\ People troll wikipedia for lists of celebrities to kill? Egad! Sherurcij 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dpbsmith and Geogre. And my Arrogant Physicist Society card certainly doesn't list my religious domination, just my name, APS number and the Trystero symbol. Anville 11:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. --Merovingian 13:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. — HaelethTalk 13:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because of redundancy as the List of Christian scientists already has pretty much all these names. Also separating sends a bad message vis a vis Catholics not being Christians.--T. Anthony 16:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC
Delete Hard to maintain as a list. Loosely related individuals.
Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ejrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 07:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, someone's religion will definitely have an impact on their scientific views. One of the few lists of this type where religion and occupation can be related. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Really? definitely? In all cases? What's your evidence for that assertion? --Docask? 09:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If someone's religion always has an impact on their science, then it should always be possible to find and cite evidence for that impact, and any designation of someone as a "Catholic scientist" should be based on that evidence, not on the fact that someone happens to be a Catholic and also to be a scientist. However, scientific journals do not customarily require authors to disclose their religious affiliations, suggesting that the scientific community does not regard religious affliation as affecting scientific views. Dpbsmith(talk) 13:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MacGyverMagic has it right. JBH 22:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This vote was JBH's 5th edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bobtalk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)
I made some alterations, check them out!--T. Anthony 06:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I've noticed how many of you seem to think being of a religion has no more effect on peoples' lives or careers then riding a unicycle or having blond hair. Which is odd. I don't recall a period where scientists were refused entry to certain schools or garnered praised by millions even partly for their hair color. Look at some on the Catholic list and it's probable you will find people refused from Oxford for their religion. You think that had no effect on their science career? You really think there is no more interest in Christians or Catholics in science then there'd be for the former waiter idea?--T. Anthony 04:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate. Going by Google "Catholic Scientist" gets 12,300 hits.[20] "Blond scientist" gets less then 600.[21]. Now "waiter scientist" gets 1200.[22] That's still just a tenth of what Catholic got. "Iranian scientist", and there is a List of Iranian scientists gets 10,500.[23]. I'm not sure Google is indicative of much but this should in least show this topic has more interest on the Net then even one acceptable scientists list. As for "Christians in science"? 13100 hits.[24]--T. Anthony 05:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. 65.10.44.158 22:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DeleteJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is nominated for deletion for the same reasons as the List of Catholic scientists. The faith of the people listed here is incidental; it had no bearing on their profession as scientists. Pilatus 18:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Pilatus -- unless as noted elsewhere a strong case can be made for the religion having a bearing on their career. Not to mention this is such a broad category it could have thousands of names potentially. 23skidoo 19:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think a list of scientists who were ordained and/or have been outspoken (or have written) about their faith - or have been involved in religious-scientific controversy would be useful. (They would have to be notable both as scientists and as Christians - not just as one.) But this list is pointless - bound to be POV - probably inexaustible (prior to modern times, nearly all western scientists would be at least nominaly Christian). --Docask? 19:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I do realize when I'm beat. I'm moving the information to List of avowed Christians in science, per request and removing my pro-vote. I'll also work on merging the Jesuit one with this one and removing the Quaker names to the Quaker one.--T. Anthony 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but perhaps we could have a category for "avowed" Christian scientists? (i.e., scientists who made a big deal about their faith?) Sdedeo 19:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. As to the question of whether it would be a good idea to highlight that a famous person has been enthusiatic about his or her faith, that is a valid exposition -- in the article about the person who is being discussed. Jtmichcock 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously, what genius came up with this one? 65.9.143.76 23:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can we next have a list of scientists who can ride unicycles? --StoatBringer 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but I would support the list of scientists whose faith is prominent that has been proposed above. In the event that this list is kept, I would suggest it be renamed: "Christian scientist" is a bad term to use in any situation, since it is so easily confused with "Christian Scientist". — HaelethTalk 23:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft: there is no inherent connection between "Christian" and "scientist". --Carnildo 00:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I don't believe that deleting articles to meet a personal agenda is not a valid AfD criteria. Lists of accomplished members of particular ethnicities or beliefs is a valid topic. If the page selection criteria needs tightening down, then move to an appropriate page name. — RJH 16:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a religion Christian Scientist, so could cause confusion. JBH 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that argue more for rename. Like maybe "List of Christians in Science" and then add a note that names should be limited to those who went to Christian universities to study science or where Christianity is otherwise important to their careers.--T. Anthony 00:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highlighting people with an arbitrary combination of attributes does not make a useful list. Possibly also delete Category:Christian_scientists (which makes this list redundant in any case even if either was worth keeping.) --Aquillion 19:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless they're priests who converted to the life of science - DELETE! 65.10.44.158 22:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I have a better idea.--T. Anthony 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 17:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another list of professionals with a religious affiliation.
The fact that the people listed here were menbers of the Christian Science Church had no bearing on their work. Pilatus 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nor was it meant to. We have lists of Mormons, Muslims, etc. Why is this any different? (I am very much not a member of this religion and find some of its principles vaguely ridiculous, but what of it?)--T. Anthony 14:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Their faith is meant to have a bearing on their work. If this listed all members of the Church of Christ, Scientist indiscriminately this would be a directory. But it isn't. It's an encyclopedia. Pilatus 15:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This could be said of any list of any kind. Presumably then List of Quakers, list of Unificationists, and others should also be deleted. That said I did edit it to show how it was relevant in some of these cases.(I have now edited further to show that even more clearly)--T. Anthony 16:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone notice that the three anon votes on this page all trace back to Atlanta? What does that indicate? Sock Puppetry? Or are Atlantans just more comfortable expressing their thinking from behind white sheets? Let's discuss. -- JJay 17:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons stated in other religious lists. Make it a category if you really want to divide people up this way. 23skidoo 15:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: you can't annotate a category listing. Charles Matthews 16:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the information is valid. — RJH 16:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — but I have to agree that this list shoudn't be a directory, it should be a list of important people to the religion who have been very public supporters. Some of these people's articles don't mention it at all. For instance, I only know Bette Nesmith Graham is a Christian Scientist because another biography of her mentions it and her setting up of multiple foundations, so I assume she's set up some for the church. A random article I checked, Hank Paulson, mentions he's devout but nothing else. I think that for this list to be useful it shouldn't just list anyone in Wikipedia who's a member of the church, as that's more what categories are for. — Laura Scudder☎ 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Important people to the religion who have been very public supporters" belong in the article on Christian Science. Simply tracking which biographies in Wikipedia identify their subject as Christian Scientists should be done with categories. The only purpose I can see served by lists like these to spur pride in a religion (or ethnicity or other group) by celebrating the collective achievements of its adherents, and I do not see how that can possibly concord with neutrality. Dpbsmith(talk) 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Important people to the religion who have been very public supporters belong in the article on Christian Science." is an argument to merge. Adding over 20 names to that article seems a tad odd to me, but if you want to merge I can accept that.(I'm tempted to change my mind and actually vote on this)--T. Anthony 16:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to reiterate though that that was not my intent when I created this. I am not Christian Scientist. In fact in a test I took Christian Science was listed with Scientology as "religions you have the least agreement with." I had and have no interest in inspiring their pride, shame, or whatever. I just thought it was useful if anyone ever needs to know who is Christian Scientists as I the Adherents.com list of CS members is untrustworthy.--T. Anthony 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The note I added is a bit crude but it maybe explains why I created this list. I also did some work on it.--T. Anthony 10:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Umm very much no. All this list does is list members of this religion. A better comparison is to say that it's as random as List of Prominent Sikhs itself as that article also subdivided into professions.(You certain Sikhism is as important to say Parminder Nagra as Christian Science was to even Joan Crawford?)--T. Anthony 16:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 23:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete plain ridiculous 65.9.143.76 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nandesuka 14:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic comment According to our naming conventions, if we wanted a list of physicists, biologists, and chemists who were adherents of the religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy, what would the article be titled? Christian Scientific Scientological Scientist 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Cute. However it's not a concern because there are no prominent scientists who are members of the Church of Christ Science. In least none at Wikipedia and I looked very hard for one. I even tried Christian Science related sites.(I created this list) The closest I found is the woman who invented Liquid Paper who was mentioned above.--T. Anthony 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I got inspired and did alot of work. Enough so I care enough to vote now.(I hadn't voted before, just stated why I was for it. I'm done doing that now. Well except to ask that people look at the current version)--T. Anthony 16:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I did add a link to the Salon.com article.--T. Anthony 21:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to clean up wikipedia. 65.10.44.158 22:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I did better then I thought at explaining/fixing. And yes I agree on the title problems mentioned below. Although awkward I think "List of Christian Science adherents" would be acceptable, to me in least. As long as we make sure both "Christian" and "Science" are capitalized. The sites I've seen of Christians in science tend to emphasize the importance of that for differentiation and maybe that could be in the article itself.--T. Anthony 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the title needs a bit of thought. As I suspected, the official name of the church is Church of Christ, Scientist with a comma. I've been clicking around their website for about five minutes now, with no luck, trying to find out what phrase Christian Scientists use to refer to themselves. I actually believe the site may be sidestepping this; it usually just says "members," members of what being of course understood. Anyway: IMHO
List of Church of Christ Scientists doesn't work because without a comma it's not the name of the church. In fact, there's a serious ambiguity, because a Church of Christ scientist (with a small s) could mean a physicist who is a member of a local Church of Christ congregation.
List of Church of Christ, Scientists doesn't work either.
List of Christian Scientists would work if not for the ambiguity problem. One could argue that there isn't an ambiguity problem because a "Christian Scientist" with a capital S means an adherent to Mary Baker Eddy's denomination whereas as "Christian scientist" with a small s means a scientist who is a Christian, but... that argument would be silly.
List of Christian Science adherents is OK but awkward.
List of adherents to the Church of Christ, Scientist ditto.
As they use the word "members" would that work? I mean it's still a bit awkward sounding, but possibly better then this title. "List of Church of Christ Scientists" having the comma deal wrong and I suppose is possibly begging a question. (Like "List of Church of Christ Scientists...what? People, churches, organizations, other?)--T. Anthony 06:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously List of members won't do... you're thinking something along the lines of
List of Church of Christ, Scientist members
List of members of Church of Christ, Scientist
I think the second is OK, not great... sounds too much like it's trying to be a list of all of them...
If it survives I think it can now just be called "List of Christian Scientists." Any list of Christians in science will now be written to be less confusing with Christian science, if such lists are allowed to exist at all.--T. Anthony 06:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
List of Christian Scientists works for me, with a small explanatory note and appropriate link at the top. I think it's the most natural title. Dpbsmith(talk) 11:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Present state of list may provide valid info lacking from site. Therefore prefer to err on the side of caution. --JJay 18:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aww thanks. I promise from now on to be a great deal more cautious in creating lists like this. Like making sure the names contributed meaningfully to the topic for one, per WP:NOT, and annotating or sourcing better.--T. Anthony 03:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list HAS to be a joke. 72.144.71.234 04:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 23:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or, if there's truly a duplicate article, merge or redirect. There's plenty of lists regarding American ethnic groups- why not Czechs? CanadianCaesar 00:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All biographical encyclopedia, "Who's Who", "Persoenlichkeiten" are nominated. It's so crazy.
