Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

Purge server cache

November 23[edit]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE no content - just a link. -Doc ask? 00:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shitlist[edit]

A thinly disguised advertisement for the external link. ERcheck 00:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 00:05, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public transport route planner[edit]

WP:NOT this. Collection of links to do with public transport rout planning. No hope of an article emerging.--Doc ask? 00:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC) -Doc ask? 00:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a stub about public transport route planners. Possibly rename to route planner and keep as a stub about them. Kappa 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless list: if you needed this info, you'd go to the specific city/region or transit system articles. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not a list. It is a collection of links to external sites. I.e. it is using Wikipedia to set up an Internet portal. The content above the links is a dictdef. Therefore, delete for dictdef. Geogre 03:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surely this could be speedied as {{db-spam}}. It contains nothing much but external links. Reyk 04:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand the description of the technology. --Vsion 05:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's not a search directory, see Google for this information. (Notorious4life 06:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per 1.5 and 1.7 of NOT. Marskell 09:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. There was an article in The Times the other day about the RAC's route planner that directed some guy across three ferries instead of a direct (road!) route. Notable indeed. Robinh 09:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the point of this last vote/comment. The discussion in the Times doesn't seem to be about public transport route planners at all. No doubt a general article about computerised route planners could be written, and might be worth keeping, but this isn't such a thing - its a set of links. Without being too critical, has Robinh 'read' the article and would he like to explain the relevance of his remarks? --Doc ask? 09:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but get rid of the external links. The text above it, including the amusing note about their weaknesses, easily rises above dicdef. Maybe it was recently added? --Last Malthusian 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it would be in a regular encyclopaedia. 203.122.225.241 13:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. The one about the route via Dublin applies to all route planning software - Autoroute used to send you from Portsmouth to Southampton via the Isle of Wight, and Autoroute 2002 for Haverfordwest to Leominster takes you via dun Laoghaire on the seacat. Remove that non-specific allusion to a newspaper space-filler and what you have is exactly what WP:ISNOT: a collection of links. Remove the links and you have... pretty much nothing. I would link these individual planners on the sites for public transport in each country. The requirement for finding the information on several countries at once is likely to be extremely small. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you suggesting that wikipedia users have no need to know about this common flaw in route planning software? Kappa 01:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per 203.122.225.241. This could be a proper article, even if it's currently just a stub with a list of links tacked on. It does need expansion, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:58, 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 COPYVIO, but not the speedy kind. -Splashtalk 02:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Antiwar Network[edit]

This article violates Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and is aiming to recruit members to an antiwar movement. Will likely not develop into a useful article, and at the moment is political spam. Harro5 00:32, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kill a yuppie[edit]

Non-notable dicdef at best. Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill a Yuppie  RasputinAXP  T C 00:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Jtmichcock 01:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It is, I assume, a reference to a relatively isolated event in Somerville, Massachusetts. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 02:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Attempt at creating a meme. Basically, this is a vanity article: the kid who invented it wrote it to propagate it. If we take its claims seriously, all we get is a disgruntled youth. Is there any other sort? (In my day, it was hanging out with the Spartacist Youth League.) Geogre 03:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live and work just miles from Somerville and this is the first I've heard of this term. It seems as if its notibility is limited to a very small area. Carbonite | Talk 15:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Jasmol 19:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doing a Google search turns up a few news articles referring to this as a graffiti tag showing up in Sommerville parks, but it still appears to be more of an old wikinews item than an encyclopedic item. --StuffOfInterest 20:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 07:00, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kill a Yuppie[edit]

Same article as Kill a yuppie, as above. Delete.  RasputinAXP  T C 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Harro5 00:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jtmichcock 01:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Same reasoning as with Kill a yuppie. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 02:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Duplicate material (the other one was the properly named one, so this is the dupe). Geogre 03:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the other instance Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doing a Google search turns up a few news articles referring to this as a graffiti tag showing up in Sommerville parks, but it still appears to be more of an old wikinews item than an encyclopedic item. --StuffOfInterest 20:04, 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 Denni ☯ 03:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lunch Bunch[edit]

Please please PLEASE expand CSD A7 so that we can get rid of vanity articles about non-notable groups of people. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete NN, Vanity --RaiderAspect 00:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete group vanity --BillC 01:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Jtmichcock 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A group of people unattested elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. Geogre 03:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'd like to second Howcheng's call for an A7 expansion. Reyk 04:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete OMG that's like 4 friends. lol. 203.122.225.241 13:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. CSD A7: Article about real person[s] that does not assert assert significance or importance. •DanMS 16:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Be sure to delete the image also. •DanMS 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. -- 142.205.241.145 19:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (if necessary put the nn-bio tag in four times) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (though Just zis Guy's suggestion is tempting) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:03, 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 Delete by RHaworth as copyvio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redwing (comics)[edit]

Nonsense story, not a comic book. Harro5 00:57, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbanks chatroom and Riverbanks channel[edit]

Short article about a very unremarkable chatroom on mIRC. Should be speedy delete, but no applicable rule. Harro5 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as wonderfully non-notable. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 02:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wow. A website's suitability for discussion is divided by 20 for a forum's. A forum's (which is at least saved to disk and therefore persistent in documentary form for some time) suitability would need to be divided by 20 again for an IRC chat channel, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IRC channels are almost never encyclopedic, due to the lack of documented verifiable history, and this is no exception. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable unencyclopaedic uninteresting. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I add the mirror article Riverbanks chatroom to this nom. -- Perfecto Canada 15:45, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swandivers[edit]

non noteable halflife group. Mass suicide is hardly an original idea in gameing. Geni 01:52, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Tolkien[edit]

Notable only as the father of J. R. R. Tolkien; otherwise just a bank clerk not suitable for inclusion per WP:BIO TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, being related to a famous person is not a suitable notability claim. Andrew Levine 02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and of interest to readers. - SimonP 03:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to J. R. R. Tolkein, where I believe he is mentioned. Attendant fame = a redirect (same with spouses, children, bastards, and family pets). Geogre 03:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Geogre. Although those last two beg the question of where we should redirect Tony Blair. (Had to be said.) --Last Malthusian 10:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to J. R. R. Tolkein. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Geogre - he is not independently notable other than as Tolkien's dad and he died when Tolkien was three. Capitalistroadster 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. PJM 04:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whilst the subject is not intrinsicaly notable, it is verifiable and of interest to a significant number of people. The information will be in print in a number of biographies. Normally, for family members, I'd say 'merge and redirect', but there is too much info here to merge, and I see little to be gained by losing that info with a simple redirect (effectively a delete in this case). --Doc ask? 09:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in two minds here, either to Redirect or Keep. On one hand, he is only notable as the father of J.R.R. Tolkein and hence could be included in his page. But on the other hand, how he brought JRR up likely influenced his books, and henceforth knowing about him provides useful background information about JRR and why he wrote like he did. Therefore, I think that it should be a Keep. 203.122.225.241 17:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign before. didn't mean it to be unsigned so i will just sign it now)[reply]
    He didn't raise JRRT; he died when he was 3. JRRT was raised by his mother, and then by their parish priest after she died. Of course it's useful background information, but that's no reason to have a seperate article. IMO it belongs in J. R. R. Tolkien, not on its own. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's factual information. Just because it's a short article is no reason to get rid of it. TotalTommyTerror 16:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a strawman argument. No one is arguing that it should be deleted because it's short or because it's non-factual. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Gamaliel 18:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although questionable in terms of WP:BIO, his main contribution to society being fathering one of the grestest authors of the modern era, there is enough verifiable information here to support an individual article. Merging to Tolkien's article could possibly hurt the format of that article and a mere redirect would mean a lot of info is lost. Saberwyn 19:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per Geogre and others. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Saberwyn unless all the content can be cleanly merged into J. R. R. Tolkien. We're not trying to save paper here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What's surprising to me is that someone decided to add all this information about JRRT's father, who had little to no influence in his life, yet relatively little (and no article) has been written here about his mother who was an enormous influence on him. (Indeed, he always considered himself more of a Suffield than a Tolkien.) All this niggly background on his father's family indeed has a place in the main article IMO -- if correspondingly detailed information is added on his mother's family. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The question should be asked: Arthur died when J.R.R. Tolkien was 3; if J.R.R. died when he was four and never created LOTR, would anyone seriously argue that Arthur belonged on this page? Jtmichcock 03:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, and the fact that he did not, apparently, have any formative effect on his son. Do we add an article or redirect for every author's relatives? Turnstep 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Doc; verifiable and of interest to readers, but an uncomfortable merge. Kappa 13:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  12:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The Wookieepedian 04:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my personal basis for criteria is simply "Is it likely somebody will google this character in two years, wanting to find out information about him, whether for a school project, personal interest or anything else?" The answer is simply yes, and merging him to JRR's article would make JRR's article prohibitively lengthy. That's why we suggest if a particular subject is taking up too much room in an article, we give it its own article. Sherurcij 11:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's the father of someone famous -- that's it. If it's important to the background of the famous son, but that info in HIS article. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his son was a small child when he died - he's notable enough for one sentence in his JRR's article, but that it. CDC (talk) 18:12, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Male-Unbonding[edit]

The second episode of Seinfeld. The emerging consensus on Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes is that not every TV episode is worthy of inclusion. It's fine to have an article for a very well-known TV episode like "The Contest", but there is nothing very notable about this episode. Andrew Levine 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm no fan of individual episode articles, as I feel that it's far too granular for the bulk of them. Season summaries are sufficient for most shows, most of the time, and the stand-out episodes that had the world talking might need to be discussed as they, like people and events, produced effects outside of themselves. I.e. they set the culture to a new place. Merge/redirect would be ok, but I think that there are already season guides. Geogre 03:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Episode of a major sitcom series, we have similar articles on Star Trek, Babylon V, etc and I think such articles might be of interest to readers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't even a popular episode. Joshua Johaneman 08:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, episode of Seinfeld seen by millions of people. Kappa 10:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not assert episode's importance, most probably because their is nothing important to assert. Contrast this with The Contest, which won Larry David an Emmy and coined/immortalised numerous phrases. Zunaid 12:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 2nd episode is notable. 1st is usually a pilot, so the 2nd is the first "real" episode. Given the popularity of Seinfeld overall, this has to be kept. 203.122.225.241 13:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge into season article if that's feasible). TV episodes, regardless of the show, must really stand out to deserve individual space. It appears this one does not. — Haeleth Talk 20:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete to series article. This is certainly not big enough that this would be a problem, and only existing fans are likely to search for the episode name Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. I don't believe this could ever be more than a stub. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being the second episode alone is not enough to make it notable. Turnstep 16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge no need for own article AND no need to not have summaries.
  • Delete. Only extraordinary single TV episodes merit their own article. Grackle 04:23, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex hawk[edit]

Tagged as nn-bio, but I'm not sure that isn't at least an assertion of note. (It was me that munged the link, btw.) -Splashtalk 02:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails Geogre's Law (any article with a miniscule surname already has serious problems). I agree that it's not a speedy, but that's all. The article advertises a writer of smutty stories and has unverifiable (not just unverified) claims of praise from "all over the internet community" (another capitalization error there, BTW). Further, the article concerns not an author, but a screen name. There is no person there, only a fiction that writes fictions. Geogre 03:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly not nn-bio - the claims are there, but definitely fails to meet WP:BIO. PJM 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. His stories "tend to be characterized by intricate plots, intelligent, witty dialogue, semi-realistic scenarios, well-developed characters and (occasionally quite lengthy), author's notes"? Good grief. Andrew Levine 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete after viewing (and unmangling) the link to his web page, I noticed that he has only a handful of articles, and has no reference to being published. If he is an unpublished author, therefore he is not notable. His web page is not sufficiently popular to make it notable in its own right. 203.122.225.241 13:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wiki policy, if an assertion of signifcance is clearly made in a biographical article, as in this case, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. It should then be examined by editors via the VFD process to see if its claims of notability are valid. If not, it gets deleted. PJM 13:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so Strong Delete then. 203.122.225.241 15:54, 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 no consensus to delete; merged with oil lamp. Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Grenade Oil Lamps[edit]

Definitely not the speedy it was tagged as, and talk page indicates good-faith attempt. Not sure if a redirect to a generic oil lamp is appropriate or if this belongs elsewhere or what, so AfD can do its research-thang. -Splashtalk 03:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Regardless of whether this type of oil lamp is all the rage or not, this article reads as advertising copy. The least that it needs is a POV rewrite. However, what seems to be at stake is whether this type of oil lamp is significant and discussed by other media. So far as I can tell preliminarily, it's just a particular product and not, say, the hand-crank shortwave radio or the recycled tire playground paving. Geogre 03:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a google search on hand grenade oil lamps, and it returned only 38 hits. That makes it somewhat non-notable. Whilst this is a valid product, I don't think that it is (yet) notable enough in its own right. Therefore I suggest a Merge with oil lamps and keep the content. 203.122.225.241 13:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into hand grenade (not into oil lamp). The controversy is notable enough for inclusion. (We probably should have an article on converted weapons and/or weapon replicas, but we don't. Toy weapon is not quite appropriate for this, and replica is just a dicdef.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to oil lamps. KillerChihuahua 16:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete. Making a lamp out of XXXX is not unique. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebar Jaff[edit]

According to the article, Rebar Jaff is a widely published reporter whose main subject is Kurdistan and the Kurdish people. A Google search for "Rebar Jaff" comes up with 41 hits, 9 of which are unique distributed over 3 websites. Pilatus 03:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The Google hits for this reporter show that he has published in Kurdistan. It is possible that his articles might not be online, but rather in print only papers. ERcheck 03:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly. But the article also says that the author has worked for a number of Middle-Eastern newspapers and "Europe and US-based Internet news websites". Newspaper reporters and columnists tend to clock up a huge number of hits in Google. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who works for the Independent {UK), has more than 500000. It could be that none of the newspapers that Rebar Jaff works for has an online edition (or uses Latin script, the wealthy bit of Kurdistan is in Iraq and Arabic script is used there, IIRC), or it could be that this is vanity. As usual, the proof that this isn't vanity is up to the editor who put the article up. Pilatus 03:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP address the article was edited from is assigned to the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Vanity, vanity of vanities. Pilatus 03:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is no assertion of worth either way of the journalist's work, but anyone doing his job satisfactorily is, by definition, not remarkable. The article seems somewhat like a CV. In any case, the reporter is not widely discussed. Geogre 03:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. KillerChihuahua 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Call it the "Average Journalist"" standard. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horseland[edit]

web page advertisement --RoySmith 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Advertising, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 03:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement. Jasmol 19:55, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medfordici[edit]

Hoaxes/neologisms aren't speedies. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medfordese too. -Splashtalk 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Protologisms are speedable, I believe. This sure looks like one, as I found no Google attestation. Geogre 03:55, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Hockey League[edit]

A hockey league that was announced as forming in 2003 but never did. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Seems like a dead stub since the league doesn't really exist yet. PJM 03:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think this article does have the potential to be a good, useful article, yet the way it is currenly laid out and presented isn't encyclopedic. It hasn't been edited or expanded in a long time, so it just seems like a dead article. (Notorious4life 06:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak delete per nomination. If the article is kept, the redlinked team names should be unlinked; there's nothing substantial to say about teams in a league that never played. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only ever existed on the back of an envelope. Homey 15:37, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plain States Hockey League, St. Louis Steel, Chesterfield Jets, St Clair County Vortex, Peoria Franchise, Decatur Sagamons, Danville Mid Americans, Meramec Hockey Club[edit]

Sounds like a hoax, to me. This is very crystal-ballish, this may never come to fruition. It reminds me an awful lot of the Pennsylvania Hockey League, even down to the tripod official site. And surely any such real league would call itself the Plains State League. Even if it's not a hoax, an amateur, development league (with locations in several medium sized Midwestern cities, no less) is not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination -- additional verification would be needed to confirm the league's existence. --Metropolitan90 08:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability (and some crystal ball). --Rob 12:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; the only references to this league I can find that aren't Wiki mirrors are of fans on various hockey forums asking whether the league actually exists or not. RGTraynor 02:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiablity D-Rock 10:40, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woven Way Tradition of Witchcraft, The/Temp[edit]

"The Woven Way Tradition of Witchcraft" garners one Google hit "the woven way" only get 85, but many, if not all, of them have nothing to do with this. Looks like advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At first glance, it appears that the text is similar to the main article, which has a copyright violation notice on it. -- Kjkolb 05:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising and duplication. Geogre 12:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zoe. We could send to to copyright problems, but they seem so determined that it might be easier to delete it here. -- Kjkolb 13:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - local coven at best, advertising at worst - Skysmith 14:42, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideabloom[edit]

nn studio, creator of nn podcast. 12 unique Google hits, and only 28 all told. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete podcruft. I can find no evidence that this studio has attracted significant attention even among podcast-listeners. — Haeleth Talk 20:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. The podcast has only been around since October 2005. The information shown is correct. No data states that studio is a top 10 hollywood company. Encyclopedias should not only contain info on Fortune 500 companies. 24 November 2005
    • The podcast has only been around since October 2005. Thank you for making our argument for us. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 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 speedy Content was: Mosquito is a device invent by Howard Stapleton. This device is use to deter young people under 20 years old by high frenquency sound. mikka (t) 04:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito (device)[edit]

nn device, only 15 unique Google hits for '"howard stapleton" mosquito'. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted. Device to deter under-20-year olds?...mikka (t) 04:08, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obscured by Species[edit]

nn webcomic created by a person whose article is already listed on Afd -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Mumm. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philemnos[edit]

WP:NOT a web directory. This consists entirely of a description of another wiki. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided -- I'm not clear on what the criteria are for when a site merits having an encyclopedia entry -- Yahoo surely has one, but of course if Bob decides to put up a page with his newborn's pics, surely it doesn't belong. I'm not clear that the only song lyrics wiki falls on the latter side of the deep/delete curve. I created the Philemnos article entry, but I'm not clear on whether the above WP:NOT applies. Kaz 05:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have proposed guidelines at WP:WEB. No comment as to whether or not this site meets them. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No alexa rank indicates that it does not meet proposed guidelines for web site notability. More seriously, the site seems to have no copyright policy and is likely to gather a lot of copyvio lyrics. WP policy is to avoid linking to sites with copyvio content. --GraemeL (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a link to a single item in a different encyclopedia. Almost looks like the enemy infiltrating... Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's title isn't even correct - the site it lists to is called Philomelos, not Philemnos. Google knows of no incoming links, and the only mention of the site I can find on Google is on its creator's blog... — Haeleth Talk 20:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 07:02, 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 REDIRECT to Termination of employment. Owen× ☎ 19:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sacking[edit]

I found this one whilst searching for something completely different. Not only is it a dictionary entry, but it's of dubious truth; I'm sure this behavior happened long before 2003. So, in short, it's unverifiable, not an encyclopedia entry, and because of the name dropping, arguably vanity -- therefore, it should be deleted or changed back into a redirect to termination of employment. FreelanceWizard 04:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sack, er...Delete per nom. Unverifiable garbage. PJM 04:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to teabagging, which is a terrible article about a real practice (the one described in this article). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to termination of employment per nom. And do delete, so this content is wiped. Marskell 09:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMFG! Okay, do we really need this kind of thing in an encyclopaedia? Do we need to have explicit descriptions of obscure sexual practises? I think that that article needs an R rating. Since wikipedia has a G rating, I don't think we have any choice but to Delete it. More commonly, sacking is a term used when someone is fired, so put in a Redirect to termination of employment.
    • Wikipedia in general does not have a "G-rating". PJM 14:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't? But the internet as a whole has a G-rating, unless prohibited in other ways. If Wikipedia does not have a G-rating, then it would have to be blocked (or else sections of it that are not G-rated would have to be) by NetNanny and other blocking software. This would make Wikipedia practically useless for class projects and such (which seems to be one of the main uses of it). Ergo, if Wikipedia doesn't have a G-rating, it should. 203.122.225.241 15:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please go to the bottom of any Wikipedia page, follow the hyperlink to the disclaimers, and read them and their talk pages. Uncle G 16:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable is the closest thing that I could find to something suggesting it was not G-rated. Again, there are laws in existence in most countries of the world in relation to content that is allowable on the internet. For example, in Australia, anything that is considered to be "adults only", including explicit nudity, must first have a disclaimer on a blank page before linking to any pictures - and any explicit sex must require password protection and validation of adult age. I believe that the laws in the United States are very similar. i.e. the internet is G-rated. 203.122.225.241 17:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please review the relevant policies. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Wikipedia is not "rated" at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain material which may be offensive to anyone. There are no valid laws in the United States which pertain to non-pornographic Internet content - the portions of the Communications Decency Act which related to "patently offensive" content were struck down as unconstitutionally broad. Only "obscene" content is prohibited and there is *nothing* on Wikipedia which could be construed as obscene by any reasonable person. FCYTravis 19:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Teabagging as noted above. It's essentially the same thing. The semantics of perversion. TotalTommyTerror 17:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under no circumstances redirect to Teabagging, because it's not an unambiguous synonym. I've never encountered it in that sense, and so my inclination is to assume that's a neologism, and it should therefore be redirected to termination of employment. If the sexual meaning is, in fact, well established — for example, do you have any citations from printed publications, perhaps? — then we should disambiguate here, rather than redirecting anywhere. — Haeleth Talk 20:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree 100%. PJM 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per user:Marskell to termination of employment, not teabagging. When the Internet writes articles about whatever strikes its fancy, content begins to look like the Internet: "Hey, Homer, your cartoon is the number 3 non-pornographic site on the Internet, which makes it 5 million and forty-third overall!" Geogre 11:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to termination of employment. Teabagging???? KillerChihuahua 16:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. I don't think a redirect is needed either, as there are certainly other meaning of "sacking" : link to Wictionary if anything. Turnstep 17:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect termination of employment. Preaky 07:03, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feijão Tropeiro[edit]

Wikipedia is not a recipe book, m'kay?-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:13, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lintilla (chat site)[edit]

Non notable chat site. See also Planes of existence (chat site).

  • Comment - As I said with the Planes of existence site, this was equally as notable as Planes of Existence, so if you want to delete POE for lack of notoriety, then you must also delete this one. I am glad at least that you have clarified what you consider to be the definition of notoriety. Glad that you think that the first and most successful of something is non-notable. LOL. I'd *really* like to have a look at what the qualifications for notoriety are someday. 203.122.225.241 08:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles describing websites should contain information that makes them useful works of reference. For example, is the site important historically?. Therefore, according to WP:WEB it has to be an automatic strong keep. LOL.
Comment this Vfd, as well as the Vfd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of existence (chat site) have been used by Jeffrey O. Gustafson as a veiled attempt at personal attacks against me, including the latest edit. It says on my user page who I am, and I had not previously voted on this. There is no puppetting going on. Nor is Piquan a puppet. I would request that Jeffrey O. Gustafson please apologise and cease the animosity. Thank you. Zordrac 20:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you (accidently) admit on my talk page to being a puppet of the anon (not Piquan, who seems to be legit). Furthermore, you should not accuse anyone of personal attacks especially when I have done no such thing. I am completely open about my contributions and admin actions. Go ahead, look for a personal attack against you, and then please bring it up on the Administrator's noticeboard or any other appropriate venue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "accidentally" admit anything. I have always been open with things. I merely created an account to avoid confusion, as I said immediately on creation. This is not a sock puppet and you have falsely accused me of this. I had not voted on this page yet, and felt that a vote from an account would have more validity. On the other page, I do apologise as I had not realised that I had previously voted. There was no attempt to lie or hide anything. As for you saying that I am falsely accusing you of personal attacks - you are at minimum equally guilty, as you have falsely accused me of being a sock puppet. Whether that in itself constitutes a personal attack is debatable, but that, combined with you falsely accusing me of creating non notable articles, and deleting them 30 seconds after creation is, in my opinion, an example of a personal attack. If you do not mean it to be taken that way, then please apologise and resume good behaviour. I deleted your nonsense post on my user page, and have removed your false accusations about sock puppetry. Zordrac 21:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right now, I'm inclined to delete all of this for one reason: The articles lack any reliable sources. There are lots of accusations and lots of chat-politicking, but nothing that indicates where that information came from. This suggests original research on the part of the article writer, which is not allowed. Remove the unverified bits and you're left with... that this was an adult chat site that people used. If the author can rewrite and source the article, I'll consider keeping on the merits. FCYTravis 23:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lacks reliable sources? Did you not follow links? Zordrac 23:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I did. One person's POV from a personal Web site is not a reliable source. From WP:RS - "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." From WP:V - "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website... Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia." FCYTravis 23:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you're never going to get a better link than that over this kind of topic. Do you want me to link to the 1,000 other places that refer to this link? I imagine that they are mostly personal web sites as well. I can't imagine this ever being in a newspaper, with this kind of thing. So I don't think that WP:V is relevant with this kind of topic. If you dispute notoriety, sure. Would it appease you if I linked to other places that talk about or reference that web site as proven fact? Zordrac 00:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:V is *always* relevant. If you'll notice, it's an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles on topics which cannot be properly sourced should not be included in the encyclopedia. I have an issue with articles making unsourced and unsubstantiated accusations of hacking, invasion of privacy, etc. FCYTravis 00:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just adding to this. That page was *NOT* a personal web site. It was not a homepage. It is an official business web site. I believe that these can be referenced. Zordrac 00:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why WP:V has been brought up. The verifiability of something seems to be under challenge, but I'm not sure. If the verifiability of the site's existence is under scrutiny, then I'd say that it's pretty silly, and would question the existence of the Earth. If the verifiability of the content is under scrutiny, then I think there's a little better case, but that it's still not very good. The site's FAQ can reasonably be considered an expert source on its own content. If the verifiability of the history is under debate, then I'm fine with debating that. Piquan 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just summing that up there. 1) It is not a personal homepage - it is a business page, therefore meets the criteria for WP:V. 2) There are no accusations being made. The word "allegedly" is used. 3) They are not unsubstantiated or unsourced, as they have been correctly referenced.