「努力を尽くした人名一覧（人名百科事典）が、一人の人物によって、すべて削除されようとしている」!! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DeleteJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly-broad, unmaintainable, unverified listcruft. About one in twelve people are Europeans and I really have to wonder how people who work on lists of this sort (while acknowledging it takes effort) really expect to create something scaleable. We have categories for a reason. Marskell 17:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As he says. Pilatus 17:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I intended to become a pro-list activists, but in this case we already have numerous lists concerning people from European nations. To try to list all noteworthy Europeans would be a fool's errand.--T. Anthony 17:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of a single person who looks up people as European. Antidote 17:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too broad. Could potentially have millions of names. 23skidoo 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Docask? 19:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unlike lists that combine two criteria, this list cannot even be justified by the technical limitations of the category system. — HaelethTalk 22:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 23:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination is part of a campaign to make a WP:POINT --Elliskev 19:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should research the nominator. This is the only list I've placed on AfD. Marskell 22:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above voter seems to be confused. What point is this vote trying to show? EscapeArtistsNeverDie 20:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not confused.
November 13 one AfD nomination for a list of people by nationality, religion, etc., namely List of Jewish bankers
November 14 zero AfDs related to lists of people by nationality, religion etc.
Strong Delete utterly pointless -- Someone should get rid of List of Europeans too Antidote 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If you're officially nominating the hundreds and hundreds of lists on Wikipedia just like this one and Europeans, you should probably announce this VfD a bit more broadly so we can properly get the community's consensus. I don't see how this list is any different from every other list on Wikipedia that lists noteworthy members of a certain race, religion, nationality, etc. -Silence 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
November 16 the following articles were nominated for AfD
And I'm getting tired of doing it... you get the WP:POINT? --Elliskev 21:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not point. Everything Elliskev has listed was not nominated by me. It seems odd to draw up a list of this sort when the nominator of this did not nominate those.Marskell 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a message on my user talk from the nominator of this AfD, I withdraw my vote for Keep and change it to Abstain in the interest of assuming good faith. I do, however, question the great flurry of AfDs for specifically religion/etnicity/nationality lists by users that were Delete voters on an obviously contentious Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholics (2nd nomination). I am not a big fan of lists, but I'm also not a big fan of what I see as an inappropriate way of dealing with them. --Elliskev 00:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I just created a Liechtensteiner one, but otherwise you know)
Delete a rediculous list; as said above, one in twelve people are European, having a list for people of an enitre continent is bizzare. As for the recent increase in nominations for lists relating to ethnic/religious groups; if the nominater for this is a different one then I think this can be considered seperately from the wider campaign Robdurbar 13:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just bizarre. Pilatus 17:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Now, I could probably have given the deleters their way here since this is what categories are for. However, I'm reluctant to do so given the nature of the nomination. -Splashtalk 18:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
being of Irish ethnicity is not relevant to what nationality or profession you are (an argument used against jewish lists). Arniep 20:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. It's clear this and the preceding AFD is a case of WP:POINT in action, however this is too broad a topic for a list anyway as it's unmaintainable and could contain thousands of names. Make it a category (as I believe it already is). 23skidoo 22:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 23:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and 23skidoo. This is what categories are for, right? — HaelethTalk 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this?? Keep all ethnicity lists. --Jondel 09:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (depite the WP:POINT) this is already a category --Docask? 09:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how lists like this are tenable --Ryano 12:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ethnicity lists on general principle. Categories are much more appropriate for this. Nandesuka 14:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Nomination does not meet the criteria for AfD. Ethnicity of accomplished individuals is a valid topic. :) — RJH 16:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Categorize. --Hottentot 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wow I just came on Wikipedia to look up some stuff about Irish Americans and I found stuff being deleted? Irish Americans have just as much right to be listed as any other group, I thought anti-Irish sentiment went out of fashion around 1950! JBH 22:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This vote was JBH's 2nd edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bobtalk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'm Irish and I fail to see how wanting to delete this list represents "anti-Irish sentiment". --Ryano 00:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI didn't realise people who have just signed up are not permitted to vote, if that is the case, please accept my apologies. JBH 00:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nandesuka and Doc. This list, in particular, has been the target of long-term (and utterly frivolous) controversy. As it's already a category, there's no need for a list.--chris.lawson 02:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Irish and Jewish lists etc.--File Éireann 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity and nationality have nothing to with the profession of acting (an argument used against jewish lists). Arniep 19:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This list was obviously created by last name only, which is why actresses like Christina Ricci (1/16th Italian) were on it but half-Italians like Rachael Leigh Cook weren't. Anyway, Keep if the List of Jews is kept, Delete if the List of Jews is deleted.Vulturell 20:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
categorize as this list could contain hundreds of names and should be a category (and I believe already is). 23skidoo 22:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 23:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. After discounting those suffering from paranoia, lack of reasoning or unfamiliarity with AfD, being an IP or bein around solely to participate in AfD, I get 21d-12k. That is fractionally below two-thirds, and I'm not persuaded that the keepers arguments (where they exist) are so much weaker than the deleters as to warrant lowering the baseline threshold. -Splashtalk 18:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Without a doubt, this is one of the most extreme cases of listmania. I'd nominate List of Fellows of the Royal Society for deletion just as quick as this, but seeing as it doesn't exist...this needs to go 65.10.7.150 00:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with other random collections of personal religion with unrelated professional achievement. Durova 02:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being Jewish is not just a religion. CalJW 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Random lists of ethnicity and profession are equally non-notable in most cases. Pioneers in a previously closed field would be notable. A list of the first African-American major league baseball players by team would be notable. A list of the thousands who played subsequently is non-notable. Durova 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would have been marginal, but your extremist comment tips the balance of my decision. Notable evidence of the acceptance of jews by a very important British organisation. CalJW 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you base your vote on the quality of the article and not on the quality of the review. Denni☯ 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good policy - easy enough to improve the quality of an article, but not if it's been deleted. - Londoneye 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was there ever a time when the Royal Society didn't elect Jews? If there was it is long past, and this list is as useful as the List of Jewish bus drivers. Pilatus 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you look at the list it will tell you who the first Jewish fellow was. See how useful this list is? There are several Jewish FRSs with articles about them - how many bus drivers (Jewish or otherwise) have Wiki articles? - Londoneye 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List fails to establish the significance of being Jewish in this context. In fact the list is so long it renders itself non-notable by quantity. If there had been, say, a half-dozen over the years and the introduction to the article had made a good, NPOV case for why we should care, then OK. 23skidoo 05:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — A list of accomplished scientists belonging to the Jewish faith appears quite encyclopedic to me. An individual of that faith looking for a suitable role model would find this very interesting. This nomination is PC-ness run amuck. — RJH 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Catholic Olympic Gold Medal recipients? Why not Armenian grand master chess players? Why not Russian recipients of the Nobel Prize? This is an arbitrary overlap of two groups, with no link between the two. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Catholic Olympic Gold Medal recipients indeed. What of it? If the examples you have listed have three or more valid members, I wouldn't vote against it. — RJH
Armenia is a country and it's common here to categorize people by their nationality. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Armenian chess player list is more an ethnic list - certainly in British law, Jews are regarded as an ethnic group - RachelBrown 18:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Why do so many people want to delete lists of Jews? The fact that there are several such lists, many of which are frequently edited, shows that many in the Wiki community want them. Everyone on this list is an important person or they wouldn't be there. RachelBrown 17:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you missed today's AfDs for three or four lists of Roman Catholics? It's not lists of Jews people want deleted: it's lists that categorise people by religion. — HaelethTalk 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall Wikipedians are disproportionately irreligious. I think the idea a religion actually is important to many people even in their choice of careers is almost frightening to some people. If you've noticed in cases when it's purely an ethnic group no one talks much of how "these lists divide people into groups and that's wrong." That said this seems too specific so I don't support it either. "List of Catholics" or "List of Greeks" in some Royal Society would also strike me as odd.--T. Anthony 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What ticks me off is how the people on these votes always assume "antisemitic" intentions. People are deleting lists based on the fact that the lists are just plain over-reaching and redundant. If there was a list of Muslim Fellows of the Royal Society or list of Left-Handed Fellows of the Royal Society I'd vote for those too. It just happens that the Jew lists are most frequently the ones with over-reaching categorizations. As Haeleth stated above, a bunch of other religion-based lists are being deleted. Antidote 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot equate these jewish lists with other religions as other religions are not also ethnicities or diasporas. Arniep 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People who are members of the Royal Society ALL deserve to be there regardless of ethnicity etc.. IMHO to make a distinction along the lines of "jewish", "catholic", "afro-american" or whatever else is, if anything, to reinforce such divisions. In each case, it is more likely to encourage things like anti-semitism etc.. For me, the only mark that counts is that we are all people. In this case, all members of the RS. Marcus22 18:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a glib defence to turn the argument round and claim that all people for retention are saying that all those for deletion are anti-semitic. I'm making no such claim; I have no doubt that many of those arguing for deletion are sincere, albeit misguided. - RachelBrown 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article has already been debated and there was no vote for deletion. Why was it proposed again? - Londoneye 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we could produce endless lists of people of category x, who happen to be in category y. Unless the connection between the categories is significant, then delete. --Docask? 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an arbitrary division of a group. -- Kjkolb 23:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft: there's no connection between Jewishness and fellowship in the Royal Society. --Carnildo 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is - in recent times, the % of Jewish Fellows has been far higher than the % of Jews in the general population. - Poetlister 23:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - my above note shows one use of this list. Do people want to hide the fact that Jews are disproportionately found among the most eminent scientists? - Poetlister 23:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No more than I want to hide the proportion of African-American players in baseball or the proportion of homosexuals in theater. An essay describing such a phenomenon might be encyclopedic. A mere list doesn't demonstrate proportionality. Durova 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Before you can do an analytical essay, you need some statistics - how will you produce those without a good database? - Poetlister 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? If I vote against keeping a list of Little Green Men who were Fellows of the Royal Society are people going to say "hey, why are you trying to hide the fact that Little Green Men are disproportionately found amongst the most eminent scientists"?! Please note: No-one is trying to hide anything here. No-one is singling out jews. People are just voting on whether or not this list, like others, is of encyclopedic merit. Is that really so hard to grasp? Marcus22 11:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody queries that some lists are of encyclopaedic merit - see my comment just above. The question is whether this particular list isn't when others are. Is that really so hard to grasp? - RachelBrown 11:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what did you mean by this comment? "Why do so many people want to delete lists of Jews?" Marcus22 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteEjrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 07:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I prefer to just have a list of all the fellows, I can't deny that someone's religion has an effect on their scientific views. So listing scientists by religion or ethnicity is not as useless as most of these lists are. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 12:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, LazarKr 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And a second nomination so soon after the first failed is bad faith. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the above voter is not familiar with the rules of a renomination for delete. If there was no consensus on the prior vote, then one is allowed to create a renomination much sooner than if the decision was "keep." Antidote 21:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Antidote your remark is disingenuous. The policy states: An exception can be made if a discussion has no consensus and a severe lack of contributors. 13 votes in the last round hardly qualifies as severe. Further, the previous outcome looks borderline Keep to me given Strong Delete voting by anoms. --JJay 21:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, like in the last vote, I believe this article provides a useful and easily accessible resource. Evil Eye 22:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Royal Society is an important institution in Britain, the list shows how jewish people have made very important contribution to science. JBH 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This vote was JBH's 11th edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bobtalk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)
This means that JBH is not a "keep everything" fanatic and genuinely thinks this is a useful list worth keeping - RachelBrown 09:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the user is implying is that this might be a double-voter --- and I think your attempt to hide that won't work. Antidote 20:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't attempting to hide anything; the suggestion is offensive. - RachelBrown 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be less problems with the deletions on the Roman Catholic lists. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 5'6 - Londoneye 21:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Extremely Strong Keep: I tend to always vote delete on these lists, but something about this renom smacks of bad faith, thus have to support the contributing editors. Given the outcome of the previous debate, where is the urgency to delete this? Arguments on keep side also convincing enough to justify adding extremely--JJay 08:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP!!! I think that the anon who nominated this list is a trouble maker! He is reported to be a sockpuppet who also listed List of Roman Catholics for deletion, then he voted under the other user address to delete that list. He obviously knows how to use Wikipedia so why does this person choose to nominate and vote as an anon. I assume it is so that he can also vote again under the username he most likely has. Lets nip this in the bud right now! Plank 03:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on this page isn't about anonymous IP voting like so many people assume - it's about the page itself - voting to keep a list just on the principle that it was an anon vote (which is allowed ANYWAY) does not take into account the real reasons why this list should be deleted and is frankly immature. Antidote 04:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the sensitivities involved in the list topics being nominated, I intend to start voting Strong Keep for all anonymous noms. Call me immature. Cheers --JJay 04:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this list probably wasn't deleted during the first try was because, like now, people took it too seriously and worried too much about "offending" others than actually analyzing the list. There has been a history of DELETE votes for these type of lists. See List of Jewish Members of the French Academy of Sciences, List of Jewish Members of the French Academy of Sciences. This is the only one left that was made for a nationality (Brits - in some way). As you showed us above, some voters just choose a hysterical "keep!!!!!!!!!1" without really looking at the reasons for deletion (of which there are numrous). Antidote 04:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I could care less about offending someone with my votes and I also don't think I've ever voted Keep for any list on VfD. I reiterate my comment above. The anonymous nom and anonymous lobbying on my talk page for a recent VfD close call on an apparently sensitive topic bothers me. If that is immature and hysterical I stand accused. --JJay 04:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You continually reiterate that you voted on this list based on how you "felt" on the subject, and not on the real reasons for deletion. Also, please stop using my words "immature" and "hyserical" out of context. Antidote 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"a nationality (Brits - in some way)" - an interesting remark. If they're Fellows, they're British citizens, so why qualify it with "in some way" - aren't Jews who are British citizens as much Brits as anyone else? Actually, this isn't just restricted to Brits; nearly half the list are foreign members. - 86.129.89.139 13:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a Category and not an Article. Listmania. RasputinAXP TC 16:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list which fails to establish why its criteria should be considered important. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C](W)AfD? 09:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - hard to find a list with clearer criteria - Fellow (or Foreign Member) of possibly the World's most prestigious scientific society. Being on this list is widely considered to be second only to having a Nobel Prize. I have had the privilege of discussing this with someone who is on this list, and he considers it a valuable record. - Taxwoman 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete Although the information is undoubtedly useful to pilots, the worldaerodata website maintains an updated list that doesn't require replication. Jtmichcock 02:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful for the Wikipedia. Pilots needing this information are certainly NOT going to refer to the Wikipedia for their flight planning! The FAA and the ICAO maintain the official lists of these NDBs. ♠DanMS 04:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 08:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless to anyone who isn't a pilot, and any pilot who uses Wikipedia for flight planning should be shot. --Carnildo 23:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I for one would certainly NOT want to be on that flight if the pilot made his flight plan using the Wikipedia! ♠DanMS 01:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Put external link in NDB and delete. I'm sure we can't keep this updated. Unmaintainable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 06:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think, it should be kept for DX freaks, hunting NDBs and expanded
'I think that it needs to be made clear that there are other applications for NDBs than for pilots, LF propagation studies for example. Probably should be done as a link to an external web page. WD2XGJ
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Alvin and the Chipmunks. All the info in this list is already in the comprehensive discography in the target article. -Splashtalk 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. mikka(t) 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this list (which would proably be about 90% covers once it's done) is not Wikipeida material. Delete, no merge.--FuriousFreddy 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Surely it better fits wikipedia than lists of pornostars. mikka(t) 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any notable songs can be mentioned in their article such as singles. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Capitalistroadster, information about this group's songs belongs in the main article Alvin and the Chipmunks. --Metropolitan90 02:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic and is just nonsense.Gator(talk) 20:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicate article. --Carnildo 22:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not duplicated. You seem to be confusind discography, which is list of discs, with the list of songs, which would unnecessarily inflate the article. mikka(t) 23:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with you guys? There are separate articles for single albums! This is a whole single list for them all. mikka(t) 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with a discography of albums and singles. But a list of songs for a ficticious band that's released records since the late 1950s? Once completed, the article would be ungodly long and wouldn't serve any use to anyone. Of what worth is a long list of songs the Chipmunks have covered without information on what albums or television show episodes they come from? --FuriousFreddy 01:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response. There IS a list of songs in the Alvin and the Chipmunks article. If the song list is not complete, add them in. Don’t make the reader go to a separate page to see the list of songs. Put them in the main article. It’s not that big. ♠DanMS 01:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list in the main article is a list of songs released as singles, not of songs in general. --FuriousFreddy 01:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm voting against a merge, because it's going to wind up being a long, long list of cover songs; the Chipmunks have very easily recorded thousands of songs over the last forty-eight years. It would be better for editors interested in writing up the Chipmunks' discography to write articles for their albums with tracklistings, not a long list of songs (and not even a big long list of album tracklistings, either). --FuriousFreddy 01:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. When/if it becomes too large for the main A&tC page, recreate it. Turnstep 02:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Louisiana Baptist University does not fit the category of a degree mill. They have an on-campus program and they have significant degree requirements that rival nationally accredited schools. Furthermore, Duncharris simply has an anti-fundamentalist agenda (not to mention anti-Gastrich agenda) which can be seen all throughout Wiki. See more of his personal attacks here.
This article should be kept. LBU is a quality university with a long history. Plus, it boasts a number of famous alumni. They include:
LBU holds BBFI approval. Among many non-degree mill, Christian schools, this is the standard. --Big Lover 20:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what BBFI is, or if they are approved. But, please disregard everything you read at LBU's web site (which is the link you gave). It's all meaningless. As an example, they also say they're an ACSI member, but forget to say they aren't accredited (in other words they paid to be considered, and were rejected). I'm a little disturbed the good name of ACSI was dragged through the mud in this article. This is why private school (or institution) web sites, are never to be considered reliable sources of information (without verification). --Rob 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anville 11:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and debunk/expand. Notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Degree mills are numerous and of transient interest at best, and the vast majority can only be debunked by the absence of credentials (and Wikipedia is in a poor position to prove such things). Wikipedia isn't in the business of cataloging things that anyone with web site and a printer can set up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Man in Black. Durova 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AMiB; excellent point. Sdedeo 19:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Strong Keep; per the anonymous contributor above, some somewhat notable kooks have been putting it on their resumés. Sdedeo 21:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I've done some NPOVing and added info on the accredation issues. It seems that LBU is probably not a straight up diploma mill, but it gets pretty close. Sdedeo 21:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a popular institution for a certain type of scholar. It's better to document what is verifiable about it, so that references to it in other articles can be supported. -Willmcw 22:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per A Man In Black. -- Kjkolb 00:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable diploma mill and the center of controversy. CDThieme 01:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notable diploma mill? If this article stays in the encyclopedia then please list it under Category:oxymoron. Durova 16:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if (maybe even because) it's a diploma mill, it's still part of the landscape: the Christian right and their institutions represent a powerful force in modern American society. I'm personally aligned against the Christian Right, and the article helped me with a specific piece of research. I might wish that the school didn't exist, or was of a higher or different quality, but since it is as it is, I want the article there so I can learn from others who either know or think they know about it. Agree "Keep and debunk/expand. Notable." Alan Canon 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit for NPOV. The best way to counter misinformation is through information. - AdelaMae 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I'm saying this, but we can weakly keep it as an example of a degree mill. Debunk, expand. Delete vanity references to non-notalbe Gastrich.Harvestdancer 05:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, I mean keep. —RaD Man (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as example of diploma mill. This one will need to be handled carfully with regard to POV as per Harvestdancer David D.(Talk) 00:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Write it neutrally, so that "diploma mill" or not, our readers know which educational associations condemn or endorse it. Uncle Ed 17:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We are not investigative journalists out to debunk diploma mills (if this is one). Let real journalists do that, and publish their findings in respectable sources. Then, write an article that cites those sources. Also, the article relies heavily on a private school's web site, which it should not. The usenet "footnote" is entirely unacceptable "research". Without reliable verifiable sources, its very easy for us to misinform people, either slandering a legitimate organization, or promoting an illegitimate organization. Also, I'm not a fan of weasel words that involve talking about something, without saying it explicitly. NPOV shouldn't be obtained by "They say this, but others say that. In one way they're real, but in one way they're not". NPOV should be about citing authoritative sources on facts, and also citing notable published opinions on all sides. If there's a lack of these things, no valid article can ever be created. --Rob 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. POV or not, this meets notability standards.
Delete I am in agreement with Rob, since the notability of the institution is principally derived from the way in which it operates to legitimise its students with degrees, the value of which is highly debatable. How do you debunk an institution without engendering necessarily a POV viewpoint. The article should state up front that it is what is commonly known as a Diploma Mill (instead of just unaccredited), but that would lay the article open to NPOV complaints. It is unclear how a neutral rewrite can satisfy this fundamental tension. Better to just kill it. Also, is this a for-profit institution? Eusebeus 09:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Should you nominate the creation and evolution articles for deletion or should I? —RaD Man (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you find half as many well noted published competing opinions on all sides, specifically about LBU, brining NPOV to this, I'll be totally in support of an article. Also, your examples are off-point. I support a diploma mill article (which is the closer analogy). I also, wouldn't support an article on Louisiana Institute of Creationism (or Louisiana Institute of Evolution), if it had the same problems Louisiana Baptist University has. Right now, this article rests largely on "sources" like UseNet. I'm not in principal opposed to any non-accredited institution ever getting an article. However, if there isn't what I feel, is a good basis for a verifiable NPOV article, then I am opposed. Note: accreditation isn't an end unto itself. Its simply one good form of verification. Other forms (like widespread news coverage, in noted publications) are also valid (but not present in this case). --Rob 10:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better to know that it's a diploma mill than to not think that it exists at all. Significant contreversy is reason enough to keep, if only to help those wondering what the hell is going on. Karmafist 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there are ten other sources other than usenet cited and it has at least six notable alumni erasing this would not make sense Yuckfoo 22:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
another nn band using Wikipedia to promote itself and created by one of the members of the band (if you're notable someone else will create your page).Gator(talk) 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The layout makes it twice as annoying. PJM 21:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DeleteJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person, possible vanity page, Google returns a staggering 8 results top two of which are wikipedia pages. IMDB doesn't list any of the movies he's in or he himself. And when googling his book titles with plus his last name yield 0 results. If a real person, I don't think he is quite notable enough. -- malo(talk)/(contribs) 09:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I repeated Malo's due diligence, with the same result. Either this is a complete hoax, or the works cited are so minor (self-published or unpublished books, unreleased films?) to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. It's puzzling, since it mostly reads like a normal but (ambitious/vanity) bio, but appears to be completely unverifiable. MCB 01:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, in order to qualify for a Wiki entry you have to exhibit a strong web-presence - the sort of web presence that this alternative entertainer actively avoids? Or perhaps Wiki is a celebration of purely commercial success i.e. you can't be relevant or well-know with charging an entrance fee?
To think that Carrot Top has a page in a user-defined dictionary, and that Luke Wigney is up for potential deletion is both disturbing and telling.
Either Wiki is a user-defined project, or it is not. This performer may well never appear on network television, but the absolute pleasure he brings his modest audiences is beyond description. We need performers like this to show us what we've been missing.