I think that you are either misunderstanding or misusing wikipedia policy in relation to this article. Zordrac 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Say, if I've been accused of being a puppet, I missed it. Nuts; I'd want to archive my first puppet accusation. Can somebody put it on my talk page? Piquan 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable niche talker, nearly dead now. --Zetawoof 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really notable, unverified, a real mess. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: What's not verified? Please elaborate on that assertion. There are links there, even quotes, that verify every statement made. If you object to one part, please state which part you think is not verified. And why is it a mess? Zordrac 00:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Merge. Please. For better or worse, User:Zordrac has put much effort into an attempt at encyclopedic record of this genre of internet communication. Lintilla itself has an Alexa of 30k+, still, even though it is well past its heyday. WP:V is silly here, go read the website. Disuptes of encyclopedic value are warrented. However, talkers as a whole deserve attention. Much, if not most, of the recently developed talker content should likely be merged. I don't think that individal talkers deserve an article any more than legendary irc channels do, but they do deserve mention. Please leave alone as no consensus, and add a merge tag if feeling ambitious. ∴ here…♠ 07:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historical communities are typically recorded in an encyclopedia long after they are little more then oddities to the general public Falerin 14:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made the point of Alexa being relevant only when discussing web sites. This is a talker, not a web site. Most talkers do not have web sites attached, and if they do, it is only just so that you can link to the talker from there. There are a handful of talkers that did have active web sites - like Crossroads (chat site) at least used to, and there are a few others, but most simply don't. That Crystal Palace (chat site) one doesn't even have a web site anymore (other than an old one which is no longer active), and a lot of them don't. If you look at old talker lists, you are talking about 1 in 3 that had their own web site, maybe 1 in 20 that actually used it as anything other than a link to their talker. Lintilla did (at least when they last updated it in 1999) have some kind of an active web site. But not anymore. That's 6 years since they last updated it. Oh and not to mention that when Lintilla was first created, there was no such thing as the WorldWideWeb (that's how old it is). At least, it wasn't commonly available, and wasn't available where the talker was located. Zordrac 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if this is deleted[edit]

As this is important historically, I think that perhaps it should be merged with Sleepy's multiple worlds and Fantasia's multiple worlds in to an article like Multiple worlds, since the 3 of them are all based around the same thing (in some ways, they were all still lintilla, just by other names - I bet that Douglas Adams would have got a kick out of knowing that all that happened!) Since Sleepy's multiple worlds, according to Alexa's rankings, is the 3rd most popular talker in the world at the moment, and that is a spin off of lintilla, I think that we have justification to keep this in some form. Alexa is generally regarded as an accurate source, and we can firmly establish that sleepy's was definitely a spin off of lintilla, henceforth this must remain in some form. There may be some debate however about whether it needs to exist as a page in its own right. Zordrac 15:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current tally[edit]

The current tally is 5 in favour of keep, 6 in favour of delete, with 1 unsure. Zordrac 16:51, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Moshin' Emo Rangers[edit]

nn low-budget fan-created spoof based on myspace. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:23, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Galanis[edit]

  • Delete I cannot find any information on him. I would think that if he played for clubs such as AC Milan and Barcelona there would be at last some info on him. Forbsey 04:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable joke. sjorford (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism starting from this edit. - Stoph 23:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent vanity or patent nonsense or patent joke. Aecis praatpaal 16:23, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-islam.org[edit]

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]

  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 21:04, 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]
  • Keep, per The Literate Engineer. - Bobet 18:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. NN site--Kalsermar 02:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Make sure it is listed in Shia. No need for it's own article Sethie 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The biges Shia online site does not deserve its own article, but this does?
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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of languages[edit]

Delete or at least move out of article space. This gargantuan entry basically duplicates the intent of List of languages - if the latter was a disambig link farm rife with broken characters and conlangs. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BD2412 T 04:54, 23 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. Owen× ☎ 00:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niaosiung[edit]

  • Patent nonsense - Article seems to be made up, contains complete nonsense like "Early records indicate Niaosiung may have been inhabited as early as the Pre-Cambrian era"; doesn't seem to be a recognized place after I placed a notice for it on Wikipedia talk:Taiwan-related topics notice board.--Confuzion 05:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there may be grains of truth in there, but I'm not sure it's worth sifting for them. — Haeleth Talk 21:00, 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. From the votes, I count an approximate 81% ratio for deletion. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unguided evolution[edit]

Note: This article was originally at unguided evolution, but has since been moved to Relationship between evolution and divine guidance as a compromise after an extended dialogue between myself, Ed Poor and several other involved parties. Ambi 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a WP:FORK of evolution from a perspective of creationists. The idea of "unguided evolution" is one that is claimed to be an atheist scientific view that eschews god. It is a creationist neologism, unsupported by any citations that refer to it as a term and is serving as another platform for User:Ed Poor to conduct original research on the subject of creationism. The article has no content worth saving save for a few points that are already found on the various pages this one forks from (e.g. creationism, creation science, intelligent design, evolution, and creation-evolution controversy). --Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Content forking/POV forking is not OK here. If this is Ed again, he's now done this what, three times? More? More than enough, anyway. This is troll behavior, and as such is conduct unbecoming to an administrator. --FOo 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unnecessary page... It's just another way of saying regular old evolution, the article contains nothing of any eductional value that isn;t already found in one or more of the many other articles on evolution and/or creationists opposing it. DreamGuy 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. FeloniousMonk 06:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this isn't a POV fork, I'm not sure what is. --Brendanfox 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as necessary as Guided creation. - RoyBoy 800 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure POV fork, with a nice dose of OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Joshuaschroeder. Neologism. --JPotter 08:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (this is one of six POV forks, btw, most of which have been redirected) — Dunc|☺ 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - keep up the bitching, and I'll start using the block button. Rob Church Talk 15:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be a good, well researched description of some largely theological views of evolution. As non-mainstream science, they don't really merit much coverage in evolution, and they don't belong in creationism either. It may be that a merge with other articles would be advisable, but that's an editing matter. There is no good reason for deletion here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of places where theological views of evolution are already discussed better than this article. Theistic evolution is a great example. Creation-evolution controversy is another. What content do you see on this page that isn't found on those pages? --Joshuaschroeder 18:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POV fork of evolution; an attempt to shift the concept widely known as "evolution" to a new name (one that is little used; it only gets 650 odd Google hits despite all the screeds written on this topic, suggesting that it's something of a neologism) to support the intelligent design POV. Furthermore, all this content is already covered in the evolution article. Ambi 15:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Keep, as long as rewritten at new title. Ambi 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, it seems to be used by "the people out there", so i think "Unguided Evolution" may at least be mentioned and described in Evolution. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 15:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ignoring the personality issues, this is a subject (even if a controversial one), we should have an article on it. The Land 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a POV fork if this makes the claim of being as notable as evolution. I think it is a used term and should be kept, but should have relatively fewer incoming links. I think the article explains who uses this term... I don't see the problem. gren グレン 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV forks of Evolution are all too common. --GraemeL (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Although googling for guided-evolution finds only 553 hits, evolution+guided+unguided finds 35,400. The concept clearly exists, and as long as it's accurately presented, we sure want an article about it. Alternatively, merge with what should be at Guided evolution and possibly move to a better title. Zocky 16:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have theistic evolution and intelligent design. Please explain to me how guided evolution is different. --Joshuaschroeder 18:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zocky, "guided evolution" is arguably Intelligent Design. "Unguided evolution" is simply evolution. That's why its a POV fork. A Google of evolution + guided + unguided - did you look at the returns? They were all, or very nearly all (I didn't follow *every* link returned) about the difference of Intelligent design and Evolution. We already have those articles. KillerChihuahua 16:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is merit in the argument that a sane person who accepts that evolution is a real phenomenonon does not necessarily have to accept that it is impossible for some intelligent being to have tampered with it. In that light, believing in unguided evolution is a stronger version of believing in evolution. But that sort of info belongs in evolution. Rather, I see this as a dicdef++ article, like we have for many terms. There seems to be enough to write about the usage and meaning in different contexts. Zocky 18:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black. KillerChihuahua 16:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC) adding and change redirect of "Guided evolution" to poinht to Evolution to prevent this kind of POV fork again. KillerChihuahua 16:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — POV fork that is at best a neologism. Covered better by other pages. — RJH 18:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A neologism would not have as much information or provide as much insight into a creationist argument. If this information duplicated or were shorter I would suggest a merge but I found the article interesting and useful. My only complaint/suggestion would be to provide a "warning" at the top of the article to make it clear that this is only one viewpoint and is disputed by all other parties. (I have the opposite view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary materialism)- Tεxτurε 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I looked at policy, Wikipedia doesn't provide warnings, with the exception of "spoiler" warning, and that's being debated. KillerChihuahua 18:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I put it in quotes. We have plenty of disputed warnings, NPOV warnings, spoiler warnings, ... I'm sure there are lots more. If we chose to explain sides of an ongoing argument (and I think we should) it behoves us to tell the reader what side this is. - Tεxτurε 18:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      If it is a side at all, then it is a POV fork and should be deleted. There is no debate. KillerChihuahua 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that were true then Pro-life and Pro-choice should be deleted as POV forks of the Abortion debate? No, because they are worthwhile articles. Articles that are POV should be corrected but articles about POV views are encyclopedic. - Tεxτurε 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic. Also, the policy of wikipedia to cut separate articles from larger ones when they grow too large. mikka (t) 19:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not the policy of wikipedia to create duplicate articles by splitting off personal essays when your desire to promote a given point of view is frustrated. - Nunh-huh 20:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simple POV pushing. Vsmith 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. Fredrik | tc 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 03:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom.--nixie 04:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other reasons listed above. -Parallel or Together? 05:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've been involved in this whole creationism vs. evolution debate for at least five years now and I found this page worthless, biased, and contributing nothing to the discussion. This is a POV fork if I ever saw one. --Cyde 06:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Setting aside all POV arguments, Wikipedia policy opposes forks. A fork with a notable name would merit a redirect. It is highly unlikely that anyone would research this subject on Wikipedia using the title of this article. Whether we like the subject or not we have to be fair. Durova 06:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork and very disturbing behaviour on part of author in attempt to thwart consensus. --Last Malthusian 09:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all POV forks. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde as POV fork. Turnstep 20:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirect to evolution, and include a brief subsection under Social controversies ..dave souza 07:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, essay of original research. By the definition of science, all theories of biological evolution rely entirely on naturalistic explanations. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. I'm particularly disturbed by User:Ed Poor's statement below that this AFD is an invalid request.-gadfium 18:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as POV fork. If these views are notable then they belong elsewhere, in the creationism, ID entries. Pete.Hurd 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ed Poor does it again, with yet another POV fork. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, POV fork. MCB 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Bikeable 00:05, 29 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.

Discussion[edit]

The article is a WP:FORK of evolution from a perspective of creationists. The idea of "unguided evolution" is one that is claimed to be an atheist scientific view that eschews god.

No, actually an scientific view that eschews God's intervention. Either you know this, and are deliberately lying, or you (like many of our readers) are unaware of the distinction, in which case this is a highly valuable article! User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23
This statement belies an unfamiliarity with the issues involved. It is your own opinion that this is a "scientific" view. If you look at the associated literature you will find that this is not the "scientific" view at all. In fact, look at the articles this forks from. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "scientific view" you say Ed? Well, in that case you should have no difficulty citing some papers from recognized, credible scientific journals that use this term? Do you realize that neither of the two external references you supplied use this term? Why is that?
Ed, suggesting that someone who expresses disagreement with you is either uninformed of lying is impolite. I gather you are an administrator, so I am very surprised that you aren't setting a better example. -- Geo Swan 00:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a creationist neologism, unsupported by any citations that refer to it as a term and is serving as another platform for User:Ed Poor to conduct original research on the subject of creationism.

So is Intelligent design a creationist neologism, and we have an article on that. User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23
Red herring. Intelligent Design is a movement that is recognizable and notable as a subject that people agree they adhere to. When was the last time, for example, a New York Times article was on "unguided evolution"? Or for that matter a Washington Times article, if you're into the Moonopoly media? --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you need more citations than are in the article, more can be supplied. There is no Wikipedia policy which says that an article which has an insufficient number of citations should be deleted. How many do you personally require, before you would withdraw your request for deletion? User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23


I don't need more citations because the article itself has no basis for existence as a content fork. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you repeatedly to explain what you mean by original research and/or how any of the evolution terminology articles I've worked on in the last month or so constitute "original research" - you have never answered, merely told me peremptorily to read WP:NOR. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? I wish you would stop accusing me of things without providing any reasoning or evidence! User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23
Original research means that you are writing based on your own perspectives and ideas based on the subject. You are clearly not an evolutionary biologist, but yet claim to be able to describe the different kinds of "evolution". This is your original research crusade and your anger about being called out on it only serves to convince me that your are personally trying to impose your own brand of creationist POV here at Wikipedia. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no content worth saving save for a few points that are already found on the various pages this one forks from (e.g. creationism, creation science, intelligent design, evolution, and creation-evolution controversy). --Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you at least a dozen times to show where points you said are worth saving are already to be found on pages such as those you list above. You have never answered these queries. And if the info is worthy of inclusion in these hard-to-find places, why should it not be consolidated in one place? Only an someone pushing an anti-Creationist POV would want to censor this sort of information. Pushing any POV is grounds for a block. I think you already know this; but if you don't, I'm telling you now - officially - as an Admin. User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23
You are the one pushing a POV, your own, in this article. I am merely pointing out that we have other articles on these subjects that are more visible and can be editted by you. However, you seem content to create forks. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am content to do so (please see Wikipedia:Content forking) as long as Evolution and related articles fail to clarify the Relationship between evolution and divine guidance. If you want to censor Wikipedia, you won't enjoy being here. Why not give up your quest to PROVE that evolution is (a) true and/or (b) compatible with religious views, and join me in writing unbiased, balanced articles? Uncle Ed 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to see an admin using the 'censor' argument. If we are to assume good faith, no editor is trying to censor wikipedia. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid request - template will be should be removed, and page locked. This is a matter for an RFC. It doesn't matter whether I'm "involved" or not, this is a matter of Wikipedia founding principles. Uncle Ed, closing administrator 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I asked Ed whether he was in fact closing the AfD debate on IRC, and he said he wasn't. The Land 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And I wasn't going to say anything before, but this comment pushes me over. It's really freaking disturbing to see an admin make these kind of comments. Wikipedia founding principles do not say "admins get to push their own POV into any articles they want and threaten other editors when they complain". I would suggest that Ed simply remove himself from all Evolution articles since he is unable to deal with the encyclopedic standards and consensus on these issues. DreamGuy 17:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thoroughly agreed with DreamGuy. Ed's conduct here is far, far beyond what is acceptable from a Wikipedia administrator. He's now not just threatening, by the way -- he actually did block Joshua, although another administrator unblocked him. Ed has systematically destroyed any pretense upon which we can continue to assume any good faith on his part. --FOo 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concur with DreamGuy also. Ed cannot seem to maintain neutrality or remain reasonable regarding evolution. I agree that he should recuse himself from this subject, and possibly create a website elsewhere if he feels his POV must be heard. WP is not the forum for this - and his abuse of admin privileges in order to push his POV is disconcerting, to say the least. KillerChihuahua 19:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what POV do you allege I am pushing? Please answer, or stop making personal attacks. Uncle Ed 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, the view of the Unification Church on evolution by natural selection. "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism" [4] -- a quote from a Jonathan Wells, a leading intelligent design proponent, unificationist whose words appear alongside yours on that website. — Dunc|☺ 23:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I singled out for a personal attack warning on my talk page? I concurred with another user, and the same point has been made by at least half a dozen on this page. This is not a personal attack, and shouting at me on my talk page is hardly the most polite way of saying that you think I am in error. KillerChihuahua 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mor461[edit]

Looks like someone's term paper or maybe a cut-n-paste from a corporate website. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I have been unable to find one single source for the contents of this article, it does appear to have significant overlap with the subpages of the GE corporate history page. I thus suspect the nominator's allusion that this was a cut-n-paste job is probably correct. --Allen3 talk 14:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay of some sort. The title is also incomprehensible, what is "Mor461" supposed to mean? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that combine unique elements from 2 (or more) songs[edit]

A page which will always be vastly incompletely. This list could theoretically include thousands of hip-hop songs alone, including the entire track listings for at least a hundred albums. This runs against the consensus established in the recent concluded "lists of songs" Centralized Discussion, which advises against lists that could include more than a couple hundred entries. Verifiability is also a factor. Andrew Levine 05:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as subjective and unverifiable. Sad to say, the Lists of songs discussion referred to above resulted in no consensus. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are way too many songs that are a combination of multiple songs. This list can never be complete or useful. (Notorious4life 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as a poster-child of the "Idiosyncratic Non-Topic" mentioned in the deletion policy. Incidentally, I hadn't thought that centralized discussion had generated a solid consensus, just because of the (relatively) low number of people involved. The Literate Engineer 08:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, screw those lists of songs... Gerrit CUTEDH 10:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incomprehensible list --TimPope 21:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the worst kind of listcruft. Original research, unverifiable in places, subjective. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the subject of lists with thousands of potnetial entries, what say we regarding list of Adolf Hitler books? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's easier to maintain a consensus on what constitutes a selection of notable books fitting a certain criteria than a selection of notable songs fitting a certain criteria. The song lists will tend to grow out of control faster than the book lists. Andrew Levine 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further to your comment on List of Adolf Hitler books, most articles at the Wiki have a "Further Reading" section including Adolf Hitler, which was becoming long. I am in the process of preparing an organized and manageable list, which will hopefully become an Annotated Bibliography over time. This is a professional and responsible approach, that will help researchers and the general public in future years that are interested in the person that has influenced the 20th century perhaps more than any other. In addition, there are many "Lists of Books" List of lists of books or Category:Lists of books that are much larger or have the potential to become much larger. I think the Hitler book list is within the Wiki parametres for lists. Cordially WritersCramp 18:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Song listcruft is the worst thing on Wikipedia at the moment. Reyk 23:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the article title doesn't even make sense, you know you're in trouble. 23skidoo 05:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I will point out to the nom that most hip hop songs are specifically excluded due to the criteria on the page. Reyk, if this is the worst thing on Wikipedia at the moment, we're in really good shape! :) Turnstep 20:15, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 01:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of finance topics (alphabetical)[edit]

One very long list is hard enough to maintain, a second only adds to the nest of overlinking that is "credit" and "finance". Redundant, I recomend deletion. brenneman(t)(c) 05:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Agree with nom. regarding maintenance and redundancy issues. The List of finance topics is better organized. — RJH 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 16:39, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mensa International members[edit]

As admirable as the idea of such a list is, it is very difficult, especially for a free encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia, to maintain such a list with accuracy. When even A-list Hollywood stars like Sharon Stone have been known to lie about their Mensa membership, the claims of others such as Asia Carrera are difficult to believe reliably (especially as the latter claims an above and beyond IQ of 156!).

Following the discussion on Talk:Asia Carrera#IQ Claims, therefore, I too suggest that this page cannot be maintained by wikipedians without inside access to Mensa records with any hope of reliability, and as such it is a disservice to this encyclopaedia not to delete the list wholesale. --Marlow4 00:06, 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 delete as a short article with not only no context but no content even, except a notice telling us that the article has no content, and no history. Uncle G 12:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Saga[edit]

useless page, no content Jtrost 06:06, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Foti[edit]

Seems to be a joke. Cannot find descriptions of The Foti on Google. —Brim 06:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Foti" is not a joke. Google, however, may be. "The Foti" has more than worked it's way into the venacular of costumers and wardrobe techs in the Hollywood scene over the past ten years. It is indeed slang, but in no way a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.50.101 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-23 18:05:26 (UTC)

  • Delete as a neologism. If citations are provided to prove that it's not a neologism, delete anyway as a dicdef. — Haeleth Talk 21:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom with hints of vanity. Jasmol 16:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's really Hollywood slang, then someone among the legions and divisions of film fans would be talking about it somewhere, would be using it as an in-joke on Ain't It Cool News, etc. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 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. — JIP | Talk 06:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movie quotes[edit]

A list of movie quotes... would be a HUGE list. It would be impossible to be all-inclusive, and if it weren't all-inclusive, then it's inherently POV. Delete. —Brim 06:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikiquote (if they want any of this), then Redirect without merge to quotation The list is unacceptable. Any material that could go under this name and be acceptable would be better placed in the article quotation, in its "common quotation sources" section. However, at the moment there's nothing to merge, so just a redirect is fine. Or we could just delete this, that'd work too. The Literate Engineer 07:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 07:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Too broad a topic, plus odds are any worthwhile quotes have already either appeared in Wikiquote or on the applicable film/actor article page. 23skidoo 15:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put a placeholder so it won't be re-created. feydey 19:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This will never be complete, nor will it be accurate. Plus, who descides whether a quote is "good enough" to be on the list? -- Grande 20:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a needless duplicate of (a tiny fraction of the contents of) Wikiquote in the wrong project. Delete. Uncle G 21:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikiquote should be the host of these quotes. *drew 11:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if WQ will take it, then delete and redirect per Literate Engineer. -Sean Curtin 02:24, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebutante[edit]

I believe the portmanteu in question, "Celebutante" is a neologism to be excluded under the WP:NOR policy. Plus this entry strikes me as something that can never be more than a stub and more of a dicdef than anything else (the examples not serving to illustrate anything because they've nothing to illustrate). Thus, I nominate it for deletion. The Literate Engineer 07:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef, not as original research (the word is in occasional use). --Metropolitan90 07:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdef. Jasmol 16:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like the link from Paris Hilton to Celebutante will have to stop! --Kilo-Lima 20:21, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borro of Arezzo[edit]

I can't find any verification of this. Seems to be part of an elaborate hoax involving the creation of articles on non-existent Christian martyrs. Included in the hoax appears to be the articles Eisaak Intelekus (deleted and protected), Paolo Rappi (speedy deleted), Borro of Arezzo, Kristof Walken, Thomas Szük (on AFD), and Langsprechenism (deleted and protected), as well as various edits to List of people burned as heretics. Responsible for this appear to be the users Pvtjoker (talk · contribs), 64.180.161.17 (talk · contribs), 24.85.192.195 (talk · contribs), 207.6.225.142 (talk · contribs), and 64.180.122.142 (talk · contribs). --u p p l a n d 07:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:64.180.122.142, who created several other hoax articles based on "Eisaak Intelekus." I just blocked that IP for 48 hours for repeat hoaxing and userpage vandalism. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable probably hoax. Wikipedia only source of Google results for this name see [5] One Google print result relating to medieval painting not early martyrs. Capitalistroadster 09:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax created by vandal. And the rest of them on AFD too for that matter. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. AnnH (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we delete this article, will it end up in the Elysian fields, where the tree stands, or will it only make it to Hades? We'll never know. Str1977 23:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 07:05, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristof Walken[edit]