Perhaps this was a mistake after all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.10 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 November 2005
Please go and check out Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If you feel that this person can in some way meet the required criteria for inclusion then by all means please post back here and tell us as to which criteria he meets. My goal here is not to delete an article, but rather to gain the community consensus on what is noteworthy and what isn't. -- malo(talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hardly likely that you’re going to find much about Luke Wigney on the internet, that’s kind of the whole point of adding him to Wikipaedia in the first place. If we could pull this information off of a website, why would we be searching Wiki for it?
The idea that a live performer can enjoy cult status without charging money is unusual these days, as is his genuinely successful bid for relative anonymity, but that’s part of the Morningstar charm.
The books won’t turn up on Amazon: they were never priced. Each book was the ticket that let you into the reading room where he performed for the afternoon, reading extracts, taking questions, and generally encouraging the audience with their own creative writing.
Of all the events I have attended in my life, I have never felt so empowered or as inspired as I did walking home from the “Vampire Churches of Newcastle Upon Tyne” book gathering in Leeds.
I don’t know anything about the films, they are shown sometimes by the Halloween Society and other film clubs that I don’t live close enough to join. I imagine they are a similar sort of set up as the book readings though. I’m sure Liz Orange can fill this part in better, being a director.
I don’t think my writing all this is going to convince you of his commitment to alternative entertainment, or even a long list of famous bands that enjoyed their first break under his events, so I leave it to the man himself.
Please read the advice he gives to this fledgling band all the way through (it continues for about 10 posts after the first reply, and gets better and better as he warms to his subject) before deciding whether to delete him or not.
Thank you for the effort you are going to on behalf of a few music-loving bookworms. I do enjoy Wikipaedia, and was thrilled to be able to add to an entry that meant something personal to me. I’m sure I am not the only one who pulled out their old box of vinyl for the music section. I have some more entries, but I’ll wait and see if there is even going to be an article first.
Keep up the good work - when we get broadband I’m going to sign up to be a proof-reader here, if you’ll take me.
Additional comment: the featured article today is an advert for a Gwen Staffani record. Why is this commercial activity deemed relevant, when fan-based articles are considered suspect?
I can't speak for the feature article, other than the fact that it has verifiable sources for its info. This article on the other hand, well, I personally can't find very much on this Luke Wigney. Hence I don't really know if he exists or if someone is just completely making this up. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Verifiability for more background on the issue. I hope this helps. -- malo(talk)/(contribs) 10:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article's "verifiable source" is a commercial press release! So, in other words, if Luke Wigney had a website with exactly this information on it, and he had the information cloned by a PR team across several fake fan sites, you would accept this as legitimate? The wiki rules for inclusion seem to imply that if it can't be googled, it doesn't exist in a meaningful way! Google is a commercial venture, designed to return a profit for its shareholders. Almost all of its content is commercial in nature, especially the criteria for high listings. This is precisely the very last place you will find information about this anti-corporate performer.
That's why I added to the original article here: I was hoping that a public access encyclopaedia would be an inclusive and community-minded project that he might approve of himself. It turns out that "User Defined" actually menas "Can it be Googled?".
If I can google it, why would I wiki it?
I'm hoping the original poster will come back and help me out here - if it really is Liz Orange, I'm sure she can do this a hundred times better than I can.
Me again:
“Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
…
A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following”
Just about sums up how fans of Luke Wigney describe themselves; I know that I have joked with my husband “I’m off to my cult meeting now…” when going to one of his gigs.
He is responsible in part for kick-starting the revival in live rock music at a local level in the UK. Before he came along with his “anyone can do it” approach, we were stuck with stadium rock or pub rock. Luke’s organisation of the network of medium-sized venues now means that we have a legitmate alternative to commerical cynicism or bands who are just mucking around. Yes the scene is pretty secretive, but with articles like this proposed wiki one, it won't go completely unacknowedged before it inevitably sells-out (or so it seems).
“100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?”
When we’re finished listing it, yes, anyone with an interest as to the hows and whys and whens of the British rock music scene at the turn of the millenium will find this information essential, especially as Luke looks set to maintain his low-web profile.
Right! No more from me! Thank you Malo for at least humouring me this far. I really do think that you should include him in the wiki project, or at the very least acknowledge on the front page that original articles without commercial application are unwelcome.
Who in 100 years time is going to type in the word "cool" specifically looking for a Gwen Steffani record????? They might type in "Wigney" or "Morningstar" looking for a bio of the man who helped Brtish alternative music back up on its feet.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be a hoax. Srleffler 05:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - CloudedIce 06:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a hoax. Luma- is a proposed Non-SI unit prefix. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. This is a non-notable word and will almost certainly never be notable (it approaches the number of particles in the universe). Either redirect to Non-SI unit prefix or delete, I guess? -- Plutor 18:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is "proposed by who"? This seems to be a proposal by one guy, while others have proposed different incompatible schemes for extending the SI prefix system. This doesn't seem notable, unless one of these terms catches on and begins to be widely used. In retrospect, I probably should have identified it as "original research", which includes coining neologisms, rather than calling it a hoax. I don't think a redirect is worthwhile here, since nothing links to this page.--Srleffler 22:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone actually finds a use for this word. ManoaChild 21:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Besides, the original author's calculator didn't handle enough digits to get the binary version correct. --Carnildo 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep, as I, the nominator, have withdrawn nomination due to the creation of Matt Carroll (producer). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is only redundant until someone writes an article on Matt Carroll, the Australian Movie and TV producer. As Carroll produced some of the most significant films in Australia in the 1970's and 1980's such as Breaker Morant and Sunday Too Far Away, he clearly meets WP:BIO. His IMDb entry is here [27]. I give notice that I will be writing an entry on the Australian Matt Carroll later today so the disambiguation will not be redundant. Keep. Capitalistroadster 19:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalist, be sure to add the producer’s name to the list at Carroll when you post the article. ♠DanMS 01:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since Capitalistroadster has volunteered to write the missing article. (In this case I think the dab will be of use even though there are only two possibilities, since it will save people arguing over which of the two should get the undisambiguated title.) — HaelethTalk 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs copied and pasted from Aaron Donahue. Google can't find any association between midwayers and Donahue except for the WP article, although the term gets a number of results without the Donahue reference, so the article as it's written is completely unverifiable. The article survived VfD in July 2004, but got deleted anyway in October 2004 for reasons unclear. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del Nonnotable . Only 102 unique google hits, half of them come from Urantia fancruft sites; I don't know how thy are related to Donahue. mikka(t) 00:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with UrantiaRedirect to Aaron Donahue, per below. It's notable enough that I've heard of it, and I'm definitely not interested in Urantia. (I mean that I've heard of these "midwayers," not their association with Donahue.) - AdelaMae 05:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aaron Donahue, which (as Howard pointed out) is where the content came from in the first place. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blog/podcast related neologism. Timecop 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The afd template was added to the article and this page was created, but it was not added today's listing. Completing nomination, no vote. --grm_wnrEsc 00:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can turn up from web searches, the Grace Museum in Abilene, Texas is the only museum that does this and calls it a musecast. There are many, many more references on the web to "musecast" as a podcast done by a guy called Muse, or a website called Muse, or... well, you get the idea. Definitely not widely used to refer to museum podcasting. - AdelaMae 05:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nn neologism. Dottore So 08:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially an article on a one-off in-house service, where the name refers more commonly to the MUSE website and a podcast by a guy named Muse. Geogre 11:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From Google it seems to be a reasonably widespread neologism, albeit still a neologism (by the way, that NYTimes article linked in the "External links" section is an interesting read). For those not paying attention, I'll note that User:Timecop is a GNAAInternet troll engaging in a childish attack on weblog-related information on Wikipedia ... this doesn't mean the article shouldn't be deleted, mind you, but it's definitely something to bear in mind. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is this encyclopedic? -Incognito 13:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Skrewler 02:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term got a widely read NY Times article. Ignore the GNAA people. Rhobite 03:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a NY Times article on the subject, but I can't seem to find the termmusecast on any of the pages linked to except for the page for Grace Museum, which I mentioned above. How do these links provide evidence for the usage of this term? - AdelaMae 04:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the page should be renamed then. No AfD is required to move a page. We don't delete articles simply because they're misnamed. There are also some podcasts which give unofficial walking tours of lower manhattan.. if we have an article about those, maybe it should be merged with this one. Rhobite 04:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of podcasting museum tours is already covered in Podcast. - AdelaMae 19:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism. Grue 13:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently a dictionary definition, doesn't seem valid for Wikipedia - Akamad 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism def. PJM 12:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be expanded to article. JBH 22:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or move to Wiktionary. Jtmichcock 03:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is that the author proves that the term is used at all. Pilatus 05:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, attempted advertising. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If anything, at wiktionary. Not here. -- SGBailey 08:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Pilatus and Aaron. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat crufty re:One Tree Hill Bjones 15:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into another article.Bjones 15:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN neologism -- Perfecto 18:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main trouble here I think is not non-notability but lack of verifiability. I have done a few searches with Google, and I although I can some hits on this person, I am having a tough time verifying the claims to notability here, the chief one being that he founded about a dozen churches. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The recommendations are split three ways with no useful way to read them together. -Splashtalk 18:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Author of book admits it's a summary of Objectivism. Thus, all content can go into the articles on Objectivism or on Leonard Peikoff. --zenohockey 22:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, relatively notable bit of non-fiction. Peikoff was sort of her number two as far as I understand--his books deserve articles even if already mentioned on his page. Marskell 23:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leonard Peikoff. What Marskell states is accurate, but there is nothing to say about this book that wouldn't simply be rehashing Objectivism. The "article" is probably already as big as it would ever get. Edwardian 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand- My understanding is that this is the official argument for Objectivism and is noteworthy because of that. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just explain to me how the article can be expanded—presumably to explicate its notability apart from Objectivist philosophy—when, to quote the preface, it is "the definitive statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy—as interpreted by her best student and chosen heir" (p. xv). So yes, you're correct in that it is sort of the only real argument for Objectivism in full book-length form—but I'm not sure how many people care. --zenohockey 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [revised --zenohockey 01:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]
Comment Reading Leonard Peikoff, it seems that Peikoff's view of Objectivism, presumably as presented in this text, is not univerally held by post-Rand Objectivists, that is it should be a subset of Objectivist philosophy. Keeping this stub article may spur some later editor to elaborate on that. FRS 04:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content (all two lines of it) should certainly be moved to Leonard Peikoff. This will simply turn into a book review if kept, and that is not encyclopedic. Since there is already an entry under the author, why split this off? On a separate note, I would propose that individual books of philosophy merit their own page only when their importance becomes detached from that of the author (which is not the case here). Thus emblematic would be Nietszche's Also Sprach Zarathustra, while that other page turner, Hegel`s Dialectic : Five Hermeneutical Studies by Gadamer, should be listed under the author's entry. Dottore So 10:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Objectivism until the material about it becomes unmanagebly long. This is a pretty well-known book, by an associate of Rand's, published in 1991 and still in print, and conceivably there could be an article about it, but there's no point in having a couple of lines about it in isolation, and if it is not merged and does grow there is an obvious danger that it could become a POV fork. Dpbsmith(talk) 13:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'keep' and expand, focusing in on his unique ideas, take or perspective on objectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethie (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a biography that fails to assert notability. --Carnildo 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Marine with a nasty temper to boot. No Google hits. Herostratus 06:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had previously nominated this for nn-bio, but that was reverted. --Vsion 06:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable vanity. - Bobet 12:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a mere collection of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. This is not the case. Bob 18:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
says who? Why dont you use your real account, instead of your suckpupet? Who knows best, a suckpupet or the admin User:Grenavitar?
Zora, your bigotry is already known, but you take go to new dephts by this ridiculous nomination. If you meant what you wrote, you would also have WFD this two:
But no, you did not, even if both are in the "see also" part of "Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics". Shame on you!