I can't find any verification of this. Seems to be part of an elaborate hoax involving the creation of articles on non-existent Christian martyrs. Included in the hoax appears to be the articles Eisaak Intelekus (deleted and protected), Paolo Rappi (speedy deleted), Borro of Arezzo, Kristof Walken, Thomas Szük (on AFD), and Langsprechenism (deleted and protected), as well as various edits to List of people burned as heretics. Responsible for this appear to be the users Pvtjoker (talk · contribs), 64.180.161.17 (talk · contribs), 24.85.192.195 (talk · contribs), 207.6.225.142 (talk · contribs), and 64.180.122.142 (talk · contribs). --u p p l a n d 07:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Burn I mean Delete. Severe problems with verifiability - no Google results see [6] No results in Google Books [7]. He gets the hat-trick with no results in Google Scholar [8] Either the Calvinist efforts to wipe him from memory have been very efficient or he didn't exist in the first place. My money's on the second option. Capitalistroadster 09:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has to be a hoax. Bluewave 17:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. - Bobet 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete haven't found anything verifiable either when I first looked at this article yesterday. Schutz 19:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. AnnH (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalistroadster is mistaken - Walken was not killed by "Calvinists" (that's a typo), but by "Calvanists" and they have that special power of simply letting their opponents disappear. Unfortunately, they had internal squibbles and started to let themselves disappear. Because of that, every memory of them has disappeared and so should this article. Str1977 23:30, 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 merge with Metal Gear (series). Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meme gene scene[edit]

I'm...not sure what this is, even. Original research, I guess, in that it's a backronym apparently coined by the author. I've been spending a lot of time working on Metal Gear articles and I haven't seen anything like this mentioned, and I'm fairly sure Hideo Kojima (the creator of the series) never said anything like this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research (I wanted to say crackpot theory, but that's less professional.) -- Saikiri 08:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fan speculation. Based on a quick google search it's pretty widely spread, but not encyclopedic since there's nothing to verify the truth of the claims by (unless i'm missing something). At best it's a marketing phrase, which isn't encyclopedic either. - Bobet 18:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Metal Gear (series) or retitle and greatly expand as Themes in Metal Gear Solid or something. The information in the article is correct [9] [10], but the content is so small that it needs to go somehwere else, or be expanded. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 00:27, 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 (based on this admin's judgment). --Nlu 09:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phamiliscious[edit]

Currently tagged as a transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook, but this stub is not a recipe but only a list of four components of a dish and mention of the inventor. It doesn't qualify as an encyclopedia article either because it doesn't explain the significance of the dish. Delete.-gadfium 08:08, 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 keep. – Robert T | @ | C 00:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeschool[edit]

An advert for a company/organisation Akamad 08:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after desperately needed cleanup. It's a real educational movement, not just a single commercial organization (despite the advert and possible copyvio in the current version). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to keep, the advertising language has been removed, though it still needs a cleanup and expansion, my initial issues with the article, in my opinion, has been resolved. - Akamad 08:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 07:05, 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 keep. – Robert T | @ | C 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical literacy[edit]

essay, Deleteabakharev 08:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's currently not Wikipedia quality, but I think it could be an ok article if it was developed. It was created by a new user, maybe he or she will be back to improve it? cleanup Flying fish 16:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote this and yes it was a first entry for me. I am willing to work more on. Please allow me time to improve it. User:PierreAnoid 02:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia! Your recent edits are looking good to me, I might try to help out a bit too. "Statistical literacy" gets ~43,000 hits on google, so I think as long as the page comes more into line with standard pages it should be kept. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles for some examples of "top quality" pages. You can also look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page for tips on editing. Have fun! Flying fish 02:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of the article is important and encyclopaedic enough, in my opinion. A large part of "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos is about this (it is quite some time ago that I read this book though) The article is also in better shape now. Perhaps merge with numeracy, but might also be considered a separate subject. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - encyclopaedic subject, reasonable length article, quality not too bad now. Gandalf61 12:53, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Lind[edit]

Unencyclopedic, and does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC -- and if it doesn't, then it's non-notable. I didn't think it warranted speedy deletion, but still think it should be deleted. --Nlu 09:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lind is supposedly married to the lead singer of Simple Plan. Yet a Google search for "Hannah Lind" Simple Plan [11] comes up with two results neither confirming the article. Capitalistroadster 09:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, and my own speedy ;] --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 23:17, 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 KEEP. Owen× ☎ 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurnik[edit]

Listed on speedy as "advertising" wich is not a CSD critera. Does look like advertising, cross posted to a dozen different languages, but it does score ~140.000 hits on Google. It has an Alexa trafic rank of 126,836 for the .org adress, however the Polish version version does score 6,707 on Alexa and have about 100.000 registered users, wich is well within the notability guidelines for websites IIRC. So weak keep from me. --Sherool (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggested alternative content

    The article describes several interesting technical solutions, how to use Java and advanced networking. I think, it should stay. If the content seems too more like the advertisement, I suggest the alternative content:

    Kurnik is a community-supported site of classic board and card games. Instead of playing as a partner, the server simply connects the partners, who apply to the server willing to play. It is usually more attractive to play with the live partner than with the programmed algorithm.
    The user interface is realized using browser-embedded Java applets.
    Kurnik.org
  • Also, if you delete this, do not forget to delete Warcraft as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audriusa (talk • contribs)
    Weak keep That's cute to compare it to Warcraft. Jasmol 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several facts not mentioned in the English version of this article might be responsible for it being VfD-ed:
    • The website was originally Polish-only and is the most popular on-line board game website in Poland - most Polish internet users know this website and it would probably never be deleted at pl:
    • Rules for all games are cc-by-nc-sa
    • It offers their own, public domain games "Literaki ;-)" and "Netopoly ;-)", which are free alternatives for Scrabble and Monopoly.
    • It's available in 21 languages so far
  • Ausir 11:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up; the Polish site's Alexa rank alone earns it notability, considering that Alexa is often alleged to be biased against non-US sites. I don't know if the page has been edited since it was AfD'd, but the present text does not read like advertising to me. — Haeleth Talk 21:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Larkinor was not deleted, and it's a similar site. Alensha 00:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and come play Skat. ∴ here…♠ 07:46, 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 no consensus to delete, kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesemaker[edit]

This article is redundant to Cheese#Making cheese and Home cheesemaking and lacks any useful additions. BigBlueFish 12:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is down the hall, third door on the left. Uncle G 13:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anyway. This could easily grow into something more substantial on its own, and given the size of the cheese article, some of the material there might be better moved here rather than the other way round. Grutness...wha? 04:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems unnecessary


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 after Capitalroadster's rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wassup[edit]

Common slang but WP:ISNOT a dictionary and as this is a dicdef it should be deleted, unless some user can have a go at cleaning it up and making it a noteworthy article (since I am woefully ingnorant of such stuff) May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn after Capitalroadster's rewrite. I was kinda expecting this.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch), which subsequently SURELY needs some reference to the Budwiser "Wassup?" advertising campain, which is iconic at least in British culture. --BigBlueFish 13:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep since expanded by Capitalistroadster. PJM 13:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just noticed this entry had been deleted twice before and thus qualifies for speedy - for whatever that's worth at this point.
  • Keep unqualified. It was popularised by songs such as "Wassup" which was a number 1 hit just 3 years ago in 2002. It is not merely a variation of What's up as it has greatly different significance. Saying that it is a variation is like suggesting that good day and g'day are the same. Culturally they are vastly different. 203.122.225.241 13:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, sorry, it was 2001 and peaked at number 13. I guess my memory is a bit off. Was still a big hit though, and people for over a year were quoting it, saying "Wassup!". It was kind of like that "Who let the dogs out" song, that was quoted so much, especially the "who who who" bit. 203.122.225.241 17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have expanded the article referencing the Budweiser campaign and the hit songs from 2000. Capitalistroadster 16:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wassssssssuuuup er, I mean, keep. BD2412 T 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. The word has too much pop culture equity to be just a dicdef. 23skidoo 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Multiple redirects from Wazzup, wasssuup etc.? Durova 06:55, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim"o"Mac[edit]

I'm writing this nomination on behalf of User:Zunaid, who tagged the article for deletion but didn't write the nomination. Delete as vanity unless notability can be shown. — JIP | Talk 12:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Vanity. (Sorry about not nominating, got called away to attend to something else.) Google brings up 5 results for "jim o mac" and 8,000,000+ results for jim o mac -apple, the first few pages of which are irrelevant. Zunaid 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as poorly-written vanity. Jasmol 16:45, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yamna Lobos[edit]

The subject seems to have some fame as a dancer - but not much else. Fails to meet WP:BIO, as far as I can tell.

  • Delete. PJM 13:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 03:29, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P33n[edit]

Wikipedia is not a 1337 slang dictionary. Delete. --Sherool (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. I don't see why leet slang cannot be included, especially considering the length of the article leet. From the description of the article, this is a notable word usage, and is not just a dictionary but a cultural phrase of significance. It is equally as notable as terms such as lol are. 203.122.225.241 13:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I am going to change my vote to Merge but I can't be sure where to merge to. The leet article doesn't seem to adequately deal with this kind of thing, nor does the slang words article. But one of the two should do. 203.122.225.241 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. Some of the differences between encyclopaedias and dictionaries are explained in encyclopedic dictionary and use-mention distinction. Editors who wish to be lexicographers should contribute to Wiktionary, where lexicographers are welcome. Uncle G 16:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've never heard of it and it's certainly not on a par with lol. It doesn't give any insight into cultural context and functions purely as a glossary. --BigBlueFish 14:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article gives the (unproven) usage, (speculative) etymology, and meaning of a word. Despite the above claim to the contrary, it is a canonical dictionary article (albeit one that lacks proper citations and various other elements of a complete dictionary article), and is not an encyclopaedia article at all. Contrast this with LOL (Internet slang) which deals with Internet laughter slang and people's opinions about its use, and leaves etymologies, meanings, pronunciations, translations, and synonyms of words to Wiktionary. The only person/place/concept/event/thing for an encyclopaedia article by this title to be about is penis, which we already have an article on. A redirect doesn't seem justifiable. Delete. Uncle G 16:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's enough on the web as it is dealing with made up words that about four people type. Don't let this nonsense invade Wikipedia as well. Keresaspa 18:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interlanguage' to l33t wikipedia 132.205.45.110 20:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is Wikipedia, not Wikimadeupwords. Reyk 21:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. This is just a word in Leet, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Leet. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. – Robert T | @ | C 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hatuqwai[edit]

WP:NOT a soap box, this content should be deleted. If anyone want to start a real factial, NPOV article about the Hatuqwai tribe/people/nation I have no trouble with that though, just the soap boxing going on there right now. --Sherool (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made an attempt to stubify it, changing my vote to keep. --Sherool (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that there are other tools in the toolbox in addition to deletion, including {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}}. Uncle G 16:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, I probably got a bit carried away with the deletionism at the time. I can only blame having spent most of the day on CAT:CSD trying to help out with the backlog. I found it on speedy so I listed it here instead, and as the content was not worth a lot I voted delete. I did a little Googeling today and re-wrote the article myslef. Very little info out there unfortunately (at least in English), I pulled some info off a geocities site, I can only hope it's factual. --Sherool (talk) 18:32, 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 to delete, kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US presidential faux-pas, gaffes and unfortunate incidents[edit]

I find this to be entirely arbitrary and inherently non-neutral. Even the page title is rather iffy. Merovingian 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was List of Presidential gaffes. No longer. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page name has been changed by someone. The correct name is piped at the top now so people know what it now is called. FearÉIREANN 05:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Merovingian 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and formally protest Merovingian speedy deleting the article. There is a move option if the title is none too good (I didn't come up with the title, incidently, though I don't really see an issue). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is faux pas a better word than gaffe ? (it's funny how both words are of French origin :) bogdan 14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be List of gaffes of United States presidents. bogdan 14:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely you mean "...by United States presidents"? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move per Ta bu shi da yu. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Weak keep and move to better title as bogdan suggested. PJM 14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I am not sure that this can be kept NPOV. Is Bush the Wiser's vomiting and passing out necesserily a gaffe? It could also be called health problems. Alternatively, move to a better title, like US presidential faux-pas and write an article about the most famous clear-cut examples and how they were handled and what were their consequences. Zocky 14:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stole my sodding suggestion, didn't you. Rob Church Talk 15:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It was probably the food. The gaffe is not that he vomited, but that he vomited on the Japanese PM. :-) bogdan 14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now, but unless notable 'gaffes' by presidents other than GWB emerge (is vomiting, or stating untruths a 'gaffe'?), merge with Bushism. dab (ᛏ) 14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per Ta Bu; but I'm not sure what the best title would be. Obvioiusly it needs some broadening and a lot more historical perspective. Guettarda 15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NPOV. No Democrat Presidents are currently included. Possible examples of gaffes from Democrats include Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Ms Lewinsky." Jimmy Carter calling Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser John, referring to Hubert Humphrey as Hubert Horatio Hornblower at the 1980 Democratic convention and a mistranslation of a 1977 speech by President Carter in Poland in 1977 saying I desire the Poles carnally. [12]. Capitalistroadster 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added in the Carter Poland one. Can you find verifiable links for the others? BTW it is very hard to find Democratic POTUS gaffes apart from Carter's! I've tried to find any. It seems that recent Republican presidents where gaffoholics, whereas the Democrats don't seem to be. (Clinton's "I did not have sex . . . " was neither a gaffe nor a faux pas but a Non-denial denial so is irrelevant here (Its on the NDD page.) It would be interesting to compare the educational standards of recent Republican versus Democratic presidents. Looking at Kennedy, Carter and Clinton all three, in terms of academic attainment or measurable intellectual ability were better than either of the Bushes, Reagan or Nixon. That doesn't mean better presidents, but intellectually more able, which may explain their lack of a gaffe-history. FearÉIREANN 05:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV, unmaintainable, and original research. --Carnildo 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per CSD criteria A6 (Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject). Expanding the list of victims to include Democrats would only serve to increase the number of people who are being attacked. --Allen3 talk 20:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Read more careful: Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject ("insult pages", e.g., "OMFG! Joe Random is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11").
  • Delete- as much as it pains me to vote delete on a very funny article, I have to because 1) It's POV. What makes an incident a "gaffe", as opposed to simple misfortune? For example, Bush choking on the pretzel seems to me to be just bad luck. 2) It's an attack page. 3) It's original research. Reyk 21:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment how can it be original research? The mistakes related to presidents are public (and most of them were made live on TV). +MATIA ☎ 22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The events are verifiable. The clasification of the events as "gaffes" or "faux pas" is original research. --Carnildo 00:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is ridiculous. They are widely referred to as such. Most of them have gone down in history as notorious gaffes. Calling them original search sounds like clutching at straws. FearÉIREANN 00:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: As per my remarks below, I have to disagree. Most of the list contents are taken widely out of context , framed to mislead, or sarcastically misconstrue the meaning of gaffe (sickness, as pointed out by Zocky, is not a gaffe even if it causes a diplomatic incident). Few have gone down in history as such, because they mostly relate to Bush, and history has yet to render judgement. They also betray a severe lack of knowledge of Presidential history. Harrison, the oldest President until Reagan, delivered his inaugural address on a cool March day without an overcoat (like many Presidents before and since).[[13]] News reports at the time described the weather as mild, not requiring an overcoat, and did not consider Harrison’s removal of coat and hat to be a gaffe. Cause and effect with his death can not be established, although Harrison could be accused of bad judgement given his age. Kennedy, the youngest elected President, famously delivered his inaugural without an overcoat on a bitterly cold day in February.[[14]] This was also not considered a faux pas. Instead, by the logic of this list, Kennedy’s major gaffe did not come until Nov 22, 1963, when he ruined his wife’s dress by spraying brain matter on it. By the same token, Lincoln committed an unforgivable faux pas, when he spoiled the performance of Our American Cousin at the Ford Theatre, due to his urgent need to die across the street. -- JJay 20:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly valid article on a real topic, which was outrageously deleted without a vote first time around. It just needs clear definition. It should cover gaffes, as in unintentional comments or actions which caused embarrassment or defence. Clinton's denial of having sex "with that woman", for example, was not a gaffe. (It was a Non-denial denial which we already cover on WP.) It was deliberate. Carter's slip up with names, Bush's verbal slip-ups, etc do qualify as gaffes (unintentional and caused embarrassment). The mistranslation of Carter's comments when visiting Poland, though hilarous, does not belong here, as he was the not the author of the gaffe. It belongs in a page about translation gaffes. Or a page about gaffes made about the presidency rather than by presidents. FearÉIREANN 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I wonder what would be an appropriate title to include "translation gaffes" too. +MATIA ☎ 22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I love it. Alexander 007 22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - and expand of course. +MATIA ☎ 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Utterly and permanently unencyclopedic. Especially in the ever-dire list format. These gaffes should be mentioned in relevant articles: if they do not bear mentioning there, they do not bear mentioning anywhere. Wikipedia is not a comedic jaunt through life; it is an encyclopedia. If you think this is hilarious, and that this somehow endows with a quality akin to knowledge, then really, you have to explain why, and not just tell us that it made you laugh. Not one of the keep comments gives a reason other than this. (Transwiki those opting to keep to Uncyclopedia.)-Splashtalk 02:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete hopelessly unency and an open door invitation for partisan POV additions. --Kalsermar 02:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic, important topic of substantial scholarly interest. Could do with more in-depth study of these events -- how did they affect public approval ratings, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've mentioned how one GWB gaffe hit the US economy and Wall Street when the ejjit replaced a bit of carefully worded Greenspan spin by another homespun Texan term that he may have thought was the same but actually meant the exact opposite to what Greenspan was suggesting. No wonder Greenspan was said to be on the warpath afterwards (Greenspan suggested a slight soft spot, Bush suggested, inadvertently a rough and bumpy road ahead!). One stupid homespun Bush term cost the US economy trillons. FearÉIREANN 05:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but encourage the editors to expand the effects part of the points. James F. (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Delightful! Durova 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obvious POV issues that need to be addressed, although the Bush fixation will remain problematic into the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, has more potential already than a similar list I contribute to- List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. -- JJay 08:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Changing my vote after rereading the comments here and considering the overlap with List_of_bushisms. Suggest that FearÉIREANN do some research as soft patch and bumping along are both commonly used in the financial press and mean largely the same thing. Bush's comments date from Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2002, at which point the Dow was down roughly 17% YTD. It rose in the next three sessions, ending with a near 200 point gain on the week, and closed out the year down an insignificant 30 points from the date of Bush's remark. The dow then went on to gain 25% in 2003.[[15]]. It could thus be argued that Bush's "bumping along" gained trillions for the US economy, but in fact there was no real impact, as the markets, unlike blogs, do not react hysterically to non-gaffes. -- JJay 09:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The markets appear to be unlike Wikipedia, too. -Splashtalk 12:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • FearÉIREANN's comment regarding the markets and JJay's rebuttal sum up very nicely what this page, if it is kept, will become. A collection of non-incidents being blown up by one side and the listing ad infinitum of anything the anti-(fill-in-name-of-prez-past-present-or-future here) crowd will use to jump on to make a point, especially the presentday Bush-Bashing crowd. Who really cares whether Bush sr. puked on a PM or Carter wants to have intimate relations with the entire?!? Polish people except anti Bush or anti Carter people? If there's a really noteworthy gaffe then include it in said president's article. If it is just a partisan thing then spend your time more useful and write an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Do we want to set the precedent and create articles regarding gaffes by other professions. An article about gaffes by Hollywood people perhaps? Not that many of the same people who like this list would want to create thát list I suspect.--Kalsermar 17:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We shouldn't be lured into thinking that NPOV requires that we have as many Democrat gaffes as Republican gaffes, despite the US's status as a 50-50 tribal partisan country. If Republicans are unhappy with how many Republican gaffes are on there, then they should try to add Democrat gaffes rather than complain about the existing ones (unless they're somehow false). As for Bush, I don't think there's a Bush fixation - obviously there will always be systemic bias towards the current president, but the fact is the man has said a lot of very stupid things. --Last Malthusian 09:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Splash et al. FreplySpang (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with expansion and cleanup. Be interesting to see how it looks six months from now. Turnstep 20:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Dubya's best known for his gaffes, whether while speaking or otherwise. If a Republican wants to add Dem gaffes on there, let them. As it's often said "It's a Free Country". Karmafist 21:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pov and vandalism magnet. Anything put here can be rolled into presidential articles. The amount of anti-GWB sentiment on WP is so great that you can shovel it and sell it as fertilizer. Klonimus 05:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point to anti-GWB sentiment on this page. I doubt you'll find any. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You must be joking. Considering the cascade of distortions or untruths in the entries for Bush I and Bush II, who incidentally warrant more attention here than all other presidents combined, I think the intentions of the editors are clear. I also think the comment by Last Malthusian that Republicans should try to uncover Democratic gaffes is an excellent argument for deletion. -- JJay 08:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Inherently POV. No uniform definition of gaffe. Not encyclopedic. Vandal magnet. Generally useless, Wikipedia is not lolfunnyjokes.com. Get rid of this worthless page. Vonspringer 07:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and where the hell is the Richard Nixon "Fuck You Australia" screw up? [16][17] I mean that is certainly a big "faux-pas"  ALKIVAR™ 07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Intersting, but this is the stuff of a coffee table book, not an encyclopedia article. Potentially infinite (which President hasn't screwed up in some way?) with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Gamaliel 07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Instantnood 15:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV.  Grue  12:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Biased and well short of an encyclopedic addition to Wikipedia. Lackingleft 19:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Totally silly and a waste of time. This kind of drivel gives wiki a bad name. jucifer 03:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No wonder there is a problem when you can't be bothered actually adding in sources to stuff you add in, just out of context, unexplained quotations. Deliverately adding in unexplained stuff just to 'prove' the article is drivel, is vandalism. FearÉIREANN 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: admirable as the desire for "neutrality" might be, it does not mean the suppression of all criticism of anybody featured in a given article. As for the tone, some of the arguments above seem to be bordering on the hysterical at the thought that the supposed gravity of Wikipedia might be dented by the inclusion of a humorous article about humorous events. If the stuff actually happened, and the documentation is available to prove it, it's a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Otherwise we risk our reputation being damaged by the obvious omission of perfectly good information. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:52, 29 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 not a single delete vote, and AFD is not requests for moves, so article kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism (term)[edit]