Comment Have I just been accused of being a sockpuppet? This is not the case.--Bob 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Grenavitarstated " I have no problem with it" and did not mentioned anything about having any problems with a article that listed internal links. Zora, this is going to our future arbitration as well. Ill let a admin trace your IP. --Striver 23:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and so forth. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry and bigotry, and threatening them with arbitration, is not appropriate behaviour for AfD. — HaelethTalk
Delete. We have categories so we don't need pages likes this. Marskell 23:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marskell: I fail to see what this page provides that would not be done better with categories. — HaelethTalk 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So this page which is up for deletion is basically a rehash of an older page? Another reason for deletion, it duplicates another page. --Bob 00:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for accusing you , friend. This version haves a more informative categorisation, and also shows the relation to the articles in between whemselves. They compliment eachother. --Striver 00:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bob, I'm the person that Striver thought might be you. He and I have been clashing for a long time. One of the issues is his constant creation of what seem to me to be unnecessary new articles. Zora 11:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Striver 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this looks very well laid out and a useful learning aid. JBH 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This vote was JBH's 14th edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits were in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bobtalk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not going to include Astrokey44's recommendation, since it is not the right way to think about things, for obvious reasons. DanMS certainly sounds very deletey to me. That gives me 5d-2k, and there's not anything here to suggest a higher-than-usual threshold is needed. -Splashtalk 18:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How are people going to find it at wikibooks which is a much less used site? Isnt it better to keep things at wikipedia Astrokey44 12:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encycopedia and should contain encycopedia article. Keeping stuff that should be at Wikibooks won't improve their amount of visitors and defeats the purpose of having it. If it's not used enough people should start using Wikibooks instead of looking for information on wikipedia which is covered elsewhere in Wikimedia. See Main Page. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information; might be extended in WikiBooks and shortened here, but getting rid of it doesn't seem to be the right course. - Andre Engels 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Take out the unencyclopedic facts (the list of packages in the standard library - of interest to nobody but Java developers, who should be looking in the Java library reference manual, not on Wikipedia!), and you have a very short article describing Java's library management system. Now, Java's library management system may be interesting, but it is not so notable that it needs an article of its very own. It should be placed in context: either a brief description of it in Java programming language (which is overlong already, but there's a lot of cruft in it that could be edited down to make room), or in a more expansive article that describes its relation to other hierarchal library systems, like the one used in Haskell for example? — HaelethTalk 18:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though I think Haeleth makes some good points, it makes me wonder if we should also nominate C_Standard_Library for deletion as well, or keep both. They are parallel topics. Jasmol 23:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a Java reference manual. --Carnildo 23:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Frankly, I don’t see much use for this in the Wikipedia. This reads like a programmer’s language manual and reference guide. It does not seem likely that anyone would refer to the Wikipedia to learn how to use and program in Java. There are plenty of excellent reference manuals and websites that provide detailed information and instructions on Java programming (and all other languages). ♠DanMS 01:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already in wikibooks so you don't even need a transwiki. Vegaswikian 07:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP, LIST ON PNT. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What Howard said. In fact, I'll do that now. First, though, to get rid of this inconvenient incriminating evidence ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the article was a direct copy and paste from the external link at the end of the article. I've tagged it as a potential copyvio, and contacted the original creator. - TaxmanTalk 16:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Google search shows up little except that he was once an Assistant Professor at Georgia College and State University. The paper mentioned in the article is not a major work and was written for his PhD. DeleteSpondoolicks 09:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass the "average college professor" bar per WP:BIO. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bwithh 04:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, non-encyclopedic. Delete or Merge with Sausage Fest (which looks like its about to poof from wikipedia anyhow). Would have speedied, but didn't feel any of the categories fit. :/-- Syrthiss 22:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, vanity/advertisement. Also should note this site is no longer live. Skrewler 08:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a popular enough site. I note sadly, however, that the blogger has put up his own vanity page [28] and is currently using WP as a venue for posting his CV. This article is fine, but the Gunzburger entry needs to be rewritten. Dottore So 09:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as the previous AfD. Not NN. The site is up and running, so I don't know what is meant by "no longer live". Punkmorten 16:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess the site just happened to be down when I was checking. My mistake. Is it possible to withdraw this AfD?Skrewler 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was at the last afd, and the reasons for keeping them are still relevant, if not more so, it's grown. I'm not even going to bother with checking WP:WEB criterion, it is a safe bet that it meets them. Karmafist 16:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really worthy of an article in itself. --Depakote 23:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Punkmorten and Dottore So. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already tranwiki-ed. While WP:NOT doesn't explicitly cover high-school science, this isn't encyclopedic. I recomend Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 06:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a genuine piece of apparatus and is something people (e.g. high-school students and teachers) might want to find out about. Spondoolicks 10:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per spondoolicks, although the last section needs some editing to make it sound less like a how-to guide and more like an encyclopedia article. Astrokey44 12:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Describing a piece of apparatus is definitely in for Wikipedia. - Andre Engels 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a little rewrite to make it more encyclopedic, but description of laboratory aparatus seems relavent to wiki. Astaroth5 08:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete: Wikipedia is not a publishing venue for original works of fiction. --Carnildo 00:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put a speedy delete tag on this a few days ago, but it was removed, so I'll put it through the AfD process. From what I can tell, it's a short story. Why someone thought it wasn't worthy of a speedy delete, and is worth saving and wikifying is beyond me. --Daniel Lawrence 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Akamad 11:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 15:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified article about someone's short story ... that includes the short story. Thus it's either unverified or original research (per PJM). Daniel, the reason your speedy tag was removed is that the article doesn't meet the speedy criteria – there are a very small number of reasons for articles to be speedy deleted, and "it's a short story" isn't one of them. AfD is the appropriate place for this. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --Depakote 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non-notable/vanity. $free_forum is a communal $topic blog that allows anyone to post news, reviews and opinions about $topic. it's most famous writer to date is $writer. --Timecop 13:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Micronation-cruft _R_ 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable. Despite the website, googling "Republic of Volerum" returns only three hits (all on MSN Groups). Eddie.willers 22:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An MSN search dose return better hits than google, It just seems that the Republic of Volerum is rather new. I say don’t delete yet.
Delete. Notability is not part of deletion criteria, but thankfully, verifiability is. There are no independent verifiable sources given. Trollderella 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of the Republic of Volerum, and Captain Porter told me that he put up an article on Wikipedia. Even though it is small I was sad when I looked at it today and it was up for deletion. I ‘ll recommend to Captain Porter to update and expand the article so that you can have more information on it but I do hope that its not deleted.
If you can provide documentation from a third party that verifies it's existance, then it would meet Wikipedia policy. Trollderella 22:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if I could show that we were recognized by another micronation then would that work? Say if Kelterspruf had a reference to us on there page would that work for you?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't actually tag it as such, specifically because it didn't seem to fall under that category: Patent Nonsense (G1): No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters). This does not include: bad writing, [...] immature material, [...] hoaxes, [...] unless the material is actually unsalvageably incoherent. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
seems closer to G2. I get the (G1) reference now. Its from WP:CSD not WP:PN. Good point.
At any rate, this article is some sort of a vanity or exaggerated biographical joke, certainly not a hoax (because it is unbelievable and unverifiable), and not encyclopedic. Hard to tell what to call it because it is nonfactual and nonsensical. For whatever reasoning, we should also delete the article Samuel Knapp, by the same authors. DVD+ R/W 18:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We definitely need a CSD category for obvious nonsense/hoax biographies, which are depressingly common. They're pretty instantly recognizable, along the lines of "[real name] is a small, furry forest creature..." or [real name] is a bad-smelling green alien..." But until then we're here, I guess. MCB 06:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is really nothing interesting or unique about this article. Many of the 'secrets' are common knowledge or avalable in any article that links to this. Plus it only covers one episode.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. This is something that would be speediable under by proposed Expansion of CSD A7. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep... er, wait, it's a different kind of non-notable institution that merely happens to offer a few educational courses? I guess we can delete it then. — HaelethTalk 23:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN (substub, not even mentioning what city/country it's in) Pete.Hurd 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --maclean25 08:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was RedirectJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per poker blog. A soldier blog is a blog by/about a soldier... so, how is this encyclopedic? Skrewler 05:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merged definition into List of blogging terms. The rest of the article is blatant advertisement for nn blogs. --Timecop 05:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than a definition (even though a very detailed one), and a list of websites that fit the definition. Also delete as per arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker blog. Saberwyn 05:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will support redirect to List of blogging terms with later breakout as secondary option. If kept, can those interested in keeping the article find some non-U.S. Armed Forces blogs and some non-Iraqui War blogs to counter systemic bias? Saberwyn 10:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Well known form of blogging but should be renamed as Milblogging with 139,000 Google hits see [29] and one Googlenews return [30]. Important and interesting phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. But there's already an entry for 'Milblog' at List of blogging terms and its briefly mentioned at Blog as well. What more do you need? Certainly a 20-something spamlist of links to blogs isn't a criteria for keeping this junk. --Timecop 06:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 06:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saberwyn. - Randwicked 07:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote). JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are already comprehenisve lists of milblogs elsewhere & this is not encyclopedic. Per CR's point, the number of duplicates on Google is quite high. ([31] ca. 660 out of the 1000 returned sample). Granted, the extrapolation is still some 60,000 hits, but when you factor in the inflationary factor created by tags, banners, cross-links, etc..., etc... the result size surely dwindles much further still. That is not to say that this should be elided, but coverage at List of blogging terms is adequate. Dottore So 08:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why should this garbage be on here? Incognito 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Depakote 12:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of blogging terms, per usual procedure for merges. Note that this nomination may be part of a GNAA troll campaign. This is not to encourage you to vote keep, but merely something you should keep in mind before casting your vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the official Deletion Guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, the problems cited above are merely content issues and should be amended through the editing process. Prejudicial statements suggest a troll campaign. Nothing in the article is in direct violation of the Wikipedia Deletion Guidelines. This applies to Skrewler's wider campaign against Wikipedia blog listings. -- 58.143.156.115 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictdef. Grue 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is funny, though. --Daniel11 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
this user voted keep on all 'war on blogs' afd's just trying to make a point.
vote discounted by closing admin (WP:POINT vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Wouldn't this qualify as a candidate for WP:CSD A2? --anetode╔╝ 07:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of spam I stumbled upon; actually just a minor microbrew brand. On the other hand, perhaps wikipedia wants to include all microbrew brands? I'm not sure; I got a little annoyed when I saw the article being spammed in a disambig page. Abstain. Sdedeo 19:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context. --JJay 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP (4 votes) MERGE(4) TRANSWIKI (1) RENAME(2) DELETE(0). loxley 10:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All articles should be approachable by laymen, or even high school students. This is the current Wikipedia policy: include as much details as possible, but explain them in the main article in simpler language. You move off details by topic, not move off simpler language by difficulty! This article is being used as a crutch for editors on its parent article special relativity to continue writing about their formulas without providing context. In short, it is an excuse in order to continue editor laziness. I love the content. It is a good explanation, a good approach/analogy. However, it needs to be merged. The article title isn't even formal. Merge and redirect. Also needs to be merged with the Simple English version. Natalinasmpf 16:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I couldn't agree with the nominator more, not only for this topic, but for the precedent that its existence sets. DV8 2XL 17:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect specifically Merge to Special Relativity, transwiki to simple:Special Relativity (currently blank), and redirect if possible to simple:Special Relativity, and if not possible to Special Relativity with that standard interwiki link to the Simple English article. Note to closing admin: I believe the GFDL will require the article's History page to be copied to the Talk pages of the articles to which it is moved. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way simple:special relativity exists (the R isn't capitalised), but yes, it will do better with this article's info in. ;-) Natalinasmpf 19:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have just looked at simple:special relativity and it is probably the right level of treatment for that section. loxley 11:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC) I did say the following but have changed my mind: Move to a new title (according to whatever Wikipedia rules apply such as moving to simple:special relativity). .. The main Special Relativity article is an excellent whistle-stop tour of the subject that covers much of the field but does not actually explain it. In my experience the stumbling block for students is the raw assumption that the speed of light is constant so I introduced the geometrical understanding of Minkowski and others to help explain why c is constant. According to the Talk Page the article seems to have helped a few people to get the idea of SR. This explanation of the geometry of SR usually occupies half a page or less in advanced textbooks and is normally seen as an amusing 'aside' for those who are about to meet four vectors and tensor maths. In the same way it really is an 'aside' to the main SR article, but an indispensable aside if the subject is to be understood. The main SR article is well structured and has a global coverage so the problem with actually merging this text with the main article is it would damage the existing structure and detract from it as an overview of the field. loxley 19:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks, or possibly move to new title per Loxley. Special relativity looks fine to me. Encyclopedia articles should be as accessible as reasonably possible, but they're reference material, not instructional courses. I absolutely disagree that all material needs to be accessible by high-school students; that's effectively a ban on discussion of advanced topics. By the way Special relativity for beginners looks quite nice; it introduces complex topics without dumbing them down or succumbing to the popularizers' temptation of making vague and grandiose claims. But I think it's a better fit at Wikibooks, with a prominent link from the WP article. --Trovatore 20:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I meant "accessible to high school students", I really meant, the argument of every page should be accessible. For example, the points made (that is, the laws, the effects) should always be accessible; you can include the formulas and elaborate explanation of causes, that won't be understood, but that should not be the only thing the article contains. For example, if I wanted to know about the sun, all the basic detail, it works by nuclear fusion, it generates solar wind, should be there. If I needed to know about Parker spirals et al, then I would read more. But the basic explanation should not be replaced with advanced material, they should be supported by the detail. -- Natalinasmpf 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always possible. It probably is possible for special relativity, but frankly I'm not convinced special relativity isn't already accessible. That's not to say some improvements couldn't be made, but they would be minor tweaks, not a wholesale expansion by pedagogical (rather than reference) material. --Trovatore 03:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or rename. This article and special relativity are more useful if they are separate. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible; there are unresolved difficulties in making all articles accessible to laypeople, and we should avoid hastily deciding in favor of one side of the issue. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep within Wikipedia's main namespace, and rename Space-time invariance, since that is what the article describes. (Article names such as "Introductory special relativity", which are more plausible candidates that readers might type in, can redirect to it). This is an article on an independently encyclopedic topic. My own feeling is that the problem lies with the lack of thought in the special relativity article. Merging this fine article would dilute it's strength (a considered explanation of physical reality) without adding a thing; special relativity can include a link to it. Sliggy 23:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the thing is special relativity is supposed to NOT be like that in the first place. If this article's existence is an excuse for special relativity not to be improved, then I'd rather have it deleted. We have the option of merging. The point is not "dilute its strength", this is an encylopedia. You write separate articles based on topic. These two articles' topics are the same. Similarly, I'm not even considering adding to this on the side, this could possibly be part of the introduction of the page. -- Natalinasmpf 02:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia structure is excellent because we can explain the relations of terms with sentences such as: "Use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic". The problem with this hyperlink approach is that although it explains "Lagrangian" and "Null Geodesic" it does not provide clear information on how to use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic. What would be needed is another article on the technique. Should Wikipedia allow "Use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic (See Using Lagrangians to find null geodesics)" ? or should it insist that all articles expand explanations such as: "Use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic. A Lagrangian is...., Action is...., extremal curves are.... etc..." ? In fact "SR for beginners" is a specific explanation of a small part of SR and should, technically have been called "Space-time invariance and four dimensional manifolds in the early evolution of Relativity Theory" or "Minkowskian Relativity" for short, the problem is that this title would not have tipped off the high school reader to the fact that this is an essential stepping stone to understanding Relativity Theory (which, with general covariance, actually leaves this approach behind(!)). It is interesting to reflect that had the article been called Minkowskian relativity and a hyperlink been hidden in the text of the Special Relativity article this vote for deletion would not be happening. But would this have helped explain SR?loxley 11:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is. The two articles compliment each other very well. Special Relativity for Beginners bridges the gap between the more technical presentation of special relativity and classical mechanics. As a seperate article, it avoids placing into the special relativity article a lot of detailed introductory material that would make the parent article overly long and highly tedious. This is an excellent arrangement and should be retained. (If any change is to be made, I would support transwiki-ing this article to Wikibooks.) As for simple:special relativity, I built that up as a simple broad-brush presentation of special relativity, and referenced BOTH the parent article and the subject article in it. I really feel that the best presentations on this subject in Wikipedia are the ones that are not under the restrictions of simple English. --EMS | Talk 05:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see that no-one so far, not even the nominator, wants an administrator to delete this article. Even Trovatore has only expressed the desire for this article to be renamed. Unless someone who actually wants this article to be deleted comes forward within the next 12 hours, I will be closing this discussion as a unanimous keep. Discussions of mergers, rewrites, and renamings are what Talk:Special relativity for beginners is for. This is Articles for deletion. Uncle G 10:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the other purpose of AFD is to have a formal process to determine consensus over whether an article should exist as a separate article, is it not? I want this article to be "deleted" in the sense that the content is moved somewhere else, and then the original namespace is no longer a separate article. -- Natalinasmpf 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Articles for deletion is to determine whether there is consensus for an article to be deleted. You don't want the article deleted at all. Article merger and article renaming do not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course, about merging, renaming, and redirecting, but what about transwikying? That does seem to require use of admin tools, whether you call it "deletion" or not. --Trovatore 18:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikification doesn't even require that one have an account, let alone that one be an administrator. I was performing transwikifications long before I became an administrator, and I still perform them today using an account, User:Uncle G's 'bot, that does not have administrator privileges. Transwikification is complex, but it requires no special privileges at all. Uncle G 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're using the word "transwiki" to mean different things, or if not, maybe you could point me to a ref that explains how to do it. What I had in mind (in the hypothetical case that this article were transwikied to Wikibooks) is that the article would be there—together, ideally, with its history—and would not exist on English Wikipedia. Is that what you meant, and if so how do you do it? --Trovatore 18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Transwiki log and the explanation of the process that it links to. Transwikification alone does not imply deletion. Uncle G 12:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to: Special relativity for mathematicians - that would express better that this corresponds to the popular geometrical interpretation of Minkowski, and that those with a mathematical background will find this most easy. Harald88 12:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we wind this up? whilst the article has deletion box on it it appears to be unreliable. It is not unreliable so we need some way to move on. My suggestion is to rename the article as "Minkowskian interpretation of relativity" and redirect "special relativity for beginners" to this OR to leave the article as it is. loxley 15:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DeleteJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article is nominally about a computer retailer that just closed, but bulk of the article is about the company's web forums. The company seems to have been a popular retailer judging by the number of Google results, but ultimately fails WP:CORP. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it has a good Google search results, many of those were for alcoholic beverages marketed as "Special Reserve". This story found through Google News states that the company had eight stores and 45 employees in its mailorder business so fails WP:CORP see [32].
Keep and clean up - assuming this is the same Special Reserve mail-order game company, this company's adverts appeared in just about every issue of every gaming magazine I ever bought; they were really pretty well known. The fact that the article as it stands is forumcruft is irrelevant - there's a valid article under all that. — HaelethTalk 23:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Special Reserve did have more than one million members at one point, which since they paid to join, means they were customers. This fulfills point 5 in the corporate inclusion criteria. Also, the reason for creation of this article wasn't to advertise the now defunct company, but rather as a marker for the very large community on the forum. The forum members also spawned two distributed computing teams, one for the soon to finish Find-A-Drug project and one for the Grid.org project.
Vote discounted by closing admin (unsigned} JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - assuming this is the same Special Reserve mail-order game company, this company's adverts appeared in just about every issue of every gaming magazine I ever bought; they were really pretty well known. The fact that the article as it stands is forumcruft is irrelevant - there's a valid article under all that. — HaelethTalk 23:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (double vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the most in-depth article regarding the closure of Special reserve that I have come across, and it includes useful information regarding the events leading up to the once-huge comperneys closure, as well as explaining how a very large - and still running comunity works. In short, all the information in this article is both valid and valuable.
The forum itself was called ukchatforums.com and was part of the Special Reserve Network. It is the same Special Reserve that Haeleth refers to. Notorious Biggles 23:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted by closing admin (user's only edit) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another band vanity. Seems like an up-and-coming band, but with only one album on a minor label, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 22:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — pure advertising. — RJH 16:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A skin condition. All sounds very reasonable. But it doesn't exist. Google 0 hits, Pubmed no citations. Original research. Delete. JFW | T@lk 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vsmith 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an AfD tag to that duplicate article and added it to this AfD. --Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 09:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the duplicate. Google does not provide any support that this term exists. Good grounds for suspificion. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important article. It should not de deleted. I have a friend who is suffering from this very condition. As noted in the article itself, there are vested interests in supressing such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.44.178 (talk • contribs)
Oh, the complot theory was very quick in coming! Now please consider that Wikipedia is not a medical journal, and that we do not publish information that cannot be verified from external sources. As related on the talk page, if this condition is being invented it is to sue supermarkets. This is what I call trash medicine. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THANKYOU. Thankyou, for illustratingwith passion, that there are vested interests, not just financial, but REPUTATIONS also. Who is the 'WE' in 'we do not publish...' ??Ifca 05:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We = Wikipedia. Have you read the policies I quoted? Which reputations are you talking about? If this condition has indeed been invented to sue supermarkets, then it's trash medicine, not diagnostic or therapeutic medicine. JFW | T@lk 07:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Ifca 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC) , Thankyou JFW for highlighting WP:NOR and WP:V, I have now quoted a couple of readily available texts pertinent to the subject that should appeal to your POV (WP:NOR). 'Verifiability' is I believe, a question of name rather than testimonium (any suggestions? -Exogenous xeroderma modo -more a description than name).[reply]
JFW I understand and respect your need for rigourous debate, however, I feel, deletion at present will not build a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Beyond this I hope we spend our time building our collective knowledge base rather than deleting it.
If to be peer reviewed, I hope climateolgists, physicists, biologists and architects may sit with medicine.Ifca 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are still no references that support the existence of exogenous xeroderma modo; all you've done is quote some physiology stuff. Our collective knowledge, as far as PubMed and Google is concerned, does not contain an entity called "supermarket skin" or "exogenous xeroderma modo". For all we know, you may have invented it. This perception can only change is there is reliable outside material we can trust to describe the situation reliably. I'm more that slightly concerned about the talk about "suppression" and "vested interests"; this simply indicates that all this stuff is already controversial. Wikipedia (I'll state again) describes what is already known, not something you think the world should know. JFW | T@lk 07:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JFW, I did not talk of "suppression", vested interests yes. but since you have mentioned it, maybe a collective reputation is acting to suppress this article, or maybe even individuals. This disputed article IS stating what is already known, please re-read the sentance above ('Verifiability' is I believe...) and then Google Exogenous xeroderma, and then start working to heal, and build. I found over 18 thousand hits, Xerosis over 80 thousand. You did originally say "A skin condition. All sounds very reasonable.".