POV entry to make a point on a subject which has already been dealt with in various guises, in particlular in the NPOV titled Neofascism and religion. -- Irishpunktom\talk 14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion.--Zereshk 01:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. BrandonYusufToropov 14:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or move to Islamofascism. I think that pretty much anyone who has a basic understanding of either Islamism or Fascism realizes that this concept is nonsensical, but despite this it is inarguable that the term is today a popular one. Wikipedia cannot, and should not, exclude ideas on because we believe they are incorrect. Any political term or concept in wide currency deserves its own article. - SimonP 15:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limp, lukewarm keep At one time I was in favour of deleting or merging with Neofascism and religion but with Bush using the term several times and other appearances in mainstream media I now think it might be better to have a separate article. It's going to be a real PITA to keep it NPOV this stinker attracts whacky edits like flies. By the way this article has already survived an AFD, how did it get back here? --Lee Hunter 15:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a controversial term of significant and increasing notability, including now being used by President of US. As with Great Satan or vast right-wing conspiracy, one does not have to agree with the term to recognize its notability. If the article needs to be NPOV'd please help to do so. I think you misunderstand meaning of WP:POINT. People who are working on this article genuinely believe it is notable and should exist. WP:POINT involves doing things you know are inappropriate in order to make a point. Babajobu 15:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Babajobu, and Move to Islamofascism per standard naming for controversial, debated political terms (like the two he cites). Andrew Levine 15:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Babajobu, and move to Islamofascism -- Karl Meier 16:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back to Islamofascism if possible. Real Concept. Klonimus 16:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Islamofascism as per article naming conventions. the wub "?!" 17:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Levine. There is also a long discussion on this on Talk:Islamofascism (term). By the way, why is the "Neofascism and religion" article not called "Fascism and religion"?Kefalonia 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 269,000 google hits as islamofascism, 349,000 google hits as islamo-fascism. this word is in wide use.--CltFn 17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No serious researcher uses Wikipedia anyway, unfortunately. These guys with deep interests in keeping the Islamofascism term are very much against adding anti-Islam as a valid term separate from Islamophobia. --JuanMuslim 1m 18:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am? Hmmm. Please keep me apprised of any other opinions I develop. Babajobu 18:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the SIIEG Guild are among the most noteworthy POV pushers on Wikipedia--JuanMuslim 1m 00:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA, JuanMuslim. -- Karl Meier 13:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have all read that, but that doesn't completely stop anyone. Please request those who push similar POV to read WP:NPA. We may all learn a little by rereading the article as well. --JuanMuslim 1m 21:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. --Khalid! 18:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Neofascism and religion . The article is just gonna be used for attacks on Islam . People who want this article are well known for this non-sense . When there is a whole big section on Islam & fachism , there is no point of starting a new article on it . Bush uses a lot of terms , like the famous "we are on a crusade" , or the "operation shock & awe" , that is now changed to "operation enduring freedom". But is bush running this site?? Furthermore why isnt there any separate article on christianfascism or hindufascism . And most important , Americanfascism . The information black outs ( & the media that calls itself free & unbiased ), attacks on countries without UN permission , "either you are with us or against us", pre-emptive strike doctrine ....isnt all this fascism . Same standards should be followed for every article . This POV pushing is the kind of thing because of which no person would use Wp for serious research . Because there always are people who consider their biased understanding as facts . Farhansher 19:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and irrelevant rants. the wub "?!" 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isnt irrelevent rant . When anything of that sort isnt given special attention , then why the very same POV pushers should be allowed to give this kind of attention to Islam . This isnt the first time they have done it , they do it every day . Why isnt there any discusion on starting Christian fascism and Judeofascism . BTW reality isnt ad hominem . Farhansher 20:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not a huge fan of the current US aministration either, but you can't say that criticism of it isn't covered on Wikipedia. By ad hominem attacks I was referring to "People who want this article are well known for this non-sense". Personally I want to keep this article and I don't think I've ever edited an Islam related article in all the time I've been here, so am confused over how I can be "well known for this non-sense" the wub "?!" 22:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I take that as you voting to 'Keep wub? Klonimus 22:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • My vote is somewhere further up the page. Though if the closing admin wants to count me twice... ;-) the wub "?!" 23:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Term in common use, and article is meaty enough not to be redirected IMHOBorisblue 21:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common phrase and while article could do with more tweaking it covers the ground reasonably well. Capitalistroadster 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Neofascism and religion is Chip Berlet propoganda peice, and should be merged itself. Its certainly no place to move content. Sam Spade 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge & redirect to Neofascism and religion, the only sane solution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per above voters. Very notable concept. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move, but watch closely --RaiderAspect 03:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. This has avoided nasty revert wars and awful bigotry --Cberlet 04:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Islamofascism as per article naming conventions. This article may deserve mention at Neofascism and religion but the subject merits an article of its own. The word "Islamofascism" is used widely enough for wikipedia to justifiably have an article under this heading. It should also be noted that Neofascism and religion was originally created in response to the article Islamofascism as part of a VfD effort by the same people who have brought us this present VfD. The freedom of thought must be upheld, despite the protestation of Muslim apologia - we have a right to freely inquire as to what is Islamofascism, who invented this neoligism, what it could mean, who uses the word and in what contexts, what is the reason for associating Islam with Islamofascism, etc. -- Zeno of Elea 08:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move, term in common usage, though I'm putting on some extra thick pyjamas in light of those I'm sharing a bed with, such as the Hon. Member for Elea above. The word's existence is a blight on the world, but not on Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 09:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. PassionInfinity 10:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above, as has been done with similar articles. - ulayiti [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 11:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep, term is appears to be uninformative right-wing nonsence but has been widely used, and not just by nutty bloggers. Page should be watched for POV and there should be a more explicit link to the Neofascism and religion article as the main discusion of the concepts invovled. Hmm.. these think pyjamas are comfy.--JK the unwise 13:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. On one hand, it has emerged (unfortunately) from being an obscure term and is very likely to be looked up on encyclopedias; on the other hand, it is most likely to be used for propaganda rather than intellectual discourse, and having it redirected to Neofascism and religion would be more NPOV in my opinion. Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything verifiable and NPOV to Neofascism and religion. Jkelly 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. --Ya Ali 18:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Wow, everytime you turn around there is someone trying to take down this page. But that being what it may,"Islamofascism" is now part of the world language and you cannot get the genie back in the bottle. Presidents, the media , scholars use the word, the topic deserves its page--Fredwlerr 18:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per babajobu Zeq 19:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to Neofascism and religion. Viajero | Talk 21:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Babajobu FRS 22:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article about a notably controversial term. Merge/redirecting to Neofascism and religion would reflect a POV judgement. Move back to "Islamofascism" per naming conventions. Kappa 02:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Fredwlerr. Term's use by the leader of the free world makes it notable. Otherwise, how can we understand what he was talking about? -- JJay 03:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can anyone understand what that self-confessed schizophrenic talks about? --Last Malthusian 09:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: self-confessed schizophrenic? Haven't a clue what you mean, but you must certainly know a lot about the topic. -- JJay 11:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if I called him that just because he claims to take advice from an entity which no-one can see or hear, that would be a cheap shot, given the millions of people that do the same. But when his language implies a very tenuous grasp on material reality, combined with a history of drug abuse, not just me but qualified shrinks (see Bushism and its references) start to wonder about his mental state. --Last Malthusian 14:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: language implies a very tenuous grasp on material reality, combined with a history of drug abuse- probably could apply to lots of Wiki editors and afd discussions as well. Cheers. -- JJay 17:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I have already made my position clear with User:BrandonYusufToropov. I feel it bares repeating here however:
Bigotry, Hate speech, and Systemic bias are all things that aren't too good. However, being that Islamofascism is a word that is widely used today, my position on this article is that it should be kept and we should discuss exactly who uses the term, why they use the term and when the term is used.
I appreciate that you know I don't support the use of such a term. However, imagine you are an ordinary Australian who knows nothing about Islam and all of a sudden you are confronted with such a term in The Daily Telegraph. You think to yourself, "I wonder what this is all about?". The average Australian would normally go to Google and do a search on it.
What do you want them to find? A conservative blogger who pushes their illegitimate POV in a convincing way (and doesn't point out the counter argument for why it isn't a valid term), or the piece on Wikipedia that details, in a neutral fashion, all sides of the argument?
Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a conservative blogger's POV illegitimate? I think we really need a CSB project on countering systemic leftist bias at wikipedia. Klonimus 04:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should explain that my own POV is leaking into this comment. My main points hold: we should have an article that counters the bias of the for and against crowd of this term. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias? That's a new one. What makes it systemic? That word implies that not only are there lots of lefties on WP, but that there will always be lots of lefties, and that leads us to ask why that should be. Because people educated enough to use computers are generally left-wing? If you were thinking of another explanation, please offer it. Who wants a hot water bottle? --Last Malthusian 09:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obviously grasping at straws here, but maybe lefties are generally unemployed, perhaps because of the evils of capitalism or systemic oppression from The Man. They thus might have more free time, when not fighting for Mundialization, to contribute to wikipedia. -- JJay 17:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good save! --Last Malthusian 14:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Eliezer | [[User_talk:Eliezer|£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€]] 04:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that silly "leave me a message" really necessary? <>< tbc
I hope this is better --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Fredwlerr, and move back to Islamofascism -- what the blazes does _(term) add to the title, anyway?! And per SlimVirgin, Islamofascism already survived a VfD earlier this year. <>< tbc 05:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- The term is in current use, is notable, and should be presented and explained. Neofascism and religion is too long already. Tom Harrison (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Klonimus and Capitalistroadster. CanadianCaesar 19:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Tom Harrison. People who have never heard the term need a NPOV take on what it means, not buried in some other article like neofascism and religion which, I would add, is a prime candidate for AfD itself. It reads like a "D" term paper handed in by a bright but very lazy student who did not do the required reading. IronDuke 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please move back to islamofascism. Yuckfoo 23:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Tom Harrison. --Quasipalm 00:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge and Redirect Marzyeh 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, and move back to Islamofascism, no need to have the article under "(term)" when there is only one use for the word. There are only a few editors who seem to want this article to disappear, mostly those from the Mutaween-like "WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild": This article already survived a VFD under "Islamofascism", it has been moved to term to create an excuse for another Vfd. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamofascism. --Chaosfeary 14:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as an article about the term only, putting all info about the phenomenon the term describes at Neofascism and religion Dsol 14:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. Yuber(talk) 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Babajobu and others. Briangotts 17:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back to Islamofascism. Preaky 07:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any Blog content that happens in there, Keep everything else, (also Keep Zionazism per section 6 once it's not a redlink), but Expand the criticisms section. Dubya must have heard that this term had been deleted from WP, so he figured he needed to lend this neologism some notability ;-)karmafist 15:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. El_C 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Islamofascism. This information should be included and there isn't a suitable article to merge into. Neofascism and religion is already too large. This term is obviously controverisal and offensive, but that's not a reason for deletion. Carbonite | Talk 16:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rangerdude 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...not because I believe Islam is inherently fascist (despite my several objections to Islam), but because the term "Islamofascism" has gained rather widespread currency (for reasons that should be and are covered in the article)... I appreciate that the continued nominations for deletion of this article are brought by muslims who feel insulted by the expansiveness of the article, but I am bound by WP policies regarding notability, to vote to retain the article, keeping in mind that its existence is due to the extensive amount of usage of the term which led to its initial spinning off from list of political epithets (which were beginning to inappropriately imbalance that article)... Wishing a phenomenon would go away by repetitively requesting deletion of the article addressing it on Wikipedia is counterproductive (and I think I speak for the vast majority here)...what Muslim Wikipedians and their fellow coreligionists who object to the term and its incumbent castigation of Islam should instead be working on, is cleaning up the well-sourced shortcomings of the Muslim community in addressing and fighting the phenomena the term circumscribes. You don't like the fact that people distrust and mistrust Islam and Muslims? Great. I have no fight with you. Don't cry "foul" tho, just because you disagree with the people against whom the charges are levied. Instead, do something to build up confidence in those who see an enemy in Islam. Don't piss and moan about "anti-Islam" sentiment, when you do nothing to fight against the stupidity carried out in the name of what you believe is a great religion. If you expect people to accord your position any respect, stand up for what you believe are the GOOD points of your religion, instead of fighting blindly against anyone who dares to malign it based on the manifold shortcomings of so many of its claimed adherents. That is all. TomerTALK 10:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Why is Islamo-fascism still protected and edit-locked to the version last by User:Yuber and not redirecting to here..?

Seems like an attempt to ignore this Vfd and redirect the article to his preferred one (as per the "delete"/"merge" votes)...

This article, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber, contains many criticisms of Yuber's "vicious POV pushing", intentionally starting edit wars, removing sourced material he dislikes, claiming consensus when there is none, harassing users, sockpuppeting and so on...
--Chaosfeary 21:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment American fascism [18] 78 000 hits, enough to make a article about it. --Striver 20:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! There already was one! --Striver 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

christian fascism [19] 22,900 hits. --Striver 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'For the record Christian fascism and Judeofascism both redirect to Neofascism and religion. BrandonYusufToropov 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, since I posted the above, Judeofascism has since been changed to a nonexistent concept. Down the memory hole it goes, an impermissible idea exiled from the Newspeak vocabulary. "Oceania is at war with Eastasia ... Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.... "BrandonYusufToropov 17:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'For the recordI created the page Neofascism and religion to provide a way for these types of terms to be discussed in a context that lowered the heat on the editing flame wars. There is no reason an encyclopedia cannot list a term and then refer people to a larger article that puts it in context. Check out the index to any major encyclopedia and compare it to the table of contents. Many terms indexed, but far fewer actual articles. There is no issue of censorship whatsoever. This is hyperbole. Finally, I am hardly an apologist for militant Islamic fundamentalism, having published both popular and scholarly articles discussing how it intersects with clerical or theocratic forms of neofascism.--Cberlet 17:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a point where overly abstract treatments become useless. And anyways Neofascism and religion is way too long and disunified. Klonimus 23:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I also object on the grounds that this article is too large to have as a subsection, and it will unbalance the article Neofascism and religion (having too much info on one topic in a section, IMO, gives it more legitimacy than the other topics in other sections - thus the problem would be one of NPOV). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<----- The text section on Islam on the Neofascism and religion page has 1683 words. The text section on the page Islamofascism (term) has 1336 words (with commented out sections counted). The claim above, therefore, does not make a lot of sense. Most of the Islamofascism (term) page simply repeats what is already on Neofascism and religion. Islamofascism (term) primarily consists of quotes. Neofascism and religion also has a discussion of the concept both in the Islam section and the general section that includes cites to scholars. One page is a thoughtful discussion, the other is a cut-and-paste creation that will be a magnet for bigots and revert wars.--Cberlet 15:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in here: there are several issues of neutrality in the Neofascism_and_religion#Islam section: it's full of weasel words, unsourced claims and peacock terms (why are we arguing for or against a particular POV through the use of persuasive language?). And, as I've already stated I feared, the section is far larger than the rest of the sections and has unbalanced the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason Islamofascism (term) resembles a cut-and-paste job is that we've sourced nearly every sentence in order to discourage OR and POV warring. Neofascism and religion has more unsourced musing, so it flows more nicely but is more vulnerable to POV warriors who want to charge in with a thorough rewrite. Babajobu 18:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Islamofascism[edit]

comment -- This survived AfD six months ago. If it survives again will it be AfD'd again? I don't know if there are any guidlines for this, but it seems devisive, and potentially abusive, to keep bringing things up for votes until the desired result is acheived. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would never have happened if the 'original concensus to keep the article had been respected by Mel Ettis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), long long ago. Who instead redirected this over to Chip Berlet's project on "Neofascism and religion" which became a morass of politically correct froath. "Neofascism" as a term gets only 21,000 googles which is less than a 10th of what "Islamofascism" gets.

After GWB used Islamofascism in a major speach in late 2005, it was decided to restore the article, which led to editwars with the usual suspects. Mel Ettis, again by imperial fiat decided to end the fighting by a redirect and protect and calimed that a 26/23 majority in the AfD favor of keeping the article was really a clear concensus to redirect. After much whinning, Ta Bu, rewound the article and edit warring commenced again. At this point BYT blew a gasket, and decided to try and go for an VfD again and recreate Judeofascism (which is what Islamist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did during the original VfD). Klonimus 06:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias

Ta bu did not introduce this phrase to the discussion -- I did.

No one else seems willing to address these questions, so I'll post them here:

  • Is there a discrepancy in the way we're handling terms like Kike and Zionazi as compared with the way we're handling Islamofascism? Reasoning so far seems to be, "It's notable, go for it." Well ...
  • Is Kike prominent in usage?
  • Where are their stand-alone articles?
  • Can someone please answer these questions without offering a variation on, "Maybe you should go work on those?" BrandonYusufToropov 18:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discrepancy. Wikipedia is open to articles on all notable topics. We could have a great article about "kike". The term has a fascinating history, lots of interesting folk etymologies floating around. Probably as notable as Islamofascist. I say go work on it! Babajobu 18:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Babajobu. Also Zionazi would be fine once GWB or others start prominently using it. -- JJay 18:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BYT, you are grasping at straws. Klonimus 00:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He is indeed..
"Kike" is a racist term in much the way that "n**ger" is, "Islamofascism" refers to a religio-political concept - Islam is not a "race", it is a religion... The two terms are very different. --Chaosfeary 15:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosfeary, true, but Wikipedia does include articles on racist terms, including "n**ger". If anyone were interested in producing a similar article for "kike", there wouldn't be any problem with that. Whether we're talking about political/religious concepts or racist terms, the only criterion for admission to Wikipedia is notability. Babajobu 15:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually shocked that we don't yet have an article on Gun nut Borisblue 14:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin When this is closed, can we have a tally of votes done. Including a tally for keep+move back to Islamofascism vs plain keep. Also can Islamo-fascism be properly aimed as well pending outcome of this vFd. Klonimus 00:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you voted "keep"

... I want to ask you to reconsider your vote based on the following.

My intent here really, really is not to offend anyone, but to address frankly the issues of hate speech and systemic bias. In order to do that, I have to use some nasty words, and I apologize for that.

So.

  • Would you vote to keep or delete a stand-alone article entitled Zionazism?
  • Me, my strong initial instinct is to vote to delete it. My guess is you agree with that instinct.
  • But if you vote to keep Islamofascism, what is the logical reason you could provide for voting "delete" on Zionazism? Let's look at them.
  • Google hits. My first thought, too, but it just doesn't wash. First, Gay Niggers Association of America, just as distasteful as Zionazism, has one-twentieth as many hits, and it's alive and well. ("Don't bother" department: Yes, there have been AfDs. And every AfD one can point to is one that it survived.) Second, blogs can and do inflate a term's seeming importance. Finally, note that the big argument for resurrecting Islamofascism this time around has been that Bush used it, not that, say, Klonimus did, or I did, on one of these talk pages.
  • Hateful/patently offensive/not worthy of promotion: The real reason you and I would be voting to delete Zionazism. Right? Fine. No comment. Well, this is exactly what I've been saying here, and I most fervently agree, but apparently drawing lines like that is not what we're all about, so we're left with ...
  • Not notable. Last stop on the train. And this, alas, is where the obscenity of our current political culture is going to catch up with us, just as it has apparently caught up with us on Islamofascism.
Daniel Pipes uses the term in Minaiatures, Transaction Publishers, 2004 [20]
… Huzzam Ayloush, uses the term “zionazi” when referring to Israelis …


Brad Stetson uses the term on page 114 of Human Dignity and Contemporary Liberalism Praeger, 2004 [21]


"Zionazism" is the title of an infamous (and, whether we feel like admitting it or not, newsworthy) book: [22] [23]
One of the books found in Arafat’s palace in Bethlehem was Zionazism. Fight it before It Kills You (al-sahyunaziya. Qatiluha qabla an taqtulukum), by Mustafa Akhmis, who presented it personally with a written dedication to Arafat’s close associate Yusuf `Abdallah. The book, dedicated to the martyrs of the Palestinian revolution, refuted Jewish history and the origins of contemporary Jewry, denied the Holocaust and described Zionism as “the eighth crusade” planned by imperialist countries.


Google news cited story uses "Zionazi" in headline: [24]


Arab Media Review: Anti-Semitism and other trends [25] offers this citation:
Those are some of the common points between Nazism and Zionism, i.e. the Zionazism that Israel’s heads and spiritual leaders operate... “ ‘Abed al-Malik Khalil (from Moscow), “Zionazism”, Al-Ahram, May 22, 2004


Zvi Bar'el's article Even the best of friends which appeared April 10, 2002 in Ha'aretz features the following passage:
When television announcers in Egypt adopt the term "Zionazism," and voices in Jordan talk openly about the "level of decline" in relations with Israel, Turkey, even if gritting its teeth, is continuing to do business as usual.


So -- I give up. You tell me. I want to vote against Zionazism, too. But if I've voted to keep Islamofascism, how exactly do I justify doing that? BrandonYusufToropov 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message on my page. In fact, you make a very convincing argument here. As a result, I would gladly vote to keep an article entitled Zionazism (term). Dsol 15:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is in current use and is notable, it should be included. If Zionazi meets those requirements, I want there to be an article about it, telling the reader who uses it, when, and how. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if "Zionazism" meets a reasonable threshold of notability, then there could/should be an article about it. "Offensiveness" of term is of no significance or interest when determining notability. It's really not complicated, Brandon! Babajobu 15:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's simple. In the abstract. In the real WP world you and I live in, as of right now, Islamofascism has an article but Zionazism doesn't -- Raghead has an article but Kike doesn't -- and so on. "Go forth and wallow in the muck until those things become articles", in my view, really isn't a very constructive piece of advice for dealing with that state of affairs. BrandonYusufToropov 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Brandon, there are also more articles exploring Israeli shortcomings than there are articles exploring the shortcomings of any Arab or Muslim country. So imbalances go both ways. Wikipedia reflects the interests of its contributors. We can't force Wikipedians to be equally interested in everything, and we can't enforce an "equally offensive to each community" policy. We require a certain minimum of notability, and an NPOV approach. That's served Wikipedia pretty well, and I can't think of a better alternative. Babajobu 16:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly my point. I don't imagine the trolls are going to be very even-handed about this. However, when an editor like yourself acknowledges with equal fervor that the hatefulness of the terms Zionazism and Islamofascism are entirely beside the point, and that both articles are notable, we're getting somewhere. BrandonYusufToropov 16:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this from the very beginning, Brandon. You've wanted to paint me as some kind of anti-Islam partisan, but I've insisted all along that notable terms are notable, no matter whose cockles they get up. Jewish cockles or Christian cockles or Hindu cockles or atheist cockles have no more bearing on notability than Muslim cockles. I've never heard the term "Zionazi" used, and it certainly doesn't have the currency that "Islamofascism" has attained, but based on the citations you gave above it looks like it probably is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Babajobu 16:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In summary: It would be safe to say that most of the editors agree that:

Any topic that meets the editorial standards of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should be capable of standing on its own in this encyclopedia. Of course we also want to make sure that we do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--CltFn 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. When I start seeing Zionazi in the general press as much as Islamofascism is, I'll vote for an article. Right now, I'd probably be neutral in a VfD, depending on the content of the article. --RaiderAspect 11:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you would also vote to delete Unitarian Jihad and Gay Niggers Association of America, as well as all other politically related articles that fail to meet the standard you've proposed above? BrandonYusufToropov 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know anything about Unitarian Jihad, but where do you get off saying GNAA doesn't meet standards of notability? GNAA has loads of mentions in mainstream press. It was subject to the same sort of "purge the offensive topic despite its notability!" hysteria as Islamofascism has been subjected to. Let's not go there again. Babajobu 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Unknown person above whom one could identify by perusing the history of this page said that the standard for notability was seeing a term "in the general press as much as Islamofascism." I think that's an entirely arbitary yardstick for notability, and it sounds like you do, too. BrandonYusufToropov 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a topic can be less notable than "Islamofascism" and still be notable. If Yasser Arafat owned a book titled "Zionazism" that probably establishes notability for me right there. But then I'm an inclusionist by nature. Babajobu 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no change to my vote, I would vote to keep an article intitled Zionazi. Like Islamofacism it is a largly contentless confusion but that doesn't change the fact that in the non-perfect world we live in people talk nonsense. One of the reasons that we don't have an article for Zionazi is that we most of us live in England or America and thus focus on our idiot leaders rather then the idoit leaders of the Arab world and the propaganda they use to controll their population. By having articles on these phrazes wikipedia can infact play the positive role of exposing their vacuousness. --JK the unwise 09:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The unknown person was me, forgot to sign the comment. And your twisting my words. I dont mean that whatever-level-of-notability Islamofascism is should be where the line is drawn. I mean that IF Zionazism was as widely used as Islamofascism, I would without hesitation vote to keep it. However, if you want an ancedote, I saw 'Islamofascism' mentioned in an article in the Economist, undoubtedly a mainstream news source, today. I have never seen Zionazism mentioned in anything approaching a mainstream news source. --RaiderAspect 11:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You see my point, though. Determining notability based on what you personally happen to have come across in a newspaper is not the way to figure out which articles to keep and which to delete. And by the way, if I was twisting your words, I was doing so by quoting you verbatim. BrandonYusufToropov 11:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Misquotation - You quote out of context whenever it suits you. --Chaosfeary 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What everyone seems to keep forgetting, is that Islamofascism (term) isn't an article because of any other reason than that it was becoming unwieldily large in List of political epithets. It has nothing to do with it being any more or less "important" than Zionazi or Zionazism, or Judeofascism, except inasmuch as the term "Islamofascism" is used far more frequently, and by more noteworthy people than either of the other two terms. As such, there's more subject matter to cover. TomerTALK 07:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and keep (term) in the title. "Islamofascism" is indeed a widely used term; however, it is itself a POV term (and IMHO, a misleading one), and so there is good reason to be wary of simply titling an article Islamofascism, since that implies that such a beast exists, and that that's what the article is about. In practical terms, putting/keeping all of the material in Islamofascism (term) in the Islam section of Neofascism and religion makes the latter article too long and overly tipped against Islam. Much of that material should be broken out into its own article, which on any other, less controversial topic, would be titled in a way that follows logically from the parent article. However, in this case, most of the material in that section doesn't concern any actual connection between neofascist movements and Islam or Islamism, but the characterization of Islamism and jihadism as totalitarian, and therefore fascistic, by its opponents. This vilification is real, it is prominent in the English-speaking world, and it needs to be confronted and discussed. There is no better way to do it than in the existing article. No matter what happens, any surviving article must stay NPOV, and should continue to focus on the term itself (as does this article and this one), rather than the phenomenon it purports to describe.
I understand the impulse to want to keep this pejorative, misleading, POV term out of Wikipedia entirely. We must not permit Wikipedia to become a vehicle for the partisans who employ such terms to advance their propaganda aims. However, something still needs to be said about the term, including its origins and context, and if Wikipedia doesn't say it, who will? Like Dominionism, this should not be a word simply left to incubate and strengthen itself within partisan echo-chambers indefinitely. And for the record, I would also support keeping a Zionazism (term) article around, as long as that "(term)" part stays in the title, and the article itself can be kept NPOV and focused on the term itself and not what it supposedly describes. skoosh [[User_talk:Skoosh|(háblame)]] 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, does having articles titled Loch Ness Monster, Perpetual motion or Time travel imply that such things exist? Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer that question by posing another: Have you been watching this page lately? Current major accomplishment has been eliminating a B&W photograph of a turban-clad mufti inspecting 1940-era Nazi troops. BrandonYusufToropov 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt that the article needs some major work, but I do disagree with deleting it or giving it a nonstandard title. I just don't see how eliminating the "(term)" from the title somehow implies that "such a beast exists". Carbonite | Talk 15:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Neofascism and religion.--The Brain 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Brain 23:11, 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 SPEEDY DELETE (based on this admin's judgment as A1) --Nlu 04:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ShowSize[edit]

advertisement

  • Delete - advertisement JoJan 14:40, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Roundsley and Munich syndrome and Munich Syndrome[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. —Cryptic (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete vanity bio & NN band Pete.Hurd 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --YHoshua 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.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert T | @ | C 00:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geh township[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, can find no reference to its existence on Google. Muchness 15:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A town of 1300 where the average male income is $100k plus? I'd love to live in this fake fantasy land. I see no info about this place on Google and it sounds like well researched false info. TotalTommyTerror 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's just say that a claimed population of 1337 makes me very suspicious. If it's in the 2000 U.S. census, it should be easily verifiable for those who know where to access this census: naturally it should be kept if verified and deleted if not. — Haeleth Talk 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Census says the only town (MA has no "townships") in Nantucket County is Nantucket. -- Mwalcoff 03:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Jasmol 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to uncyclopedia.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shinn[edit]

Fails to express notability. The JPS 15:48, 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 no consensus to delete; editorial decision made to merge and redirect with Demographics of the Philippines. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of the Philippines by other sources[edit]

So long after this creation of Demographics of the Philippines by other sources, it still doesn't cite sources becuase there are no sources that corroborate the misinformation. That's why it had to be taken out of the main article. It's was created on the presmise of considering other "claims" made regarding the racial make up of Filipinos. However, should the article not have be based on whether any of those "claims" could actually be substansiated by any shred of evidence, other than wishful thinking? All sources attest that the demographic reality of the Philippines is another one, not the one presented on this article. As it is, it's amazing that this article has had such a long life. Al-Andalus 20:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable.  RasputinAXP  T C 18:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A blatant example of an article based exclusively on "original research". And I'm being generous by calling it "research", because if we're honest about it, it's an unconfirmable opinion. Al-Andalus 06:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge (before Deleting). Here are some references to back up those claims of the article in dispute. (By the way, I'm not the author of that article):
    • Mallat, Jean, translated by Santillan-Castrence, Purificacion (1991) The Philippines, National Historical Institute: Manila, Philippines.
    • Manuel, Antonio H. (--), Chinese Loanwords in the Philippine Languages, --:Manila, Philippines
    • Zaide, Sonia M. (1991), Philippine History and Government, Allscript Publishing: Quezon City, Philippines

User:Matthewprc 3:30, 27 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 no consensus to delete, so kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewelled antler[edit]

interesting but not notable as per WP:NMG --WAvegetarian 21:46, 22 November 2005 UTC)(--WAvegetarian 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • as per criteria #4 & #5:
jewelled antler artist have releases on larger indie labels such as FAT CAT & Jagjaguwar/Secretly Canadian
jewelled antler artists have been written about extensively in the WIRE magazine (for example: feature article issue 219 May 2002)

as well as appearing in Vice Magazine, the Village Voice & countless others...

--the author
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of my rare keep votes for an music-related afd. This "collective" or whatever you call it is mentioned in popular music media such as Pitchfork Media. Jasmol 16:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain The fact that an atist who used to produce under a "banner" "moved on to more high profile releases" does not make the lower profile bannerthey used to produce under notable. Nor does said artists getting written up for other work in major publications. Mere mention in popular music media isn't enough either; it must be "prominently featured." The movement/collective was talked about quite a bit in the review of The Blithe Sons: Arm of the Starfish on Pitchfork. While establishing the presence of the Jewelled Antler collective, it does not feature it as the review is about an album by another group, albeitt comprised of Jewelled Antler members, and released under another label. That said, rereading the article, I find that it is neither "a musician or ensemble" as its changing membership and loose organization make it more of a genre than a band. I can't say that I feel it is notable, but WP:NMG simply doesn't apply to it. I withdraw my nomination. --WAvegetarian 04:06, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid Man And Barnacle Boy V[edit]

The emerging consensus on Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes is that not every TV episode is worthy of inclusion. I would nominate almost every episode under this criterion, but I don't have the time or inclination ;) Delete this fancruft. Zunaid 14:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • On second thoughts make that a Blanket Delete for all Spongebob Squarepants episode entries of this type. This is fancruft at its absolute worst. 14:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anville 20:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 01:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (e.g. abstain from action) as an "emerging consensus" on a highly debated topic is not enough at this moment. Wait until a consensus is reached there. Turnstep 20:29, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike doren[edit]

Almost identical to a (now deleted) Mike Doren article, maybe even speedy delete.Ronabop 07:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

During this period of 3 years, the Auxiliary Priests produced 3 albums, 2 of which were multiplatinum, one which was only platinum. It was during this time that their highest selling single, "Ol' Mucky Terrahawks", was produced.
      • Upon closer inspection it sounds more like a SD for Nonsense. Ol Mucky Terrahawks is a name given by a Wu-Tang Name Generator. I stand by my Speedy.  RasputinAXP  T C 21:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete an obvious prank. Durova 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete 'Auxiliary Priests' does not show up in CDnow, and yet they went multiplatinum? Jasmol 17:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved this unsigned anonymous comment by User:152.163.101.12 from the talk page (AndyJones 23:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)):[reply]
    • Please do not delete this article. This is actually the truth about Mike Doren and their band. While the name Ol' Mucky Terrahawks was from the name generator, they liked the name which was presents, that being the aforementioned Ol' Mucky Terrahawks. This is entirely legitimate.
  • And now I'm reverting a (probably vandalism) blanking of this AfD.AndyJones 21:19, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. – Robert T | @ | C 00:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude To War[edit]

Nomination withdrawn per findings below. PJM 13:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep try this link [26] --Porturology 06:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PJM 13:55, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replicacion del adn[edit]

This seems to be a failed partial translation between english and spanish, but it has no links to it, and no links from it. Ronabop 02:51, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha Connor[edit]

I found this page while searching on wikipedia for information about young politicians. It was useful to me, so I'd say leave it up. It'd be good to expand the article, but I see no reason to delete it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.80.86 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-23 13:49:28 (UTC)

  • A look at the talk page suggests that the nominator did not intend to nominate this page for deletion. On the other hand, I will. This page is about a young Republican who ran for a state seat in Vermont and was unsuccessful. While being President of your local College Republican branch and unsuccessful candidate for the legislature shows that she is a political hopeful, at this stage she hasn't moved beyond that. Delete. Capitalistroadster 17:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 18:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per PJM.  RasputinAXP  T C 18:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. LegCircus 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; running for state legislature while still a student is out of the ordinary, and does appear to have attracted some media attention, but apparently not the significant attention that WP:BIO suggests. That said, this is the weakest delete vote I can remember making; I will change my vote to "keep" if a few more media sources can be found. — Haeleth Talk 22:37, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 01:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Brunch Bus[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning may be seen in this edit summary. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this afd nomination, The Brunch Bus entry has been revised, adding links to relevant topics and explaning the significance of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.4.234 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, possibly vanity --RaiderAspect 23:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relates and links to other topics. Could be edited to eliminate possible vanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.4.234 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Izehar 22:25, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project creamery[edit]

This entry is for a company that plans to sell ice cream made with liquid nitrogen. The website tells that they are not beyond the planning stage yet.

Delete, possibly Speedy Delete as advertising. Pilatus 16:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT - not eligible for speedy. PJM 18:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this generic adversting, nor advertising at all. So far it's just a bold idea and so far we have just handed out t-shirts to our friends. Gritz147 16:22, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Peru[edit]

Delete A commendable group, but with a budget under $250,000, only a couple of years old, and helping less than 20 people at present, I just don't see where this group is sufficiently notable to be considered encyclopedic. Caerwine 16:51, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Threadtropy[edit]

This appears to be a neologism. Only 3 Google hits, one of which is a posting by the person who invented the word in October 2005. The article is simply a definition of the word. Bluewave 16:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef, neologism and OR. Anville 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Seano1 21:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for original research and forumcruft. -- SoothingR(pour) 10:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Preaky 07:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. It also sounds a bit like a term that does exist, Godwin's Law. I'm shocked the article is still up after 5 days; I gotta become one of these admin thingies. Get moving already! —an odd name 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 22:26, 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 redirected to Santa Luċija by User:Maltesedog. – Robert T | @ | C 00:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lucia's[edit]

An article entitled Santa Lućija on the same topic Maltesedog 17:42, 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 07:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CGU-verse[edit]

Insignificant personal universe, not noteworthy 128.100.138.41 17:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense Ashibaka (tock) 19:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal universe that's involved in no published stories in any media and has no following on or offline.--Sindai 20:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on the same grounds as Afd/Central Galactic Union. 38 google hits, and I found out that this is merely some piece of amateuristic fiction from sciforums.com. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research/unpublished fiction. — Haeleth Talk 22:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it isn't famous doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What about Orion's Arm? What about a lot of the verses in the Other section of the "Fictional Governments" thing? Just because it is insignificant to YOU doesn't mean it is insignificant to everyone. P.S- Check the links, they verify the existence of Pyro Pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-23 22:37:28 (UTC)

However, something that is not referenced anywhere except by its authors, however significant it is and however good it is, falls foul of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. In addition, we have certain guidelines for determining whether works of fiction should be included. The mere fact that something exists does not guarantee it a place in Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 22:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What would I need to do to keep this on Wikipedia? This is info I need to get out, and simply having websites just ain't cutting it. It needs to be known, so I can really get this stuff off the ground.


Ok, here is the whole story as far as I can figure it out, as I originally posted at the Central Galactic Union article - at the message board Spacebattles there is a roleplaying tradition in which the original author of this article participated in. He created the "Central Galactic Union" solely for gaming purposes, and specifically for the purposes of this roleplay tradition. Note that this roleplay tradition does not extend beyond the confines of Spacebattles.com. While this entry is encyclopedic for Spacebattles.com, it's barely so even then and hardly encyclopedic for Wikipedia. I'm going to reserve judgement and leave that to the moderators and popular opinion; I just wanted to deliver the background as best as I can figure. If there are any inaccuracies or incompletions, I invite those more knowledgable than me to comment. Hapsburg, if that above comment is from you, what you need to do to justify this staying on Wikipedia is to adapt it to an original universe of your creation, write it in novelized form and get it published. It's a lot of work but it's worth it - User:24.9.10.235

1. WE at PyroPics thought of the CGuverse long before I joined SB. 2. Well, don't all SciFi's borrow concepts, ideas, etc. from other sci-fi's as well as from history? Especially since the CGUverse is an allegorical tale. 3. Well, can you at least keep this on here for the time being? It took a damn long time to write this, and a damn long time to write the story. We have entered it in a writing contest, and are working on getting it published. This is close enough to at least keep the article open, so that people can learn about the CGU-verse while we get it into the public. Besides, I have written this pretty much neutrally, as the NPOV rules state.

We would advise you to develop your concept and promote it, through appropriate channels. Do what you can to get your story released by a major publishing house and noticed by the mainstream science-fiction media. By the time your book has received media attention and sold maybe a few hundred thousand copies, it will definitely be ready for an article on Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 01:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Andrew, I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for your input. To direct my attention back to Hapsburg, as I have said in the main article, and as I have said back at Spacebattles, get it published. It's a lot of work but it's very much worth it. I would also like to note that, like you, I have invested a lot of time and effort creating a universe for another roleplay, and that I'm currently working on getting it adapted into novel form for publication. There's no guarantee that it will be successful or even published, but I'm willing to expend the effort. Believe me, it's much more productive than trying to get noteriety though Wikipedia first - User:24.9.10.235


And one more important point, Hapsburg - sign your comments thusly: [ [User: YourIPAddressHere] ] (no spaces in between the brackets) Unsigned comments are considered lacking of respect here, and you're already in hot water in the eyes of this community for creating this article in the first place User:24.9.10.235

  • Delete for reasons mentioned above. -Falcorian 04:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another spacebattler here. Delete this article. To Hapsburg: are you trying to get banned from every site you go to? This is not a suitable Wikipedia article, maybe if you posted it on Uncyclopedia it could fit more there... Maybe. There's no real content, as has been stated previously. He was criticized for spamming this CGU on Spacebattles and now, for some reason, he's brought it to wikipedia.

And yes, this CGU 'borrows' from established universes. And by borrow, I mean he plagiarizes and steals, everything from other people's art to ship designs (and names) from various TV series (in particular, Babylon 5). Delete this article. And, Hapsburg, if you're worried about it getting deleted here's a hint: Use Microsoft Word or a free website. Don't clog up wikipedia with your CGU. If you are serious about publishing this, then get some original designs and ideas for once. Don't steal everything. kthxbye. User: Lord Azrael

  • Strong delete as respectfully as such a vote can be made. To the writer, you've obviously put some time into this project. If you ever hope to sell it to a publisher you will thank me for this vote. Buy a guide to fiction writing, keep works in progress off the Internet, and keep going. Durova 07:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not the place to publish new material.. websites aren't cutting it.. please see WP:NOT Srl 10:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how can I sign my name with a user thing when I'm not a user on wikipedia? Or if I don't know my IP #? I didn't steal anything, and I have no idea what you are talking about, Azrael. All of the names for ships were thought up by Weston, he also made pretty much all of the art for it. At least, that is what he told me, and I wouldn't be a friend if I did not trust him on that. All of the character names are things we thought of, so what are you talking about? I've never seen Babylon 5, what is it? As for what some of ya'll called "innaccuracies"...well, I did what ya'll told me to do, and changed the stuff on it, and I did, and ya'll are still complaining. And stop calling me "hapsburg", that ain't my name. -Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete "This is info I need to get out, and simply having websites just ain't cutting it." Wikipedia isn't for self-promotion. --StoatBringer 22:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not promoting myself, I'm putting information that the public needs to know into the publicness, as one onf my friends at school suggested.


As I have said in the other entries (in addition on how to find your own IP address), I have good reason to believe your friend Weston is a lying cheat and thief, and is flat-out using you for the self-promotion of his fanwank. Dump him.

And no, the public does not need to know about the CGU-verse just because your asshat friend suggested it. - User: 24.9.10.235


  • I would like to finally cast my vote on this article - as with the main article, I vote to KEEP, but with conditions - this article should be removed from the main site but still accessible somewhere to the public in its entirety (particularly all discussion pages) to serve as an example and teaching aid for future Wikipedia article construction. - User: 24.9.10.235
    • Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Unclear what you mean by 'not on main site but accessible'. If the wikipedia help and guidelines such as WP:NOT are unclear then they should be updated. Srl 00:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again I think you misunderstand me - at least keep the discussion pages archived so that future authors may understand the consequences of creating articles like these. There's a lot of issues covered under here other than the whole encyclopedic/original research issue - copyrights, for one. I think that by having an example (at least in the form of these preserved discussion pages) future authors will better understand what constitutes a good Wikipedia by understand what constitutes a bad article. User: 24.9.10.235
  • Why is it a bad article? I followed the main guidelines: NPOV, etc, etc.

Besides, man, where else can I put this much info on the CGU-verse in this manner? No where else, that's why I like wikipeda: it's unique in how the information is done. -Alex, Confederate.

  • You can put all this information on your MSN group, or a website, but not on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to list insignificent personal universes. It is unpublished, not very well known content. Orion's Arm, Babylon 5, Star Trek, all of those universes are much, much more well known then the CGU, hence why they can be found in wikipedia. User:Lord Azrael.
  • And Alex illustrates maybe why at least these discussion pages should be preserved and archived (including my article in the discussion section of the Central Galactic Union article concerning the proper origin of the images). - User: 24.9.10.235
    • I think these pages are archived even if the main pages are deleted (should that be a delete vote then?). But rather than being a example, the documentation should be improved and clarified. Alex asks why it is a bad article: because (as in the first line of this page, and i agree) is not notable, see WP:VAIN. where else can I put this much info on the CGU-verse in this manner? Maybe on a Wikicities if you like this format? There's a science fiction section I think. (I don't know much about them). 24.9 please explain what you mean by 'why this should be preserved'? Why does it belong on Wikipedia? That's the whole question here.. Srl 07:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying it should be on Wikipedia at all - in fact, I agree with the consensus that it doesn't belong here. However, I feel that some lesson from this should be preserved in some form and presented to those creating new articles (not the general public searching for articles) so that some lesson can be learned here. And I do believe there are a lot of lessons to be learned here that the WP:NOT does not adequetely cover - User: 24.9.10.235
      • If the consensus is to delete the article under discussion as original research (which the author has admitted it to be), then the article and its talk page will be deleted, and this discussion page will remain as a historical archive of the deletion discussion. Uncle G 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, wait, so, you're telling me that I can put all of this information down on this "wikicities", and it won't get deleted because of its obscurity? Why didn't you guys tell me about this in the first place? -Alex, Confederate.
    • Alex, You need to read their documentation and see if it is a good fit. All I know is that they use the same software as Wikipedia, and they have existing projects or let you propose a new project yourself. I mentioned it because you said you liked this format. If you have your own web host, you can even run this software MediaWiki on your own account and do whatever you want with it. In summary, I'm not saying that it won't get deleted there, I'm just saying that if it is not suitable for an encyclopedia, perhaps there is another project elsewhere that it is a good fit for. Check into it.. Srl 18:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alex, I wouldn't just jump headlong into Wikicities and just start up an article there - that's what got you into this mess in the first place. Like what Srl said, read over things carefully - and you might end up being better off creating a separate page and maybe using the MediaWiki software anyway. Like I said, you'll need to read things over carefully - User: 24.9.10.235
  • Delete per nom. — RJH 01:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, I feel I need to mention that, for future reference, Alex, you should be more careful about verifying the originality of artwork and more careful to avoid plagirism - User: 24.9.10.235

Wait, wait, why would you care if I got screwed over because of the artwork? Ya'll obviously hate me, so why would you yankees wanna help me? -Alex, Confederate.

Please, stop using yankee as an insult. You are an American, are you not? I believe you stated that you were. Also, not everyone here is American, for instance, I am Australian. Using 'yankee' as an insult makes you look like a moron. User:Lord Azrael

By "yankee", I meant "northerner". Sorry if I thing against them, and I am sorry if I assume that a lot people on an international english-language website are from the US. But, my point was: why would you want me to not get screwed over if you hate me? -Alex, Confederate.

You also may be assuming that those in the US are northerners.. or that those who vote for deletion wouldn't want to help you anyways. Srl 09:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the people who are telling me that I'll get screwed over if I, as you call it, "plagiarize". Why would they want to not see me get arrested? -Alex, Confederate.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central Galactic Union[edit]

- Insignificant personal universe, not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia 128.100.138.41 17:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey mouse entry. Not worthy of an encylopedia

  • Delete. When I looked at the article, it looked damn realistic, except for the absence of an author. However, when I googled it I got 115 hits. That's virtually nothing. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal universe that's involved in no published stories in any media and has no following on or offline.--Sindai 20:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research/unpublished fiction. — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons posted by Sindai. -Falcorian 04:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is obscure doesn't mean it does not exist, you know. There are many obscure scifi verse linked to on this wikipedia. Besides, this is an enclyclopedia, correct? This is info on the CGU universe that needs to be made public.

Yes, this is an encyclopedia. That means it is a repository of information that is already public knowledge. It is not an appropriate place for making previously-unknown knowledge public. See No Original Research, one of our central policies. — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it needs to be made public. What would I have to do to keep this page on this site, because I need this info to get to the public eyes.


Ok, here is the whole story as far as I can figure it out - at the message board Spacebattles there is a roleplaying tradition in which the original author of this article participated in. He created the "Central Galactic Union" solely for gaming purposes, and specifically for the purposes of this roleplay tradition. Note that this roleplay tradition does not extend beyond the confines of Spacebattles.com. While this entry is encyclopedic for Spacebattles.com, it's barely so even then and hardly encyclopedic for Wikipedia. I'm going to reserve judgement and leave that to the moderators and popular opinion; I just wanted to deliver the background as best as I can figure. If there are any inaccuracies or incompletions, I invite those more knowledgable than me to comment - User:24.9.10.235


I have also been informed that furthermore this universe is unoriginal and largely "borrows" from other established, published universes - User:24.9.190.235

No, that is not what happened. It is original, though we used some concepts from history and other scifis, don't all science ficitons? Anyway, we at Pyro Pictures created this story long before I join SB.com and posted it for a VS debate. It was, and remains, a story which we will make into a movie. P.S- Who keeps vandalizing the article. just because it is being debated for deletion doesn't mean it should be vandalized.

Actually, on the Spacebattles site, the writer of this was ruthlessly critisized for the universe and its inaccuracies. He didn't create it solely for gaming purposes, he created it before he registered there.

...And yes, I say Delete. No real content or meaning. Or Hapsie, host it on Geocities. It's easier than annoying us. User: MJ12 Commando


Hapsburg, it's bad enough when you annoy us but it's downright disgraceful when you're annoying the Wikipedia community. One small step you can do yourself to decrease that level of annoyance is by signing your comments. Signing your comments shows the Wikipedia community-at-large which comments are yours and is a mark of courtesy - and it's fun, fast, and easy to do! All you have to do (in the case when you don't have a Wikipedia account) is copy & paste your IP number around double-brackets thusly: [ [User:YourIPAddressInHere] ] (no spaces in between the brackets). At least this way, you would show some respect for the community here - User: 24.9.190.235


....oh, and Hapsburg, like I said, get it published, then we'll talk - User: 24.9.190.235

Delete. It's not only unpublished personal fiction but also very poorly written. --WyldStallionRyder 06:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another spacebattler here. Delete this article. To Hapsburg: are you trying to get banned from every site you go to? This is not a suitable Wikipedia article, maybe if you posted it on Uncyclopedia it could fit more there... Maybe. There's no real content, as has been stated previously. He was criticized for spamming this CGU on Spacebattles and now, for some reason, he's brought it to wikipedia.

And yes, this CGU 'borrows' from established universes. And by borrow, I mean he plagiarizes and steals, everything from other people's art to ship designs (and names) from various TV series (in particular, Babylon 5), he was caught out on SB for art theft for one. Delete this article. User: Lord Azrael

  • Delete with an added note to my comment on the previous vote: you must not plagiarize if you hope to expand this beyond a casual roleplaying circle of friends. Durova 07:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not the place to publish new material.. Srl 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how can I sign my name with a user thing when I'm not a user on wikipedia, nor do I knowm y IP number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

First, you can become a user easily. Just hit 'Login' in the top right corner of the page. You don't need to know your IP number. Find the tilde ~ key and press it four times: ~~~~, it turns into this: Srl 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "art theft" thing, I had no clue where we got our stuff from. Weston just emailed it all to me. I've never seen Babylon 5, whatever that is. I put this stuff on wikipedia because my friends suggested that I write this stuff an make an article on wikipedia. EDIT: But, I don't want to become a user. If I do, then you government types will bann me, and then I can never look stuff up on wikipedia again. -Alex, Confederate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

I don't see the correlation between a user and being banned. One can be blocked by IP, in fact most blocks are by IP. Secondly, blocking doesn't prevent one from looking up stuff, just from editing. Srl 19:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Turnstep 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia is bad, Hapsburg. MJ12 Commando 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many times do I have to say this- my name isn't hapsburg, stop calling me that. Second of all, I know it's not good for my health, but I have my reasons.