JFW, I agree Wikipedia describes what is already known (as I believe this article does), a statement that no individual should be able to state what they think the world should know, is by the same token supportive that no individual should be able to stop another(or others) saying something, and this is why Wikipedians try not to get personal and a decision is made by consensus, involving others. I'd like to think that others would have an opportunity to contribute to this article in the future.Ifca 20:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ifca, your responses are getting embarassing. Googling for "exogenous xeroderma" (with quotation marks) yields three results, none of which describe even remotely the condition you have invented. When I nominated for deletion I wrote "sounds reasonable" because it was actually a hoax and the material was fictive. This decision is indeed to be by consensus, and consensus is overwhelmingly against you. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JFW, A response to the two points above many help. By Googling "exogenous xeroderma" with quotes you have proved to not understand, and appear to put more energy into dispute than resolution. If "the material was fictive", then correct it, a common activity performed by Wikipedians ;) Ifca 08:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to correct something if it is verifiable. I would have loved to improve this article if there way any material to rely on. Improving articles is actually one of my most common activities on Wikipedia (see here for a recent example). I fully understand the way quotes work in Google: they actually look for the two search terms right next to each other. I'm not looking for dispute: I have given you every opportunity to provide evidence that "exogenous xeroderma" or "supermarket skin" exists. So far you have failed most disappointingly. Now do you mind if I go do something useful? JFW | T@lk 09:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
feel free, Ifca 10:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A complex subject, involving complex sciences, based upon sound physical fundamentals.82.153.98.137 12:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This band doesn't fulfill the standards laid out in WP:MUSICPilatus 16:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pre nom. Vegaswikian 07:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable president/founder of non-notable company. Does not site sources, does not pass WP:BIO, and google returns 32 pages, most of which are either dictionaries explaining the word Tak, or Wikipedia mirrors. DeleteBjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 21:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No links provide a context for this. Google finds no mention of lyrics or of Heggedlian. Thus a presumed hoax. SGBailey 08:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - presumed hoax. -- SGBailey 08:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Heggedal has no anthem, and there is no evidence that the song writers exist. This article was created to dodge this AfD. Punkmorten 15:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC BrokenS 23:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has released one demo, and mainly gigs at schools. Punkmorten 16:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — RJH 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DeleteJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopaedia article, irreedemably POV title. Probably a copyvio as well (see [33]), but could conceivably be posted by the same person here. u p p l a n d 18:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fallsend 19:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. Also Copyvio from here.--Bob 19:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Alhutch 19:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Terroristcruft. --Nintendude 03:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wrote this article and I'm politically liberal. In fact, I was thrown off the site for making fun of the loony megaconservatives there, and I still say the article should stay. Why? It's a BIG blog with LOTS of users. It's not just Misha and George. There are a ton of people there. Furthermore, this blog is an excellent place to go to put one's finger on the pulse of the ultraconservative wing of the American population. --Caspian 03:37, 25 November 2005 (EST)
Delete. -- Femmina 13:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is another one of those vanity political blog entries just trying to push their point of view on everyone else. --Timecop 14:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. --supers 14:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another non-notable political blogger. Andrew Levine 21:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a well-known blog among conservatives. Rhobite 03:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some people don't have a lot of tolerance for different opinions, eh? ;) --Daniel11 02:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been making 'keep' votes on various 'war on blogs' AFD's without giving valid reasons to keep other than comments like above. --Timecop 07:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls below the notability threshhold. Eusebeus 09:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Website Guideline #3 of WP:WEB, #1 and #2 are unlikely to have been reached so, I didn't bother checking. WP:WEB isn't an official policy yet, but that standard or somewhere in the neighborhood of it (maybe 20 or 30k on Alexa) makes sense. Auto-change my vote to Weak Keep if a surge of rabid Anti-Idiotarians come on there and boost the notability up to "acceptable", since my personal opinion is that it isn't really notable for anything so far irregardless of policy. Karmafist 17:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity/Self-promotion entry. User:Anak-Aht 04:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music group No Account 00:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to be encyclopedic. I was going to nominate this earlier, but wanted to give the creator enough time to establish notability. However, I don't think it's gonna happen. The search term "Black Brians" yields 117 hits[34], most of which are unrelated porn links. Even keeping in mind that the band is not signed to a major label, I still don't think thats gonna cut it; I can't find enough verifiable information to add to establish notability, so delete. - Orioneight 02:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI, Julie Kahler, attest that this band is notable. The Black Brians are a big band in the current nyc indie music scene. They are into DIY ethics which is why they are not signed to any label. If my solemn word is not enough, tell me what it is you require. I will do anything, good sir.
Article contributor left the above message on my talk page; I have left them a message notifying them of this discussion. - Orioneight 02:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These guys sound pretty cool, but they don't seem to pass WP:MUSIC (for anyone wondering, that's where we keep our criteria for bands). A quick shorthand for Ms Kahler: for the band to warrant an article, they should a) sign with a major indie label, b) be featured in a reputable music magazine, c) go on a tour of the USA, d) have a top 100 hit (they're the most obtainable ones). No Account, please put a little more effort into your nomination in future: it's indistinguishable from a vote! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gigging band, which is fine, but unsigned and undistributed. (I was part of the first wave of punk, and we did all the DIY stuff. The barrier there is a distribution deal so that your records get into stores, get to magazines for review, get to college radio stations for play.) Basically, we need for there to be commentary and press from non-local sources. A local Yellow Paper or Creative Loafing review even in NYC just makes the band a local band. Geogre 11:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
neologism. Facts stated without annotated sources despite requests on the talk page, Some of the language is a rant. Philip Baird Shearer 11:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on Indian history and this request for deletion may fail because in fact the article is completely accurate. But it seems to me to be written in the form of a rant and makes factual claims for which there are no footnotes to back them up. I have asked some questions on the talk page (See Talk:The Great Calamity ) but as yet there have been no replies. So if this request gingers up the page and fixes some of the problems with it then I will consider that as much a success as it being deleted. The last thing I want to do is have a page which has some redeeming characteristics deleted.
"The Great Calamity" when referring to this article is being used as a
neologism see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The phrase "The Great Calamity" usually refers to the Irish potato famine see [35] which includes links to Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com which confirm this. I could not find one web page which uses the term for India 1870-1900. Nor could I find the term on the Wikipedia pages which now link to it until after the page was written.
The article was created on 13 November by an IP address user: 63.164.145.85 with no references. The references which are there were added user:Prasant55 3/4 of an hour later. Unless Prasant55 is a very quick reader and cross checker of facts, then I presume that the article was also created by Prasant55. Which is a new User ID created around the same time as the article.
None of the links to the page used the term The Great Calamity until after the article had been written.
Famine Same text as in "Famine in India" page and was added to this one by user:Pranathi in August 2005 the name was added by 00:55, 15 November 2005 Prasant55
As I said before I am not an expert in the history of this place or period but the article contains many facts which I can not check. Nor am I sure that anyone can without the correct reference books eg the first paragraph:
Roughly thirty-year period from 1870-1900 in British-controlled India (see British Raj), in the wake of the Indian rebellion of 1857 against British rule. The period is of interest especially to social historians, economists and demographers because of the manner in which governing administrative policies caused its disastrous conditions to arise and be exacerbated. Furthermore, it represents one of the most severe such economic and demographic collapses ever suffered by a modern nation, exceeding in scale even the similar disasters of the nearly contemporaneous Potato Famine in Ireland, the Ukraine during the mass Soviet collectivization of agriculture in the 1930's, the Killing Fields of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge in the 1970's, and the famines and massive demographic ruin resulting from the Thirty Years’ War in the lands that now constitute Germany in the 1600's.
I have asked for sources for all the claims made in this first paragraph on the talk page of the article but after 36 hours none has been forthcoming. I have asked for other information on the talk page like a source for the statement "Nevertheless, the extent to which the Great Calamity constituted a deliberate genocide, as opposed to a disastrous though basically unintended consequence of a predatory imperial policy, is highly debated" eg who has claimed that it was a deliberate genocide?
Things which seem to indicate a rant are phrases like "nearly contemporaneous Potato Famine". The Irish potato famine occurred in late 1840s which was 30 years before the period mentioned here (1870-1900) and is as close in time as "the Ukraine during the mass Soviet collectivization of agriculture in the 1930's,"
Keep or rename. Valid topic. --Kefalonia 13:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But merge with economic reforms in India and rename to Left-nationalist economic history of India. The references do exist and are valid, but the facts represented in those references are contested by modern Indian economic historians and the earlier theories are collectively termed Left-nationalist views (roy, thirthankar). For the modern views of these periods, check out the references at Economy of India. --Pamri • Talk 13:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is whether this should be salvaged and moved to the History of India, Famine in India, British Raj, economy of India, etc.... since the Great Calamity does not exist as a recgonized term in Indian history and it is not the job of WP to start coining new terms for historical developments. (see [36]). The author has transplanted the term from the Irish Potato Famine as noted by the nominator and then gone and added disruptive additions to other articles to give substance to this invention. (These should be reverted back.) It makes me suspicious that the editor willfully (given the fact the s/he then went added links/content to other relevant articles) chose to ignore other venues where this information could be added. The content which is not particularly POV is duplicated elsewhere (above links). The last part is hopelessly POV/rant. So: I think it would be uncivil and unfair to foist this on the many folks who have worked hard on articles that would be affected by a merge of such tendentiously written material. Strong DeleteEusebeus 15:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge any valuable information in it. A brief google for Amartya Sen Great Calamity finds references to Bengal in 1943 and to Ireland, nothing to 1870-1900. The Land 16:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did a google search on ["Amartya Sen" " The Great Calamity"] it returned about 17 English pages for "Amartya Sen" "The Great Calamity". all of them are references to the Irish potato famine, and his exerpiance of famine in India in the 1940s. None of the articles are referring to any Indian event as "The Great Calamity" --Philip Baird Shearer 21:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish potato famine. That is the event that this term currently refers to. This is original research. If the author wanted to write an article about Indian famines of the 19th century, he is welcome to do so. He shouldn't appropriate a term commonly used to refer to other events for the purpose. Capitalistroadster 22:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, if someone hasn't done it already, remove the wikilinks to this article to prevent later confusion. Saberwyn 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the connection between the Irish Famine and India appears to come from this poorly thought out high school history homework assignment kept on the Nebraska Department of Education server - [see here]. The author of the wikipedia article appears to have read that but decided to highlight India instead of Ireland. The assignment itself is horribly skewed and one-sided. While it is true that the British Empire was culpable for various oppressions, the assignment is a almost comically bad way of teaching history. Bwithh 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but disambiguate, for example with "Great Calamity" as a proper noun used for the Potato Famine and a separate reference for "Great Calamity of India 1870-1900" used here. This is a fairly useful and relevant article- detailed, informative, reasonably even-handed for the topic and scholarly. The term "Great Calamity" for that period is definitely not a neologism as much as there is some nomenclature ambiguity surrounding how it is used in relation to the better-known application of the term to the Irish Potato Famine. The periods may not precisely be contemporaneous but they were closely associated not only in absolute chronology but in both occurring during the Victorian period, under a similar government and owing to causes and conditions that had some overlap. Thus a number of authors, Sen among them, have naturally drawn links between the Potato Famine and the collapse in the last few decades in India. In addition since the Potato Famine is perhaps better known as the "Great Calamity" (though probably more often as "Great Hunger"), the natural corollary has been to speak of the "ensuing Great Calamity of India" or analogues.