-Alex, Confederate.


In regards to the art thing, this is why you need to verify the source of your art. Your friend Weston is being lazy, dishonest, and downright a theif. In fact, I would strongly advise verifying every bit of information regarding the CGU-verse they send you, image or print, for plagirism. If nothing else ask around and maybe someone will catch onto whether it's original or not.

In fact I recommend maybe breaking away from your little group of friends alltogether. From the sounds of things they're lazy theives who are using you for their own ends, and not too scrupulous as to how they'r pushing their "CGU-Verse" agenda, either.

And finally, you can do what I do and simply look in the "history" section of the page and look up your IP and just go back and copy & paste it in here. - User: 24.9.190.235

  • Thier agenda? Oh, no, I'm the one who initially thought of the CGUverse, weston helped me find images, as well as aiding in plot development. I don't where he got them, and I don't really care if they are stolen. I was just clarifying that I didn't find them, he did. Now, as for verifying it, I don't know how I could go about doing that, but I guess I could just redesign some of the stuff, eh.

As for the IP signing thing...thanks, but I prefer signing like so, as it more accurately portrays me, as I am not just a number, I am a person. -Alex, Confederate.


First of all you should care if they're stolen - it's called plagirism and it happens to be a statutory crime. And if you really are as serious as the depth and detail of this article being debated makes it out to be, you should care anyway for the sake of your own work and creative property. As for veryifying it, you should make at least some effort to do so - doing web searches is at least a very basic way of going about it. And finally, sign in with your IP address anyway, because as you may be finding out someone is at least going around signing it in for you anyway, and at least if you were to do it yourself you'd gain back a modicum of respect - User: 24.9.10.235

Signing makes the discussion readable, who said what. Anyways, why not make an account, 'Alex Confederate'? It seems to not be taken. Best regards, Srl 10:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee laws, not my laws. Anyway, I don't what the images originally were called. When weston emailed them to me, he renamed them. I can't really do a google search on the original image if I don't know what the original image was called, now can I? -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

Wrong. They are your laws. England, Australia, America, they all have the same laws regarding plagiarism. His MSN group is located in the article, and, if you browse to the images you shall find the following images, I've got what he calls them, the true name of them (in brackets) and what verse they are from. These are only the ones I recognize: Aries class Space interceptor (Aurora class Starfury) Babylon 5 Aurora class Multipurpose starfighter (thunderbolt class starfury) Babylon 5 Tigershark class (some kind of Star Wars fighter) Nova-class Battleship (nova class Dreadnaught) Babylon 5 Gawain class Starbattlecruiser (Sulaco) Aliens

Those are the ones I recognize, and there are maybe 3 that are probably created by them. Frankly, it's for your own good. If you're serious about getting this published then you should not take things from well known sci-fi series, claim them as your own and think no one will notice. That's all I am going to say about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.22.82 (talk • contribs)

Also, to check whether the pictures are yours, google image search some of the file names EG: Gun mouth Diplomat which is on your webpage and the google image search seems to point to it belonging to some one else... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.22.82 (talk • contribs)

  • Question: what the heck is babylon 5? I've never heard of it, nor did I know that those images were from other things. Weston never mentioned anything about that, so, how was I supposed to know?

-Alex, Confederate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

I can't seem to find any reference to their MSN Group and it is a long article. I don't suppose you can just point it out for me? User: 24.9.10.235

http://groups.msn.com/PyroPicturesInc-/ that's the address, head to images and check out the ones relating to the CGU. Some of the filenames can be run through google image search to produce result. Note: Hapsburg, if you seriously believe that this 'Weston' is capable of the various forms of CGI seen in there, plus the sketching then you're a bit deluded. Also, Alex, Hapsburg, Weston, whoever you are, here is a link to Babylon 5 it's a popular sci-fi series. It would be best if you either put up a disclaimer or took the images down, they are NOT yours as you have claimed and Weston did NOT create them. Confront Weston, if that's who is doing it, and tell him that the CGU will not be successful if stuff like this continues to happen.

It is a major breach of copyright, and you can be sued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.22.82 (talk • contribs)

Ya'll yankees are always so uptight. I'll go back, and redesign some of them, okay. -Alex, Confederate.

I've checked through the MSN Group and here's what I've been able to conclude:

This[27] image I have no idea where it's from, but I'm pretty sure it's stolen given the inconsistent art quality compared to the original artwork (which all appears to be done in MS Paint).

Compare the above illustration to the CGU Mk. 50 Battletank [28]

This [29]also appears to be another unoriginal artwork although it's been (shoddily) modified in MS Paint.

This [30] is yet another example of what appears to be original artwork shoddily modified using MS Paint.

I have no idea what [31] this is but I think by now you know the story.

Since this is becomming quite a lengthy article in the interest of preserving space on this already crowded page I'll continue in the main article's talk section - User: 24.9.10.235


Oh, and while I'm at it - Alex, I hate to say it but for the most part your "original" artwork appears to be deeply lacking in quality, very much appearing with an "amatuer" finish, and still unoriginal or at least very much uninspired - User: 24.9.10.235


After further reviewing things, particularly the short article I just wrote on the main discussion page, I feel I need to throw in my as yet uncaset vote:

  • KEEP, but with conditions - Yes, that's right, I believe this article should stay on Wikipedia - but not in its current form. I believe this article, the other disputed articles, and in particular the discussion pages for all articles (not just the VFD discussions but the disucssions regarding the main pages themselves) should be kept and archived somewhere off the main site, but still accessable to the public, to serve as an example of what not to do on Wikipedia, what does not constitute an article and the issues surrounding plagirism and Wikipedia. I believe these articles, and their discussion pages, will serve as a valuable teaching aid for guidance of future article construction. I would like to hear what you guys think of this idea - User: 24.9.10.235
    • If the content is not encyclopedic it doesn't belong here. That is what the AfD here is about. Srl 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You miss my point - it should be archived or stashed away somewhere so that, while out of view of the general public, it can be still be seen by those wishing to create new articles to see an example of what not to do. At the very least keep the discussion pages - User: 24.9.10.235
    • If the consensus is to delete the article under discussion as original research (which the author has admitted it to be), then the article and its talk page will be deleted, and this discussion page will remain as a historical archive of the deletion discussion. Uncle G 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to you who posted those pics from the site: If I know where they are from, I'll delete them, or at least redesign them.

As for the ones I did go back and redo: well, I'm not good at computer drawing, especially when I only have MS paint, and its somewhat limited options. On paper, I can draw fairly well, but I don't have a scanner. -Alex, Confederate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete — original research; non-notable about an unproven publication. If the book makes the best seller list then this type of page might make sense. — RJH 01:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to User:Srl, I guess the WP:NOT page doesn't adequetely cover this situation. So yes, that's what I'm saying.

And since the talk page is going to be deleted when this article is deleted, should I copy & paste my section about the unoriginal and stolen works here then? User: 24.9.10.235

    • 24.9 (if I can call you that)- Yes, that seems germane to the afd. Also you might want to comment on the Talk page of WP:NOT - i already started a discussion there about keeping examples of what wikipedia is not. Srl 02:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, I'm going to go ahead and post it here in its entirety, unchanged from its last edit on the discussion page (I'm just copying & pasting the code):


Suspected and Confirmed Unoriginal Artwork, Unoriginal Artwork and Original Artwork[edit]

A major point of this article in contention is the original and validity of unoriginal and original artwork used for visual support of the Central Galactic Union. The original author of this article maintains an MSN Group[32] that contains all artwork concerning the CGU. For those parties interested, here's an entire list of what I've been able to determine to be unoriginal artwork, modified unoriginal artwork and original artwork:

NOTE that the reason why I am doing this is so that, hopefully, the originators of these artworks may be able to step up and lay rightful claim to them, and to further answer the question as to the validity of the artwork in question and validate any original artwork suspected to be unoriginal, and to clear up questions regarding the true origin of any unoriginal artwork. I do this NOT to slander the originator of this Wikipedia article in question, or Pyro Pictures Inc.

Unoriginal Artwork (Suspected and Confirmed, with source listed where applicable)[edit]
  • [33](suspected)
  • [34](suspected)
  • [35](suspected)
  • [36](all suspected)
  • [37](suspected)
  • [38](suspected)
  • [39](suspected)
  • [40](suspected)
  • [41](suspected)
  • [42](suspected)
  • [43](suspected)
  • [44](suspected)
  • [45](suspected)
  • [46](suspected)
  • [47](suspected)
  • [48](suspected)'
  • [49](suspected)
  • [50](suspected)
  • [51](suspected)
  • [52](suspected)
  • [53](suspected)
  • [54](suspected to be Star Wars Return of the Jedi concept art)
  • [55](suspected)
  • [56](suspected)
  • [57](believed to be Star Wars prequel concept art)
  • [58](believed to be either Star Trek or video game concept art)
  • [59](suspected)
  • [60](believed to be Star Wars prequel concept art)
  • [61](suspected)
  • [62](suspected)
  • [63](suspected)
  • [64](suspected)
  • [65](suspected)
  • [66](suspected)
  • [67](although itself original artwork, this may be a design infringement of the Hammerhead fighter from the short-lived sci-fi series Space: Above & Beyond)

NOTE: Compare the artwork quality of the above with that of the below:

Suspected & Confirmed Modified Unoriginal Artwork[edit]
  • [68](gun handle modified in MS Paint; inconsistent with rest of the artwork)
  • [69](may have been edited in MS Paint or photoshopped)
Believed to be Original Artwork[edit]

[70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]

Note the difference in quality compared to the previous examples of artwork; for example they all appear to be done with MS Paint

Once again, I do not mean to slander, just clear up a few pressing issues - User: 24.9.10.235


      • also in the interest of fairness I'm posting Alex's response:


Okay, you know, you don't have to post EVERY PICTURE on the site. That's a bit unneccesary, don't ya think? Now, if you told me where each thing is from, then I'll delete it, except for the Zaaroft stuff, because that is the closest to what we were thinking of. Oh, and these ones:

We did do, using a program, HeroMaker 2.0, from ugo.com. Also, why are you talking about stuff that does not involve the CGU story at all?... -Alex, Confederate. - User: 24.9.10.235

I believe this one is from this series called Space 2000 or something. I've seen the style, I just can't place it.

This one is from the same series, given the similar coloration and art style.

This, I believe, is SW concept art.

This too.

This again.

This is familar to me, but I can't place it.

In other news, none of these are original works. Alex, you don't want to plagarize unless you do want to get smacked down.

MJ12 Commando 09:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What the hell am I supposed to do, then? Those are the things that resemble most closely what we wanted the Zaaroft ships to look like. Also, not everything on there is 'stolen', as you call it. Weston knows some people who are artists, and some of those things on there are from that guy, such as the Shocktroop and Heavy Shocktroop pics.

-Alex, Confederate.

  • No offence, but Weston has no credibility. Just because you found something that looks like what you envisioned doesn't mean you can just take it. It'd be like me coming along, taking all your CGU stuff, renaming it and claiming it was mine because it was on my website, don't you see a problem with that at all? And doubt Weston knows any artists, atleast ones who can draw and CGI as professionaly as shown in the above pictures.

That looks like a Hydran warship from Star Trek to me, the game Starfleet Command. It has the same blue hull, purple glowing narcelles and same T kind of shape.

User:Lord Azrael


No, I've met the person he was talking about. And, I didn't say the guy drew the CGI stuff, I said the "Shocktroop pic and the Heavy Shocktroop pic". Now, if I could draw something like that CGI thing, I would, and do something somewhat different, but I don't know how to draw CGI 3D stuff, nor do I have a program to do so on. All I have is MS Paint. -Alex, Confederate.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Ships of the Central Galactic Navy[edit]

Insignificant personal universe, not noteworthy 128.100.138.41 17:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense Ashibaka (tock) 19:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal universe that's involved in no published stories in any media and has no following on or offline.--Sindai 20:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research/unpublished fiction. — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just because it is smaller than other scifis doesn't mean people don't care. It isn't nonsense, we authors did a lot of research and development for the CGU storyline, and we've worked for two years on the basics. Just because it is obscure doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. the reason the stories aren't published YET is because PyroPics can't find any good publishers.

  • Well, you'll just have to keep looking for a good publisher, then. I wish you luck. Delete. Andrew Levine 01:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a hosting service. -Falcorian 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Falcorian is right. And I notice that Hapsie enjoys posting this is any forum he meets, pretty much. User:MJ12 Commando
  • Delete but let's keept things polite. Durova 07:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not the place to publish new material.. Srl 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, thank you andrew and durova for at least being polite to me on this issue, unlike the everyone else, especially the government.

-Alex, Confederate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as original research. Turnstep 20:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. — RJH 01:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already voiced my opinions for the other articles; as for this article, I move to Delete as well. - User: 24.9.10.235
  • Delete. Preaky 07:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 22:25, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Clariborn Killers[edit]

No entry on IMDB. --Asparagus 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most google hits are also from the WP article. feydey 19:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. PJM 05:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non verifyable on several variations of the cited names on IMDB. --Syrthiss 22:29, 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. There seems to be an approximately 83% ratio for deletion. — JIP | Talk 07:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary materialism[edit]

This article has been redirected and unredirected for a while now and I think it's best that we have it out here on AfD. The problem with this article is that it again represents original research of User:Ed Poor and continues to WP:FORK both the evolution and the materialism article. I'm not confident that such a subject actually exists except in the mind of creationists. While I thought that a redirect to materialism worked, I'm now inclined to say the page should be deleted outright because evolutionary materialism is a neologism and an inappropriate qualification for materialism. After all, we don't have people that are "plate tectonics materialists" or "solar nebula realists" or "faraday's law materialists" -- how can there be another paradigm from science "evolution" that has its own separate materialism? I submit that such a thing doesn't exist and so pursuant to the rules of forks an original research, this article should go. --Joshuaschroeder 18:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments above are POV and misleading and personal attack (and even false in part: J've just added a reference into article that demonstrates it is not a neologism). mikka (t) 19:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unlike Unguided evolution, there is not enough content for this to stand alone. Should be merged if there is anything worthwile to merge. - Tεxτurε 18:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ben Aveling 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vsmith 18:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is in use and is even in the titles of chapters of a book, Social Transformations (Stephen K. Sanderson, 1999, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.) "Original research" clause is inapplicable, since the article does not state any theories; it merely makes a definition and lists a couple of facts. Unlike "solar nebula" and other witty picks, the issue of evolution is right in the middle of a philosophical dispute and hence a special treatment is warranted. The claim that the "thing doesn't exist" is utterly ridiculous. mikka (t) 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the use of the term from the book, Mikkalai? --Joshuaschroeder 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you an even better quote, that of an opponent of the "nonexisting thing": Father Ronald Ketteler, Director of Ecumenism and of Continuing Education of Priests, &c., &c., &c.:
"The positions taken by Richard Dawkins would be no surprise to anyone familiar with literature in the field since his reputation as a leading proponent of evolutionary materialism is well known."
See? "well known" by opponents, and I am no more discussing this issue. mikka (t) 19:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, that is definitely a creationist screed if I've ever read one. And here I was hoping for an actual citation to a scholar who claims to outline "evolutionary materialism" as a separate discipline. As such, since Richard Dawkins wouldn't call himself an "evolutionary materialist", I don't think Wikipedia should be endorsing it either. Pushing a creationist POV seems to be the only purpose to this particular designation. --Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to use the word "creationist" in a way some use the word "commie" :-). You also have to learn to see the differnce between "pushing" and "presenting" a POV. mikka (t) 20:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the two are one and the same, of course... —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 00:57:23Z
The reference turns out not to be relevant -- it's using the term "evolutionary materialism" to name a theory of history, not a position in philosophy of science. That's why it was in a sociology book. --FOo 02:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting the fundamental problem here. This reminds me of the deletion discussion for imaginary antecedent. This article might be salvageable if it covered the various only vaguely related definitions. As it is, the article just seems to serve as a reification (not quite a strawman, I suppose) for creationists to attack. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 02:15:43Z
Forks of evolution, materialism by means of the POV of creationism or intelligent design. --Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mikka. Usrful to have article on common POV in a topic even if it isn't the majority view. Capitalistroadster 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you indicate what POV this article is trying to illustrate and how it is not already covered in Wikipedia in an NPOV manner? To make a comparison, it would be like having an article about unobserved Gods and listing the pope, Billy Graham, and Louis Farrakhan as adherents to the belief. --Joshuaschroeder 20:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. I also agree with Joschuascroeder about the quotation which name-drops Richard Dawkins. It does not establish that he calls himself an "evolutionary materialist"; I have a tough time making a judgment with the passage out of context, but it seems to be an ad hominem attack, too. Anville 20:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you ever seen someone calling himself Evil Empire? Shall we delete this article as well? mikka (t) 20:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your inclusionist idealization then that unobserved Gods should be an article as I described it above? --Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean unobservable God? What's wrong with this notion? Why would you deny its article if the notion is in circulaiton an someone will describe it? Why it has less merit than "Capital gain" or "Permanent revolution"? mikka (t) 23:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article doesn't even establish that this is a significant idea among creationists interested in villifying their detractors. I don't see this as a POV fork, just an article about a movement that exists only in the imagination of a handful of its hypothetical opponents. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and Man in Black. Ed, please stop creating articles which are your Original Research on a Creationist view of Evolution. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JS and AMiB. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-23 20:56:10Z
  • Delete this POV fork too. If we have anything it should be at scientific materialism since evolution has little directly to do with it, but this is a already redirect to materialism. — Dunc|☺ 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned above, per WP:NOR & WP:FORK. PJM 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. Fredrik | tc 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a perfect example of militant ignorance! I've just added a reference to a 1969 book and 1919 (!) articles, where the term is discused in detail, and here one sees blind fork-fork-fork parroting and pov-pov-pov powwow. mikka (t) 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I find nothing objectionable in this article. It is relevant to debates over the teaching of Evolution, and it stands as a counterpart to any article on the "guided evolution" position. It is also potentially useful in helping understand the scientific method and what science is. I see no indication whatsoever of its being original research, nor do I see any indication that it represents the point of view of any contributor. P0M 03:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find anything objectionable in the article, per se, but I do find the omission of the fact that this term appears to mean different things in different contexts[105] to be objectionable. I would add other definitions if I felt qualified to. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 04:15:23Z
But that's exactly why we write articles here: to help understand how people use different terms. As a minimum you could have added a sentence of warning to potential readers, with examples of diffeent usag (you probably know them, since you make this statement). People use the word "asshole" in different meanings,but this is not the reason of deletion. mikka (t) 16:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork, one which doesn't even provide much information besides who has been labeled an "evolutionary materialist" by others. -Parallel or Together? 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article seems like a pointless POV fork from the real article on evolution. No actual atheist claims to believe in "evolutionary materialism" anyway; this is just something thrown out there by the creationists to try and slander them. --Cyde 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FALSE Roy Wood Sellars for 60 years described his views as "evolutionary materialism". Its main book is noline. You all are just lazy bunch of deniers. mikka (t) 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Two comments, actually: Just because there is a book with a POV fork does not make it policy on WP to have an article on that same POV fork. Second comment: Personal attacks are not necessary. Please refrain from calling your fellow editors "lazy...deniers." KillerChihuahua 14:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re first comment:Wrong again. As long as a POV is of a notable person, you cannot delete an article. Re second: I will repeat: you are hardline deniers twisting the policy to remove what you don't like: it is only wikipedia's author's POV which is disallowed. mikka (t) 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Re first response: The POV is of one (barely) noteable person, and is covered in his (very stubby) bio article. No one is trying to remove that from his bio. Re second response: Personal attacks are not sanctioned by WP policy, and switching from "lazy... deniers" to "hardline deniers" doesn't help much. An apology for the personal attack of calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "lazy" would be appropriate. KillerChihuahua 16:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The phrase gets 520 Google hits which is enough to suppose that someone might try to search by the phrase. Durova 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to what, though? I doubt a redirect will help anyone searching for the term, since it does not have a consistent definition in literature (or at least Google's tiny subset thereof). Do we redirect to evolution, which is totally irrelevant to some uses, or to materialism, which is too broad to be useful? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-27 01:29:49Z
  • Comment the other thing of course is that what he means by "evolutionary materialist" is really scientific humanism. Materialism is greedy reductionism in the context of morality (etc) and a holistic approach is better. Dawkins and others self-identify as humanists for this very reason. — Dunc|☺ 11:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - by attempting to define a phrase used by creationists to label their opponents, this ends up restating their arguments and if need be should be redirected to creationism or to creation-evolution controversy, either of which could have a brief section defining such labels...dave souza 20:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork; by definition, scientific theories are not guided by God or divine beings. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misunderstanding. It is atheist's definition of "science". I guess a couple of billion people strongly disagee. mikka (t) 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork.-gadfium 08:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment deleted* [sorry]
    • The above comment was left by User:128.232.236.55, who has no other edits to his/her name. I've left him/her a note that votes from non-logged-in users and brand-new users are not usually counted. --FOo 21:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — too much intellident design ;) Promotion of philosophical position. — RJH 00:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom, adding "-materialist" explains nothing. No content here other than taking material from evolution and painting crypto-POV shellac over it. Pete.Hurd 07:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WAS 4.250 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 22:24, 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 redirect to H.P. Lovecraft. – Robert T | @ | C 00:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LoveCraft[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. They don't have any albums out, and a Google query for "LoveCraft" + "The angel and the rain" gives no results. --Idont Havaname 19:23, 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 speedied by User:RHaworth as nn-bio. – Robert T | @ | C 00:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz the Dog[edit]

Looks like a prank, no facts provided, even a google search and the mentioned article do not confirm this info. feydey 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn-doggy bio. PJM 21:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio, bordering on patent nonsense. Turnstep 20:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio, bordering on patent nonsense. I took the liberty of adding a speedy del tag.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest in health[edit]

Very little facts in this one, original research and promotion mostly. feydey 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Clearly a lighthearted plea for healthy eating and nothing to do with any encyclopedia but a welcome change from the dogmatic know-alls who sometimes get in. Lets be tolerant. mikeL


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Squid[edit]

Fictional animal from an Animal Planet documentary. Not notable enough to merit it's own entry; not even sure if the show, "The Future Is Wild" merits it's own entry or belongs on Animal Planet Jasmol 19:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have never heard about the show, but the squid does not deserve its own article. Schutz 20:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Next thing you know, some Napoleon Dynamite fan will be posting about Ligers. Jessicadavidson 20:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original. Andrew Levine 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the original show has been released on DVD and has its own theme park so it clearly passes notability. The article for The Future is Wild will be too large and unmanageable if everything is forced to be merged into it. That leaves the options of separate pages for each future organism, separate page by future date (I would argue that that would be too unmanageable as well), or separate article by episode. Right now, most of the organisms have their own pages and the rainbow squid page is consistent with that. Please note that this TV series is used as an educational tool in classrooms across the world so if you afd patrolers axe this, please do so in a way that does not destroy content. Students will be looking to wikipedia regarding this. --Aranae 08:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very notable show, not just a simple Animal Planet documentary. This entry may merit a merge into a page of creatures from its era, but definitely not a delete, nor (given the number of creatures) a merge into the main page. Turnstep 20:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Izehar 22:23, 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 keep. – Robert T | @ | C 00:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squibbon[edit]

Fictional animal from an Animal Planet documentary. Not notable enough to merit it's own entry; not even sure if the show, "The Future Is Wild" merits it's own entry or belongs on Animal Planet. Jasmol 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the original show has been released on DVD and has its own theme park so it clearly passes notability. The article for The Future is Wild will be too large and unmanageable if everything is forced to be merged into it. That leaves the options of separate pages for each future organism, separate page by future date (I would argue that that would be too unmanageable as well), or separate article by episode. Right now, most of the organisms have their own pages and the squibbon page is consistent with that. Please note that this TV series is used as an educational tool in classrooms across the world so if you afd patrolers axe this, please do so in a way that does not destroy content. Students will be looking to wikipedia regarding this. --Aranae 08:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rainbow Squid discussion above. Turnstep 20:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Izehar 22:22, 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 no consensus to delete, so kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 13:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellence[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning may be seen in this edit summary. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam —Wahoofive (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article scrapes WP:NOR and commandeers a common word for its title - which is not even the full name of what it's describing. PJM 20:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not persuaded this is an ad, or spam. However, it is a poor article written in impenetrable management-speak, and does not explain what it's central concept, the EFQM Excellence Model is. If that proves to be a commercial product of some kind then this is an ad and should be deleted. Otherwise it should be deleted for lack of context and poor quality. It was created in one session by an anon IP with no other edits, so it's unlikely to be cleaned up if tagged. Maybe Wikipedia should have an article on "Excellence" in its corporate management sense, but this is not it. AndyJones 21:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research reveals that multiple independent sources have written and published works of their own about excellence and about its pursuit. There is plenty of scope for an encyclopaedia article. Keep. Uncle G 11:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per PJM Stifle 12:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work, guys. Changing my vote to keep. AndyJones 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Move to Wiktionary}}. As this stands it is really nothing more then a definition. The Red Link to a commercial product should at least be removed. Xaosflux 17:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)---this article is being expanded, and if expansion continues my vote changes to KEEP.[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary - little more than a definition at present Barneyboo 18:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. Now I can't shake the sound of Mr. Burns saying "Excellence!" from my head... :) Turnstep 20:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't it "Excellent!"? Stifle 00:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, but the that's the odd part: he is now saying "Excellence!" ;) Turnstep 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam --YHoshua 00:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain in what way the article that you read was spam. Uncle G 02:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 22:22, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universe (band)[edit]

NN band vanity. Only a demo album so far released this year. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Josh Parris 23:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 22:21, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hide-san[edit]

Artist not notable outside the Arizona anime world. Only 67 unique Google hits for "hide-san anime arizona". howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:05, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hunt[edit]

Hoax article. Unfortunately not CSD(A7) as notability is asserted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC) On reconsidering, I do think even the original article should be deleted. Its subject is a junior footballer, no indication that he's played for any senior team. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • D'oh, my bad, an okay(ish) article existed before vandalism. Real article is probably a borderline case (not the nonsense that preceeded it), so I don't propose we delete this after all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this footballer does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Redirect to Jonathan Hunt instead? Punkmorten 21:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --RaiderAspect 23:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FWIW, Jonathan Hunt is never known as Jon. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 22:21, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The simpsons funny parts- anyone can contribute![edit]

Unencyclopedic silly listcruft. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:06, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of white people[edit]

Unmaintainable listcruft. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and probably WP:POINT —Wahoofive (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WTF? 1) This looks like some serious piece of racism, 2) When kept, the title should be changed, since roughly 2 billion people (correct me if I'm wrong) on Earth are white, 3) Per nom.: unmaintainable listcruft. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The naming convention is "List of X", not "list of famous X". Kappa 00:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nazgjunk. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. PJM 21:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. There are many lists of various people. Perhaps rename to list of very famous Caucasians, or something.? --Andrew 21:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would be far too long. --TimPope 21:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If List of Native Americans and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is to be kept, then why isn't a list on white people allowed to be kept? Are we just too PC to allow silly lists on ethnic minorities and lifestyle choices to be kept yet famous white straight people can't get their own list? Barmy! --Bob 21:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There's no need for a list of straight people or a list of white people; those are the default assumptions that are automatically made about people in the absence of specific information to the contrary. As such, there's just no remotely valid reason to notarize "people who aren't part of any minority group" as if that somehow constituted an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Bearcat 23:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speak for yourself but I think making any such assumptions is racist in itself. SD6-Agent 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Straight people are a majority, so that is a fair default assumption. Caucasian people are not a majority, not even close. Kappa 00:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is as much a need to list straight white people as there is a need to list gay and colored people. --Bob 01:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is less need to list straight people because the majority of people are straight. The majority of people are not white. Kappa 03:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the world overall, you're right, but Wikipedia does not categorize people that way. Wikipedia uses country-specific groupings such as African-American, so minority vs. majority status is defined by one's country-specific context. Conversely, a list of white Jamaicans could potentially be valid, since they're the minority there, but there's absolutely no need for a list of white Canadians since whites are the majority in Canada. It's defined at the level of the country. Bearcat 19:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POINT and WP:Please! no more f***ing listcruft! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I object strongly to the racist term "white": like most so-called "white" people I am a person of colour, since my skin is not white, but a slightly yellowish pink. I also object to the racist term "caucasian", which is as bad as using "African" for all so-called Black people: I have never so much as visited the Caucasus, and feel no ancestral affinity with its people. Oh, and delete List of Native Americans and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people too. Delete 'em all and let God categories sort 'em out. — Haeleth Talk 23:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and virtually unmaintainable. Also utterly absurd. And WP:POINT. Bearcat 23:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, users should be able to find examples of notable Caucasians, same as any other ethnic grouping. It isn't unmaintainable since people don't change their ethnic group very often. Kappa 00:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't want to be the one who decides who's important enough to be part of the List of white people elect. Barneyboo 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't enjoy voting on who gets to be in wikipedia either, but I don't want to delete the whole thing. Kappa 00:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overbroad. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Because we have lists of every kind of European or European American possible. Except maybe List of Ruthenians--T. Anthony 03:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created as a backlash to the keep votes on lists of ethnic people. Censure creator. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly, hopelessly unmaintainable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list would be subject to constant "Who is white?" wars; based on the infinite regional, national, governmental, and social definitions of white. Al-Andalus 06:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I support lists of any ethnic subgroup within this heading. Few people other than white supremacists identify themselves as generically "white." The title is inherently POV and the subject is too broad to rename. Durova 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially endless list of non-notables. Good grief. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious WP:POINT. Turnstep 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename to FAMOUS White People and Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethie (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft in its worst --Jaranda(watz sup) 19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my favorite so far!! StabRule 23:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's just to broad to be meaningful. Seano1 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only on the grounds that this is unmaintainable. I don't really understand the logic of deleting this lists and not other similar ones. Besides that they're unmaintainable, I don't see how anyone could possilbly ever use them. That said, the only reasons I've seen for deleting this list but keeping other similar ones have been based in racism and nationalism. Highly un-wiki, I should think. Theshibboleth 08:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My reason was pretty much that we have lists of about every European nationality and kind of European American. There's a List of Finnish Americans and a List of Faroese people just to name a few. Also I don't think there is a List of black people or a List of red people. In fact I think that second would be offensive.--T. Anthony 15:41, 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.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, will tag as A1 speedy instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basics[edit]

Insufficient context, probably should be merged to Phillips Academy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:10, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AdvanceShipping[edit]

Speculation about a pairing in the Pokémon anime. Thoroughly unencyclopedic. I'd suggest transwiking it to Bulbapedia (a Pokémon fan wiki that does cover speculation about the anime), but the licenses are incompatible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However I Gaiash, the guy who MADE the page feel a page about the shipping should be online. Perhaps people should make pages of other shippings to make things fair?

Please, no. There are many, many fan pairings in many fandoms, and the vast majority of them cannot be covered in an encyclopedic way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look I just wanted to make an article. Is that too much to ask? Also thats the most encyclopedic way I could type ANYTHING, I happen to have Autism you know. - Gaiash

Please don't delete it, please. - Gaiash

  • Delete Gamecruft. Jasmol 16:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft? This is about an anime! Oh, and Bulbapedia already has an AdvanceShiping article. Sonic Mew | [[User_talk:Sonic Mew|talk to me]] 19:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo[edit]

Abstain for now as nominator. I think it's possible that a case can be made for this person's notability, but I don't think it has been made, particularly for his claimed status as a philosopher. No one has responded to my question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy to see if anyone had heard of him. The only ref in the article, outside the man's own work, is a writeup in the New Yorker, which might be enough to establish him as notable as a social phenomenon even if not as a philosopher, but then the article should talk more about that and less about his philosophical claims. --Trovatore 20:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.(Vote is further down) The article is not incredibly notable, but there's only one significant page that links to it (this one). It doesn't really hurt to keep it, and it might help some random undergrad student somewhere at some point, so I say keep it. --Michael (talk)
    • Comment Well, actually what I'm most concerned about is that the article depicts him as a philosopher. I'd like to know whether that's true, in some sense that doesn't apply to the homeless guy who spouts off on the street corner. Should those claims be removed, and if so, is there enough left for an article? --Trovatore 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I see what you mean, and I'm not sure if there's enough left... I found an article in the Budapest Sun written about him, but if you look closely, it's an opinion article that he wrote! He's definitely borderline, but even the Flat Earth Society has a spot on here, and they produce a total of ZERO peer-reviewed publications. As long as he doesn't start listing himself in "Lists of Most Famous Philosophers" or something, I don't see the harm in leaving the page up and cleaning it up a bit. The biggest problem I see is that he's borderline Original Research. The news article doesn't do anything to help him here, but the 2 books cited might. If we can get ISBN numbers for those, and see if the publishers are actually reputable, that would help. One of the points of an encyclopedia is to be able to direct people doing research toward sources. If we can do that, then this article may be useful to someone in the future. It's very close, but I will keep my vote as a "Weak Keep". We can always re-nominate this after a few months if there's no progress. --Michael (talk)
  • Delete One article in the New Yorker does not make someone notable --RaiderAspect 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably should say that the article does assert that "Professor Hernadi Miklos of the Hungarian National Academy of Sciences" and "Professor Howard Robinson of Oxford" take him seriously. I don't know either of those people, nor whether the claim is true. --Trovatore 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not even a New Yorker article, since it's a "Talk of the Town" piece. I've got the Complete New Yorker at home, so I'll look it up, but my immediate suspicion is it's all tongue-in-cheek. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ahem...Gentlemen...We've just about had it with all this psychological warfare against genuine intellect:

    go to http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html and place Fenyo, Jean-Pierre in the search box, see what that leads to. Someone a few years ago had the good sense to let Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher become a permanent listing (or so it seemed). That particular text has found itself in over 200 World Wide Web Internet sites, mostly I-Encyclopedias, and in over a dozen languages!!! Then, lo and behold, User Trovatore, who may know quite a lot about mathematics, including Boolean Algebras (of which we know virtually nothing), notices some addendums at Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo and...like some kind of abracadabra magic...decides that this person may not even be worthy of mention. Is someone savvy at mathematics really qualified to make judgments about who is and who is not a philosopher (as opposed to a teacher of philosophy)? We think not. How about asking this of some Sociologists, Psychologists, Philosophy Professors or even some Linguists? We advocate multi-disciplinary education and research, and lament to see that very important decisions are now primarily being decided by technocrats, specialists and even mafiosi! And all this talk about "borderline"; now, seriously, just because a true and fairly wise philosopher is very likely to be an eccentric and somewhat unable to communicate in terms that most academics would prefer does not mean that she or he is borderline! So, which one of you in this debate really understands why Baruch Spinoza (1732-1766) is known to have been a great philosopher? And which one of you actually can claim to truly understand his ethics, principles, axioms, propositions and proofs?

    Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo has written little about Spinoza, but he does have a fairly good understanding of his views, which in some ways were a fundamental part of what we call The Enlightenment and all worthy civilization today. The point is simply this; you can delete this man's mention, but you will not delete his unique record in the annals of New York and American history, nor the odd chance that his conclusions will be proven correct and fully applicable to the improvement of the human condition. So, tread lightly on this little pond whose ice may be thin but whose waters may be very deep indeed! Mr. & Mrs. Fenyo, and a few other persons at The Infinity Society (names available upon request)68.48.73.93 03:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I stated this in response on my Talk page, but I'll say it again here: The legitimacy of Mr. Fenyo as a philosopher is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he is listed on Wikipedia. The policy of this encyclopedia is not to include any original research. Therefore, even if Mr. Fenyo is the next philosophic equivalent to Newton or Einstein, he cannot be listed until he has published in several reputable sources (news articles, peer-reviewed journals, etc...). I will keep my vote as a "Weak Keep" on the condition that these sources be found and cited.

      I would strongly advise against future ad hominems. We need not be philosophers in any regard to judge whether or not Mr. Fenyo has been published. Wikipedia is a place for researchers to find sources, not to explore new concepts, and while I find Mr. Fenyo's concepts very intriguing, as a loyal Wikipedian I must adhere to policy. --Michael (talk)

  • Comment. I, Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, am published, albeit it is true that I am not a prolific author and that most of anything published about me or by me is not likely to fit your narrow definition of "reputable"... Clearly being a true philosopher in today's world it is unlikely that The American Philosophical Society will publish me (Spinoza was not peer-reviewed!!!). That I have one major work to my name, registered in 1994 with The U.S. Library of Congress is not an indication that my views have not had an impact on world events (I could prove otherwise...if it was warranted). Wikipedia bills itself as The Free Encyclopedia, and so why should it not celebrate the free spirited philosophical ideas of The Original Free Advice Man? After all, I was the very first person in the history of Manhattan and greater New York City as a whole to actually sit out in public and hold a sign that reads FREE ADVICE and engage people in deep philosophical discussions. My wife and I, and a few of my colleagues, are totally baffled by the odd manner in which this is all taking place. Oh, sure(!), we would concurr on deleting the mention of some ego-maniac with nothing relevant to say and without any real intellectual track-record or publication. So... for the time beign this is all we will say... and this business of using the qualifier "strongly advise against"...something one might expect from an unethical psychiatrist or demagogue...does not meet the high standards you claim to adhere to. I weakly advise you against trampling on the life of one whose only interest is to make the world a better, more intelligent, educated and wiser place (not just for the privileged few, the highly accredited elite, but for all people). Per me questo non mi fa molto piacere, ma io penso que oggi gli vero intelectuali sonno una minorita sensa voce al mundo.Cosa che? The Flat Earth Society deserves mention, but a real life philosopher struggling to survive in this world full of serious disconnects!!! What gives???68.48.73.93 04:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html <<< Library of Congress search, Fenyo, Jean-Pierre (Ady, author, Infinitism (no...not the mathematical one), Secret Key To The Doors Of Wisdom, registered (01/31/94) and copyrighted (01/28/1994), author on the entire text on his philosophy. It is this book upon which an improved version, The Most Important Thought (Silver Aleph, 2004, Fenyo Copyright <<< special relief granted by factor of prior copyright).
  • http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/INFINITY.1.html <<< Prof. Heylighen would not have allowed this brief to have been published on The Principia Cybernetica site unless he knew the merits of my views. Principia Cybernetica is highly regarded.
  • If you can get a copy of MARQUI's Who's Who In The World 2000 (17th, the Millennium Edition) then my listing is there clearly denotes me as being a philosopher.
  • Some early U.S. TV interviews:
    • WNBC-TV4 New York, Interviewed by Lloyd Kramer (see "Five People You Meet When You Go To Heaven", a movie I believe he co-wrote and directe), May 12, 1987. Location: corner of Bleecker Street & 7th Avenue South, Manhattan. Initial recording time est. 1 hour 20 minutes (BETAMAX VIDEO TAPING), air-time est. 5 minutes. Show: Live At Five with Sue Simmons. Requested a copy several times, on file but not released.
    • WABC-TV7 New York,Interviewed by Local News Head Anchor Bill Beutel, July 29, 1988. Location: outside WABC-TV7 station building at 7 Lincoln Plaza, Manhattan. Initial recording time est. 25 minutes (MEDIA: BETAMAX), air-time est. 5 minutes. Show: local news hour. Requested a copy...no response.
    • WJZ-13 Baltimore, Interviewed live sattelite link-up on the Morning Show. October 11, 1991. 5 minutes.
    • FOX-45 Baltimore, Interviewed (taped) by Cameraman/Photographer Bill Sawyer over 5 minutes. March 27, 1992.
    • TNN-Cable, National, Interviewed in Baltimore live sattelite link-up by Al Wyntor on Videomorning show. 3 minutes.
  • U.S. articles (just some):
    • The New Yorker,Aug. 17, 1987 (you already know the details).
    • Baltimore City Paper, July 19, 1991. Five columns, full page article.
    • The Los Angeles Times, May 19, 1993.
    • The Afro-American, July 10, 1993.
  • Hungarian TV (some):
    • TV-2, first privately owned major commercial TV-Channel (, 15 minutes on a morning talk show and a whole human interest story-piece 22 minutes (4 times, exact dates on record, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004).
    • SZIV-TV small, independent cable channel... Provided on air philosophical and love advice on 3 consecutive 1 hour segments.
    • MTV-1 & 2 Interviewed a few times about my grandfather and my own work.
    • RTL-KLUB, 15 minute segment.
  • Hungarian articles (some):
    • 168-Ora, Two-page magazine interview, Oct. 1998.
    • Kiskegyed, Two-page magazine interview, Nov. 1994.
    • Kurir, One whole-page newspaper interview, Oct. 15, 1994.
    • Irodalom es Elet, half-page letter, Sept. 1998.

and I could go on... but that's enough for now.

More recently I have not been in the media...quite my choice, as I am busy making The Infinity Society into a more successful organization and I'd rather get media attention again when I feel the quality of attention will be there.

The article in The Budapest Sun was significant because it came within days of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, and being the only serious English language daily in Hungary I knew my views would have an impact on ex-pats, including top U.S. government officials and military officials, as well as on any American ex-pats who might have decided to take out their hurt on relatively innocent people of Arab or Muslim (or Sikh, Bahaii, whatever..wearing turbans) background and what I said needed to be said in due time. It also let certain people know more or less where I stood on this all, since I was known for my behind-the-scene Middle East Peace activities (I was just one small part of the process that lead to the then secret Oslo Accords...my being Jewish and my mother having divorced my & my brother's father and married a Pal. arab). Complicated it sounds...but my views are cleverly devised. I will be launching a media campaign for The Infinity Society within a few months...perhaps sooner.

Anyway...that's all for now...68.48.73.93 05:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In light of the new citations on here (which we should move to the article and verify at some point), I have changed my vote from "Weak Keep" to "Keep." I still strongly advise against ad hominems is because it is Wikipedia policy to not make personal attacks (in particular against the only person so far to vote in your favor?!). The condescending tone in which you write is neither helpful nor appropriate, as you should assume good faith on the part of the Wikipedia community, even when they are listing your article for deletion). Further, it would be great if you registered an account on here, as many of our philosophical articles (including Spinoza!) could benefit from your input, and it would be a demonstration of your interest in making Wikipedia better. Finally, I would weakly advise that you check out all the Wikipedia Official Policies (there are many, and they are sometimes boring to read, however they are the backbone of this encyclopedia). As a registered user, you can talk with the admins about revising any policy you disagree with, and improve Wikipedia for everyone. --Michael (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To All Whom It May Concern: Mr. Jimmy Wales has written the following very brief but suggestive response (to an e-mail letter that follows it {note that I have included the Yahoo! pre-text}):

Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:44:01 -0500 From: "Jimmy Wales" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: "Jean-Pierre Fenyo" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Some Verifiable Facts Concerning A Philosopher Facing Wikiletion.

I recommend you post all this to the relevant debate in Wikipedia?

Jean-Pierre Fenyo wrote:

Dear Mr. Wales or "Jimbo" if you so prefer,

First of all, allow me to qualify what I am about to say: in no way is my intention or that of any persons related to me or associated with my organization to disrespect the need for Wikipedia to adhere to the professional standards common to all encyclopedias (printed or otherwise).

I am a philosopher (whose mention within Wikipedia has been around for years and is now being threatened for deletion by persons who may not be sufficiently qualified to make the correct decision). This fact is attested to an verifiable by referring to the following sources:

1. (The earliest mention) A write-up in The New Yorker magazine of August 17, 1987 in The Talk of the Town, pages 18-19. The article clearly illustrates that I have a philosophical socratic approach to issues (personal and otherwise). The article can be found by paging down this site http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/hm041/2003047837.html . It was re-printed in Alec Wilkinson's book "Mr. Apology and other essays" (Houghton Miflin 2003).

2. (My book). In 1994 I was granted a copyright for my first book "Infinitism: Secret Key To The Doors of Wisdom" by the U.S. Library of Congress register of copyrights. go to http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html and search for my full name Fenyo, Jean-Pierre Ady or without Ady (my middle name). This book expresses my ideas on the penultimate practical

social benefits of contemplating the infinite. A revised/expanded version was published in Hungary under the titlte "The Most Important Thought" (Silver Aleph, 2004).

3. My ideas gained recognition by Prof. Heylighen and his Principia Cybernetica site at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/INFINITY.1.html in 1999. Principia Cybernetica speaks for itself!

4. MARQUI's Who's Who In The World 17th Edition (2000), also known as The Millenniun Edition, has me listed as a philosopher. (Not proof that I am a philosopher, but worthy of pointing out.)

5. Prof. Hernadi, Miklos of The Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Book & Periodical Publishing Board, Director of Public Relations, a Sociologist, wrote a letter of support in favor of the publishing of my book in which, among other noteworthy things, he states "The author has managed to bring about a highly noteworthy intellectual breakthrough. Through his analytic approach he had managed to reconcile the Eastern, non-linear concept of the infinite with the West's rational and

linear expression of the infinite into one amalgam thought..." and "...the author manages to evade those typical traps that are often faced by philosophers." Prof. Hernadi may be reached for comment at [email protected]

6. More than forty articles, interviews and write-ups have been published about me since 1987 (not a lot by certain standards, but no small accomplishment for someone who was behind some major company's adoption of the word, logo (or idea of INFINITY for their product line(s) (Infiniti, SBC, Infinity Broadcasting, etc.) ). Virtually all of them recognize me as a philosopher (some are in Hungarian: Fenyõ Jean-Pierre Ady is the searchable name for some of those).

7. OR if need be contact Prof. Howard M. Robinson at (011-36-1) 342-2307 (both people are phonable between 0900 and 1500 GMT...to be safe...and not on major holidays). Prof. Howard Robinson's info. can be found at www.ceu.hu/phil/robinson/index, he is the Head of the Dept. of Philosophy at The Central European University in Budapest, and an epistemological researcher of the most serious kind. I am sure he will acknowledge that I am a philosopher, albeit not an accredited teacher of philosophy (no PhD. in my titles...although I did get an honorary one).

8. An article in The Budapest Sun, link at http://www.budapestsun.com/full_story.asp?ArticleId={EA1E05579F18425EA6F80AE49736E156}&From=News http://www.budapestsun.com/full_story.asp?ArticleId={EA1E05579F18425EA6F80AE49736E156}&From=News

The article in The Budapest Sun was significant because it came within days of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, and being the only serious English language daily in Hungary I knew my views would have an impact on ex-pats, including top U.S. government officials and military officials, as well as on any American ex-pats who might have decided to take out their hurt on relatively innocent people of Arab or Muslim (or Sikh, Bahaii, whatever..wearing turbans) background and what I said needed to be said in due time. It also let certain people know more or less where I stood on this all, since I was known for my behind-the-scene Middle East Peace activities (I was just one small part of the process that lead to the then secret Oslo Accords...my being Jewish and my mother having divorced my & my brother's father and married a Pal. arab).

Complicated it sounds...but my views are cleverly devised. I will be launching a media campaign for The Infinity Society

within a few months...perhaps sooner.

9. Visit my fledgling organization's web-site at www.infinitysociety.org http://www.infinitysociety.org

10. Fine...So maybe my estimation of my impact, the impact of my ideas on the world, world events, is trivial...probably so... And maybe not being recognized by formally accredited people of higher learning, PhDs in particular and those who call themselves Philosophers in specific, is grounds for my mention on Wikipedia to be deleted, but I bet you I will find thousands more who are even more worthy of deletion if we have too strict an interpretation of the rules/guidelines for inclusion.

I AM A PHILOSOPHER THEREFOR I EXIST!

Poor Spinoza; how he would have suffered in today's world (although that is quite a non-starter, because apriori it would not

be THIS WORLD!)

Thanks for your precious time (if you get to this),

Best,

Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo

Philosopher

Founder & Director

The Infinity Society

I hope this helps resolve things. Wikipedia is very important to me and countless others the world-over, and one cannot find offense in any serious efforts at improving Wikipedia by maintaining high standards.