It has been years admittedly since I have read Sen but I believe he does make this connexion and apply the term to late 19th-century India as well. The other authors I know less about, but Davis at least has a similar tone and they may have also made the same sort of connexion. In South Asian history classes for example, discussions routinely consider the parallels between the policies inciting the Potato Famine and those leading to the broader economic collapse in India 3 decades later, drawing the link between the "great calamity" in Ireland and the "great calamity" in India. Even broad general history texts like the Oxford History of India, if I'm recalling correctly, bracket the same basic timeframe with a similar designation connoting the enormity of the disaster in India. I'm supposing that the author probably intended to later clarify the usage of the term in regards to the Potato Famine and the Famines in India but was not sure of the best way to go about it. As to the question posed above, there indeed *have* been some authors who have called the collapse in India in the late 19th century a genocide since it occurred under British rule and harsh British policies, so many (in sheer numbers) perished, and the famines wiped out a number of Indian cultural communities entirely. (Davis is one.) If anything, the original contributor seems to have doubts about this designation in particular as the last paragraph indicates.
Recall that there is also an oral tradition in Indian tongues such as Tamil, Hindi and Marathi in regards to the collapse of the late 1800s that encompasses roughly those last three decades, and which does refer to them in terms that would roughly translate as "great disaster" or "great calamity" since the memory remains so painful for the stricken states. Therefore, there is a tradition of multiple authors within academia who link the Irish Great Calamity with the great calamity that occurred in India several decades later under a similar government, in the wake of policies with some pertinent similarity and roughly during the period that the author specifies (and is also considered by Sen and I believe by Davis as well), along with an oral tradition within India that uses a designation that would translate in roughly similar terms. The information in the article is accurate and thus the only question is the name designation, and these precedents should meet any reasonable standard for a naming designation as used in an encyclopedia or a peer-reviewed journal.
Since the "Great Calamity" is still most often associated popularly with the Potato Famine and should remain primarily associated with it, my suggestion is as follows: Create a disambiguation page with "Great Calamity" as a *standalone proper noun* linking to the Potato Famine in Ireland. Then set off a secondary link to the India article as something more technical such as "Great Calamity of India 1870-1900" or "Indian Economic Collapse of 1870-1900 a.k.a. Great Calamity of 1870-1900." This in my opinion is the most effective and parsimonious solution since it reserves the explicit standalone term itself for the Potato Famine, while setting off the unique phenomenon of the Indian social/economic collapse in 1870-1900 with a nod to the way "the great calamity" designation has been extended from the Potato Famine to it, while not reappropriating the term itself. Alternatively, if any South Asian scholars out there do know of a separate designation to the phenomenon of the 1870-1900 collapse used in a specialized text (for example in a Tamil, Hindi or other Indian-language text used in India) and can translate, then substitute in that term for the main link and mention "Great Calamity of India 1870-1900" as secondary. The Main Event 20:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This user id (User:The Main Event) has just been created and has only made this one edit to date [37] and there is no evidence from what is written that "The Great Calamity" used as a name for events in India described in the article is anything but a neologism --Philip Baird Shearer 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is now 5 days since I posted some requests for information on Talk:The Great Calamity and to date there have been no replies from the authors of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An entry on a band that doesn't fulfill the standards laid out in WP:MUSIC. Pilatus 16:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. What is it with these band pages? Harvestdancer 19:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Dottore So 08:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Caerwine 17:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many edits and no attempt to meet WP:MUSIC. Vegaswikian 06:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Mindmatrix 16:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Bands that have yet to release their first album don't get Wikipedia articles. Also, use of the first person in the band article strongly suggests either vanity or copyvio. Bearcat 20:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This sounds like complete crackpottery to me. Besides, the article itself says it's a 'TPS is still under development as it has only been seriously acknowledged for the past several months', which makes it unsuitable for WP. Cmdrjameson 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (I can only assume so reading it). Marskell 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who has ever heard anything about Thompson Webb knows how deified he is. I don't approve of you shitting on what you don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjd10 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 November 2005 who is the author of the article.
Delete, since the article has no real content and the person's notability comes from establishing the school. This could be changed to Redirect, but there doesn't appear to be an article on the school. - Bobet 00:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete article (and authors response above) appear to be intentionally offensive. Pete.Hurd 22:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. I'll do away with the dab page too. -Splashtalk 19:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced for some time. Probable hoax as he is allegedly from Fucking, Austria. No inbound links, except from Tim James a disambiguation page linking to this individual and to the NBA player. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. I don't find anything relative under any of his names. PJM 15:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for "Tim James" hip-hop didn't come up with anything significant regarding this man see [38]. A search for "Tim James" Austria came up with even less [39]. Capitalistroadster 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article about what seems to be a non-notable tech website. (When I visited the site, only two people were logged on the forums, including myself as a guest). I originally speedy deleted it, but the author of the original page posted the following on the talk page. I still don't think it's notable enough for inclusion, but out of courtesy to the author, I thought perhaps it merits a debate. Jasmol 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
from the author Hello, We appreciate your concerns with the safety and protection of Wikipedia, but we're a little upset about our entries and how they have been reacted to. We can assure you and the rest of the Wikipedia Counter-Vandalism Team that we wish no harm. "Tribune for the Retarded Monkey" or "TRM" is in no way meant to be offensive to anyone. It is also not 'nonsense' but as the first ammendment states, you are entitled to your opinion. All we wish to do, is to reach to a broader audience so we could obtain an increase in publicity. If this violates any of Wikipedia's rules, we apologize sincerely. Thank You. -The TRM Forum-
Delete as per Jasmol. I got no hits for a search for "Tribune for the Retarted Monkey" see [40] so verifiability problems. Having two people in the forum indicates that it doesn't meet our notability requirements outlined in our Wikipedia:Websites guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of Internet venues for generating publicity. I wish you well with them. Durova 02:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for this. Reyk 05:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --supers 06:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Timecop 06:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Skrewler 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 06:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Edwardian. Dottore So 08:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no not notable. (cute name though ^_^) --Depakote 12:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you have to worry about an article that starts out with: *This is not a joke* --- Astrokey44 12:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no attempt to establish notability. Vegaswikian 07:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Some non-notable high school band that hasn't even played at the Scarsdale teen center yet. And the name of the band isn't properly capitalized. —Brim 06:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "They play rock;badly." Goodbye! - Randwicked 10:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability, and rightly so. - Andre Engels 13:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm getting tired of dealing with all of these nn bands nobody already.Gator(talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, but the definition is for the verb form, not the noun that the title is. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic. Annual Sports Day at non-notable schools does not merit inclusion wrt Wiki standards. Eddie.willers 22:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? The Webb School of California is the only high-school in the country, nay, in the world with an accredited paleontolgoy museum on campus. I think that's worthy of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjd10 (talk • contribs) 00:19 18 November 2005, who is the author of the article.
User Tjd10, why don’t you write an article on the school to establish its notability? ♠DanMS 02:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Webb Day article. The school may be notable, but that's another story. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 23:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you write an article on the school to establish its notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveholt243 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 November 2005
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism Reyk 10:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, neologism, Original Research. . . All they have yet to do is start a band! Anville 11:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
most shias that are online know what answering-ansar.org is, still it is ranked 2,198,338. And ansar.org, the famous Shia hate site has 152,302 and the very very very very famous Shia al-islam.org has only 55,912, i dont know if 318,000 is so bad... Consider allaahuakbar.net has 427,446.
I mean that you must have reasonable expectations of what a Muslim site is going to rate, its not gona rate like mcdonalds.com with 6,043 or CocaCola.com with 7,864. The very famous Salafi site islam-qa.com gets 11,098. In my own view, its not to much to want a article for all the above sites... I mean, how much does that cost WP? 1 mb? less? Also, it went up 92,880...--Striver 12:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that of those Al-Islam.org is notable because... well, I really think it is... just about the most major Shia site I've seen... like Sunni Path is notable I believe... (although I can see why others would want to delete it...) Islam.com is ranked 48,000 but I think it's less notable than the 180,000 ranked Sunni Path... but, this all means very little.... linkforsex.com is ranked 36,000 but I don't think it's notable... grenグレン 21:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has been established that Wikipedia is not a web directory; this site does not meet keep criteria and the Alexa traffic rank is poor. And BTW, you link to alexia.com when you say that it is laughable... Try useing stats about alexa.com to criticise it, not alexia.com. Just a suggestion. --Bob 18:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment You missundertand me :) I did not mean that Alexa.com is laughable, in contrary, i belive it is a woderfull site. My argument was that having a net rating of 300 000 with Alexa.com is not a valid argument for not having a article, since Alexa.com in it self has a rating of 500 000, yet still it has its own article. So i argue that the 300 000 rating is not a valid argument for deleting it in it self, rather that an case-to case decision needs to be made. And i argue that Witness-pioneer.org is a profesional Sunni site that is profesional and notable. --Striver 22:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i publicly apologise for accusing Bob of being a suckpupet, i misstok his contribution list [42] and i am also involved in a conflict with some other users. Sorry! --Striver 00:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I should perhaps add that I'm the person that Striver suspects of using sockpuppets. Zora 07:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP rewrite. -Splashtalk 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
unless this could be somehow improved, this is way substandard. delete-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page☎ ) 02:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I rather abstain I think I made a mistake. -- ( drini's vandalproof page☎ ) 18:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have rewritten it to salvage what I could, and basically made it a stub for the purposes of voting (so people can see at least a non-vandalized version). This will probably always be a target of petty vandalism (and thus User:Drini will probably deal with it more than most of us) but it seems to be a notable forum, certainly one of the most active english-language forums there is. I don't know how much non-cruft content an article about it could ever have though... probably merge into World of Warcraft if it doesn't expand beyond a stub in a few months (article is apparently only a week old). --W.marsh 03:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability is made and the article reads like an ad. Disturbingly, six "community managers" are red linked, suggesting that articles are to be created on them later. The one blue link goes to an unrelated article. -- Kjkolb 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems to be quite a substantial forum about a well known game. It should be interesting to see if/how the article develops, but we should certainly give it the chance to develop. Evil Eye 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten as per above. MCB 06:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World of Warcraft. While it probably does meet the requirements of WP:WEB (in so far as total forum members), there's already an article about the game that could have a section devoted to the forums. Failing a consensus on merging, it should be Kept. —Locke Cole(talk)(e-mail) 09:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable website, apparently by highschool students. Also not verifiable. 165.189.91.148 17:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the article explicitly states that the authors have no intention of providing any information that could possibly verify its existence (for "security reasons") renders it impossible to keep this material in Wikipedia - even leaving aside the potentially-debatable questions of notability. — HaelethTalk 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A student of the week article for a single grade in a single school. Information regarding verifiability has been deliberately retained. Too specific an article on an insanely broad, unencyclopedic topic. DeleteSaberwyn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
nn, no google news hits, alexa in 4 million range. Article text of "...many of the blog's readers find this to be really awesome." does not establish notability on wikipedia. Skrewler 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If i grew weed on my rooftop and blogged about it, then smoked it out in a bar where smoking is banned, and someone BlogThis(tm)'d me, would I get a personal article on Wikipedia? No. --Timecop 12:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable worthless blog-cruft. Incognito 12:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of the part about the 3 cats, this article is pretty useless in my opinion. Not notable. "...many of the blog's readers find this to be really awesome." is blatant POV. --Depakote
I have to wholeheartedly agree here. Delete. Sam Hocevar 12:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the meatpuppets. Alexa 4 million, no google news, so I'l agree with the meatpuppets and recomend Delete. But if you're going to say the alexa, please do link it for all us lazy bastards, ok? - brenneman(t)(c) 12:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 13:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ben Aveling 01:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETED by Drini. -Splashtalk 19:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NMG. PJM 20:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
18:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ᑐ 21:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply].gif){kind=small}