With all due respect and apologies where any misunderstandings may have arisen as a result of my imperfect communicational skills,

Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo Philosopher 68.48.73.93 01:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extension Request. Admins, this article was listed on AfD just before the Thanksgiving weekend, and as such I believe it hasn't received the full attention of the philosophic community (nor a clear consensus). I request that the AfD discussion period be extended one extra week. --Michael (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There's been plenty of time for someone to produce a reference to him from a legitimate philosophical publication. Gamaliel 10:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commment.Gamaliel, did you see the list of references above? Some of them are Hungarian, and I can't say we're in a position to judge their legitimacy yet (I've already asked a Hungarian user to help with this AfD discussion).--Michael (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if he is considered some sort of giant in Hungarian philosophy, there would be some sort of reference to him in a standard English philosophical reference work or database. Gamaliel 21:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support extension The references offered by Fenyo in support of the article are not available online, and thus require time to locate. --Trovatore 06:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that in the current edited Wikipedia article on me the article about me that appeared in 1987 in The New Yorker is given the title "Talk of The Town", this is incorrect; Talk of The Town is, or was at the time, an entire section of the magazine, something akin to "Currently In The News"... The article had the short title of "Answers". I will now take another look and see if I can find any other items that need correction or clarification. J.P. Fenyo 68.48.73.93 09:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feyno does indeed have a Marquis Who's Who entry, and it does indeed identify him as a "philosopher". But that just means that he filled out a Who's Who biographical form and wrote "philosopher" in the appropriate blank. Forget TV appearances, does he appear in any legitimate philosophical publication as a philosopher? He appears to be closer to the Naked Cowboy than to Socrates. He may barely qualify as a sort of notable curiosity, but the article as it stands is an obvious delete. Gamaliel 10:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is how I think it should read:

Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo (b. July 23, 1964) is an American-born philosopher and advocate of Infinitism (not the mathematical aspect but the cosmological). Fenyo was born and currently lives in Washington, D.C., and at age 23 gained his first major exposure in the press, when he was written up in The New Yorker by Alec Wilkinson, in an article titled "Answers" in The Talk of the Town section, published on August 17, 1987, (p. 18-19). This and subsequent media coverage (both television and print) brought him minor fame and recognition as "The Original New York City Free Advice Man", offering socratic dialogue and advice to passersby. From his early childhood on he travelled, mostly with his parents, throughout four continents, visiting some sixty countries and residing in eight (including Great Britain, Spain, and his father’s native Hungary). This experience afforded him a very liberal and yet worldly education which is reflected in the fact that he is fluent in several languages and has a significant understanding of world cultures and international affairs. And it was his experiences gained while living in Beirut, Lebanon for two years, his 12th and 13th, that contrasted so sharply with his liberal American and European upbringing and life before and after. Given his Jewish roots (he speaks of himself as being a scientifically m minded spiritual Jew) and the fact that his father was a researcher at The National Archives in the mid-60s involved in documenting NAZI atrocities and The Holocaust as well as World War Two in general (Prof. Mario Denis Fenyo, Historian), the extent and degree of his concern for the future security and intellectual welfare of humanity, minorities and individuals is well beyond average. His more creative side flourished throughout the 1980s, whilst living in New York City (mainly in Manhattan) and being, among other things, a poet, short-fiction writer, journalist, and even for a brief time a stand-up comic. It was during those years that he became close acquaintances with celebrity artists and intellectuals such as Andy Warhol, Keith Haring, Jean Basquiat, Mark Kostabi and Quentin Crisp. Not having had the opportunity to earn a PhD and with only a few years of formal college and university level education Fenyo is more of an auto-didactic intellectual thinker who has made a living doing everything from working as an Assistant-Executive Chef to translating poems by Miklos Radnoti from Hungarian to English to working as an overnight security guard to teaching English (E.S.L.). All of which makes his worldview relatively unique and original. He has also been involved in handling the legacy of his grandfather, the famous Hungarian writer and intellectual Max (Miksa) Fenyo (1877-1972), with whom he spent countless hours as a child. During nearly a decade long period when Fenyo resided primarily in Budapest (visiting Southern California and Washington, D.C. on several occassions) he was interviewed regularly on TV and in major magazines and newspapers, mostly for his own views, as well as his involvement in the production and publication of the first fully searchable CD-ROM encyclopedia of the NYUGAT (Hungarian for WEST), Hungary’s most significant literary and social review (1908-1941), of which is grandfather was a founder and editor. In 1994 Fenyo wrote his first book, Infinitism: Secret Key to the Doors of Wisdom which covers some of his initial philosophical ideas concerning the infinite and infinity as a concept for non-violent, mass socio-psychological change. Fenyo's ideas are an evolution of those held by such greats as Bruno Giordano and Baruch Spinoza. In his book; "The Most Important Thought" (Silver Aleph, 2004), which he wrote while living in Budapest (1994-2004), he argues that only by making contemplation of the infinite popular will humanity become sufficiently wise so as to be able to reverse and eventually overcome the threats to social and environmental stability and progress. Fenyo concludes that wisdom can be attained by open-minded, long-term oriented, deep thinking, which he claims are stimulated by contemplating the infinite. Fenyo is also an advocate of the idea that society would be better off if it would popularize philosophical discourse and debate on a massive scale. According to Professor Hernadi Miklos of the Hungarian National Academy of Sciences Fenyo's philosophical insight into the penultimate practical applications and implications of thinking about infinity is nothing but revolutionary and a breakthrough in the effort to reconcile the Western linnear and the Eastern non-linnear expressions of infinity as a philosophical concept. Professor Howard Robinson of Oxford, an Epistomoligal researcher, has found Fenyo's arguments interesting and worthy of consideration but not conclusive. In 1988 he began the creation of a small, fledgling grass-roots organization he founded and named The Society for the Mass Dissemination of the Concept of Infinity, a.k.a. The Infinity Society, whose purpose is to promote public awareness of the concept of infinity.

Fenyo's book Infinitism: Secret Key to the Doors of Wisdom is registered with the United States Library of Congress as a philosophical work.

(NOTE: I can and will, if asked, mail, to whomever is most reputable and concerned about this issue, photo-copies and/or digital pictures of all articles, documents (including expired passports dating from as early as 1971), and other relevant matterials as verifiable proof of all the above statements of fact.) J.P. Fenyo 68.48.73.93 11:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To Everyone Here Thus Far (Users Trovatore, MikeTwo, Calton, etc.): This is getting to be a bit too much gentlemen! User Gemaliel has definitely breached Wikipedia's rules of conduct. To his above entry I sent him (at his own User page) the following:

"Regarding your comment concerning my case (Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo): I find it quite perplexing that you have attempted to defame my name by pointing out something obvious, namely that MARQUI's Who's Who (of any category) does send out queries, and does ask such details, but only to later verify them before publication. The fact that you do not seem to know this seems to show that you are either less professional than you would have us believe or not entirely absent of malice. Furthermore, to compare me to Naked Cowboy as opposed to Socrates is definitely defamatory. I happen to be very involved in the American Jewish world, as a Jew myself, and I may yet have you investigated for any prejudices you might harbor against any persons, ethnicities or other, in case I may have to seek legal remedies. I take this whole matter very seriously and I sincerely hope that you have made a serious mistake and intend to reconsider matters. Besides, I see that you do not appreciate my views on the social ramifications of contemplating the infinite, or so it would seem. It was not more than two years ago that I had to leave Hungary because of rising anti-semitism in Europe and threats against me in particular by the extreme right-wing in Hungary (for speaking out openly against prejudice towards the Roma community in Hungary and for helping topple, via my statements in the media, on TV, the virulently anti-Semitic, zenophobic, anti-Arab government of Viktor Orban and FIDESZ. Anyway, I find your seemingly reactionary manners suspicious to say the least. My advice to you sir is: be more scientific and cautious in your assertions and statements, for in the end your very reputation at Wikipedia could be at stake!"

To what ends has this man seen it fit to mock my intellectual worth so brutishly?!? I see that he has a certain "special" status...and I don't find his lack of manners towards my person one bit amusing. And, more importantly, just how far can this whole conflagration of sorts go on??? I think this should stop at once, and all the decent persons involved should make their deliberations final and conclusive. If you delete my mention then I grant you there will come a time when you will feel rather ashamed for having trivialised the ideas and worth of a human-being not much unlike Baruch Spinoza or for that matter "Yakov Bok", the main character in Bernard Malamud's famous novel "The Fixer" (first published in 1966) and later made into a major motion picture. At one point in the story, which involves direly false accusations against Yakov by anti-Semites under the rule of the last Tsar of Russia (a relatively simple but kind-hearted aspirant), B.A. Bibikov, the Investigating Magistrate for Cases of Extraordinary Importance, is talking to Yakov Bok about his interest in a book by Spinoza and this is what is written (that is of relevance to my own concerns): The magistrate smiled. Yakov snickered but caught himself and stopped. (Then spoke the magistrate>) "Is such a thing as you describe it, true freedom, would you say, or cannot one be free without being politically free?" (To which Bok, the fixer, thinks to himself the following) Here's where I better watch my step, the fixer thought. No use fanning up hot coals when you have to walk across them. (He then cautiously replies) "I wouldn't know for sure your honour. It's partly one and partly the other." (The magistrate>) "True enough. One might say there is more than one conception of freedom in Spinoza's mind - in Necessity, philosophically speaking; and practically, in the state, that is to say within the realm of politics and political action. Spinoza conceded a certain freedom of political choice, similar to the freedom of electing to think, if it were posssible to make these choices. At least it is possible to think them. He perhaps felt that the purpose of the state - the government - was the security and comparative freedom of rational man. This was to permit man to think as best he could. He also thought man was freer when he participated in the life of society than when he lived in solitute as he himself did. He thought that a free man in society had a positive interest in promoting the happiness and intellectual emancipation of his neighbours." (Yakov>) "I guess that's true your honor if you say so", said Yakov, "but as far as I myself an concerned what you said is something to think about, though if you're poor your time is taken up with other things that I don't have to mention. You let those who can worry about the ins and outs of politics." "Ah," Bibikov sighed. He puffed on his cigarette without speaking. For a moment there was no sound in the cell (prison cell). (Yakov thinks to himself>)Did I say something wrong? Yakov thought wildly. There are times it doesn't pay to open your mouth. When the magistrate spoke again he sounded like an investigating official, his tone dry, objective. "Have you ever heard the expression 'historical necessity'?" (Yakov relies>) "Not that I remember. I don't think so though maybe I could guess what it means." (The magistrate>) "Are you sure? You've not read Hegel?" (Yakov>) "I don't know his name." (The magistrate>) "Or Karl Marx? He too was a Jew, though not exactly happy to be one." (Yakov>) "Not him either." (The magistrate>) "Would you say you have a 'philosophy' of your own? If so, what is it?" (Yakov>) "If I have it's all skin and bones. I've only just come to a little reading, your honour," he apologized, "If I have any philosophy , if you don't mind me saying so, it's that life could be better than it is." (The magistrate>) "Yet how can it be made better if not in politics or through it?" That's a sure trap, Yakov thought. "Maybe by more jobs and work," he faltered. "Not to forget good will among men. We all have to be reasonable or what's bad gets worse." "Well that's at least a beginning," the magistrate said quietly. "You must read and reflect further." "I will, just as soon as I get out of here". (<<<says Yakov Bok, having no clue as to the further horrors that will come his way!) And I am somewhere the mix of a Yakov Bok and a Benedict Spinoza. Too bad Edward Said, a late acquaintance of mine, is not around to raise hell about this. Disabuse yourself Gemaliel of the notion that I will look up such great words from such fine writers as Bernard Malamud just to entertain you. J.P. Fenyo 68.48.73.93 12:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. J.P., chill out. For one, you are always to assume good faith on Wikipedia. That you would charge him with being "not entirely absent of malice" immediately is unecessary. Just because someone thinks the article doesn't have enough reputable sources doesn't say anything about their opinions or bias towards the subject matter or the author. A simple "Hey Gemaliel, did you know that MARQUI's Who's Who verifies their information before publication?" would suffice.

    If this page did not have nearly 6000 words on it (4700 of which you wrote!), he might find it easier to see the list of sources you posted -- in fact he probably missed them! Those sources are not currently in the article, so he's right to say that "the article as written is a delete." Any uncited uncommon information (such as your theories) can always be challenged and deleted. Click that last sentence to see the policy itself.

    I reiterate again that your intellectual worth is still irrelevant to this discussion, and that you are only hurting your case by attacking every Wikipedian who sees a BADLY written, UNCITED encyclopedia article (ARTICLE, not IDEA) and wants to remove it. Instead of taking it personal (it's not) and trying to disrupt the process because you feel priveleged, go rewrite the article and properly cite everything! Nobody can or will argue with valid citations!

    So, in summary:

    • Trying to change the process with "I think this should stop at once... " is silly - because it won't happen. Wikipedia policy trumps the passing thoughts of a user who won't even take the time to register.
    • Trying to argue that you are worthy enough to be included without providing sources won't work, because without verification an article about a person is considered vanity.
    • Trying to argue that your ideas are unique and special, and therefore should have a place won't work because that's considered original research, which is prohibited.
    • Taking everything personal and counterattacking goes against the policy of assuming good faith, and, frankly, is childish. If anything the vast majority here are apathetic to your ideas, and are only concerned with where and how they've been published.
    • I will not change my vote (since right now it is basically the only one in your favor), but your page-long rants are not helping. Calm...down... Even if the article is deleted, there are many many channels and processes through which you can get it undeleted. Crying "wolf" to Jimbo and trying to circumvent these processes just makes you look devious. Let me state plainly: Wikipedians are not stupid. If you have published in reputable sources, they will be cited and the article will be kept. If not, it will be deleted. All other matters are irrelevant.

      --Michael (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Naked Cowboy is pretty cool, so that wasn't intended as an insult, just a way of pointing out that standing on the street corner giving out advice makes you an urban curiosity, not a philosopher. A mention in Who's Who doesn't make you a philosopher either. Even if the result of this AFD is keep, the article will be significantly rewritten. Since all of the sources on you we've managed to find refer to you as a guy on the street corner, that is what the article will say. Additions from you personally which cannot be substantiated by other sources will be removed under the rule Wikipedia:No original research. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.

We've been content to let you engage in your campaign of self-promotion thus far. However, veiled accusations of anti-Semitism and legal threats will not be tolerated. If you continue to engage in such disruptive behavior, your IP address will be temporarily blocked.

I'm sorry if anything I or anyone else has said has offended you, but we have rules and standards that we follow, which Miketwo and others have attempted to patiently explain to you. We're not going to toss them out the window because of screens of text spam or ridiculous legal threats. Gamaliel 21:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is to my inestimable fortune that I have contacted a number of "outside" parties and sources of information during the past day or so, many of whom are of the opinion that Wikipedia, based on more recent revelations, is no longer considered the benchmark of Internet encyclopedic reference sources (as it still should be...but, well, it is almost to be excpected that when a good idea gets to big really big the quality is evermoreso at risk). As I stated before (in different words), it will only be a loss to Wikipedia and its many fine USERs and visitors if my mention is deleted. For what it was all worth; at least I have found another threat to intellectual freedom and thus to the rights of all persons. Some of you seem to be fairly constructive sorts, but there are those of you who know next to nothing about real philosophers and what philosophy has always been about (at least this would seem to be the case; given that those in question seem to imply that a philosopher today has to be extensively published in academic journals and would therefor have to hold a PhD.). Last but not least, this obviously highly elitist prejudice against persons who sit out in public and engage people in philosophical discourse can only be the mark of someone who has yet to experience the real suffering of humanity (as I have). Again, some of you seem to be very well intended and to those persons I felt obliged to defend myself, my ideas and my noteworthyness. To those in the contrary probably anything I would try to communicate would be pointless (as it is the conclusion of several colleagues gathered around me at this table that such persons are by no means qualified to have been working on Wikipedia, in as much as Wikipedia is what it purports itself to be.) To Jimmy Wales, who may have a fair set of reasons for allegedly accepting resources from Bomis.com(which might be entirely legitimate and mind you I do not know to this be a fact conclusively nor would I necessarily consider this totally unnaceptable given the nature of information-control today), I wish only that he will find a way to better insure the reputability of his otherwise highly remarkable accomplishment. To MikeTwo I have a special addendum: be kind to those who have walked the road less travelled, for some day you will want to look back and know that IT was all very real, meaningful, and, last but not least, appreciated. So,I bid you all bon nuit et adieu. "Wikipedia...The Free Encyclopedia" (not the "PhD.s and other vetted persons" encyclopedia.). Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher, Founder & Director of The Infinity Society, Washington, D.C., co-signed Colleagues of The Infinity Society (Andy E., Marianne, Joseph L.), Mrs. Katalin Fenyo.68.48.73.93 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN bio Pete.Hurd 07:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remove redirect and all references . I checked out a bunch of the sources. I had given this guy the benefit of the doubt, but I can't find a single one that refers to him as a philosopher. The vast majority refer to him as "The Free Advice Man" - an urban curiosity. My vote has changed to Delete, unless this article experiences a major rewrite to come in line with what others say about him. Here are some notable quotes:

    The LA Times, May 19, 1993:

"Listen up, L.A.: Jean-Pierre Fenyo, who calls himself the Original New York City Free Advice Man, swung through L.A. the other day. We had never heard of his curbside service but he referred us to a 1987 New Yorker piece that said he "has given advice to about 6,000 people, only four of whom were dissatisfied.""ref

and the text from Houghton Mifflin:

"The young man responsible for the slightly perceptible knot in pedestrian

traffic at the northeast corner of Bleecker Street and Seventh Avenue is Jean-

Pierre Fenyo, The Free Advice Man. "ref

Finally, the Annotation in Principia Cybernetica is not an accomplishment -- read their description of annotations:

"Annotations are non-refereed comments to particular pages, entered freely by users, and published automatically to the Web... Annotations are not in any way evaluated or selected. Any text entered by a user is automatically and immediately published on our webserver, and linked into the annotated page (in the lower part of the side bar, under the header "Discussion"), and into the general list of all User Annotations. The editors are therefore not responsible for, or will not in general agree with, the text in an annotation."ref

These aren't reputable sources! And even if they were, they don't call him a philosopher! He may have interesting ideas, but they have not been published, and should not appear on Wikipedia as per no original research policy. --Michael (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically. Thoreau

-- Conf 20:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Is it that Fenyo may (for all we know) be an admirable person who lives as a philosopher? Could be. Having a page on WP is not about being "admirable"; despicable people have them precisely for the things that made them despicable. --Trovatore 20:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I probably should have formatted my post as a response to the delete vote above, the concern of which seems to me to involve a question of Mr. Fenyo's certain unworthiness to be called a philosopher... Conf 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it relates to the issue before us, the question is not whether he is a philosopher, but whether we can verify his notability as a philosopher, via independent and reputable sources. --Trovatore 21:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the words "....a philosopher...." and then "....as a philosopher...." had been left out, this would have been the exact Wikipedia policy as I know it, even with the damn verifiablity issue mentioned. I agree I comment on an issue which may even be irrelevant, but then had the preceding poster not done so at greater length? Conf 22:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • My point was not to say he's not a philosopher in spirit or practice (or whatever). My point was that he's not a verifiable philosopher, by Wikipedia's definition of verifiable, and that the sources he cites as proof of his verifiability are pretty bogus overall. To be a philosopher may be all those things you state ("to love wisdom...etc etc..."), but to be a philosopher on Wikipedia one must found a school, publish a book, or have opinions that a great number of people take seriously and write about independently. It is not just appearing in "Talk of the Town" articles, annotating Philosophic websites, registering an unpublished book, buying a web address, and calling yourself a "philosopher" to the Who's Who publishers.

              Finally, Conf, the "Wikipedia policy" you cite is actually only a proposed policy, and you should pay attention to the words near the top that say "References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". --Michael (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

              • Shouldn't the point be not whether Fenyo is "a verifiable philosopher" (whatever it means), but whether he is verifiably notable.

                As for the proposed not-a-policy, reference to which did not accompany Trovatore's assertion, what makes the assertion true. I suppose the word notability, repeated incessantly all over Wikipedia, is not merely an abbreviation of "proposed concept of notability". Conf 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentGentlemen & Not-So-Gentle Men (hey, where are the women??). So, there it is. We've come to one of the biggest weaknesses of Wikipedia, namely the inability to recognize the worthyness of philosophers whose public recognition as such happens to have taken place in ANOTHER LANGUAGE (Hungarian in my case). More than a dozen articles and TV/radio interviews in Hungarian, at a time when Hungarian media usage of, and long-term storage/retrieval on, the Internet was minimmal at best (no thanks to over 45 years of post-Stalinist Russian Imperialism disguised as Socialism...only to be followed by ruthless Wild-West-style capitalism without sufficient welfare protection). SO THERE IT IS: THE ALLEGED PHILOSOPHER CANNOT FURNISH US ARTICLES IN HUNGARIAN OVER THE INTERNET THAT HONOR HIM WITH THE TITLE "PHILOSOPHER". But, if Trovatore wanted it, I could post him photocopies of some of those articles in which the Hungarian equivalent of philosopher is clearly how I am defined (filozofus). That the Hungarian Wikipedia does not yet have an article on me may have something to do with the mind-set and socio-political leanings of the Hungarians who can afford the time to be involved. And I will readily admit that the vast majority of Hungarians today dislike me...because I was very critical of their tendencies to be zeno-phobic and even to be somewhat racist, in particular towards the Roma (Gypsies), Jews (like me) and blacks who are not supermodels, movie stars or gangsta-rap-'artists'. So, IF (and note that I mean "if") this is what Wikipedia is all about then I, as a true philosopher and not a university-level teacher/academic of philosophy, do not want to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all! For then Wikipedia cannot be considered worthy of true philosophers, other genuine intellectuals and I will not consent then to being mocked as an "urban curiosity" (to quote someone here). What follows is my response to USER: conf., who deserves the very best that life can offer. Vivre le resistance contra la mediocracie! Touchet!

++ Greetings. Your words are infinitely precious to me! And to quote Henry David Thoreau, in reference to my case, is almost like having an invitation extended to the two of us to join him at Walden Pond. Then again,dying of influenza is not such a pleasant experience. How kind and compassionate your words. As per practical deeds: I do try to live up to my own set of principles, ethics, values and morals, but I would be insolently dishonest were I to claim to be so fortunate, yet I have risked my life, turned down great matterial wealth (that would somehow have been at the expense of others) and blown plenty a whistle when it became obvious to me that was the only correct manner to act. My words and ideas helped topple a zeno-phobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Roma, racist, corrupt, elitist government administration in Hungary (Orban, Viktor and his lunatic FIDESZ); my consultations with Israelis, Palestinians, fellow American-Jews, Jordanians (not Palestinian citizens of Jordan) and others, behind the scenes, during the days of the secrete Oslo meetings (though I was not in Oslo at the time, but in New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.) all helped improve the chances for an eventual resolution of this most dire of world conflicts; and my many interviews and statements in public advocating thinking about the BIG PICTURE (Infinity, Life, Death, Existence, Love, Truth, Awe, etc.) have had some inestimable chain-reaction impact. So have the writings of Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, and countless others. That one of these unofficiated editors should point out that that most of the media coverage has never called me a philosopher per se, yet by my very actvitity of philosophizing (as described in these articles and snippets, is a sad sign of our mad times. They should read your comment with great attention. A philosopher does what I do: 1) Ask questions, almost incessantly, like; why do we enjoy things...what is the meaning of happiness and joy?; why are some things, like Strawberries and Raspberries to me, so tasty and pleasing to our senses and others not?; how is it that we sense we exist even as nothing physical that makes up our brain-bodies is made up of anything truly stable enough to keep its absolute integrity for longer than fractions of a second?; why do so few people (or so it would seem), like myself, find such appreciation in being able to see colors and feel textures, perceive the relatively natural elements of our world and know, even then, that such an experience is fleeting and will end to our personal character's knowledge at the time our non-physical essential beings depart our lifeless brain-bodies?; and I could go on... That these technocrats, specialists, elitistic persons (oh, how I resent having to label persons whose outer lives have so imprisoned their true inner selves!) should fail to realize that publishing/expressing in public one's own deep thoughts about things relatively uncommon is the highest mark and proof of being a true philosopher is all so typical of our times. (Funny thing is this; had they been able to get hold of the articles, interviews, etc. about me that were published in Hungary in Hungarian they would not be able to jump their proverbial gun of assumed conviction regarding no media claims to my being a philosopher!!! After all, my first book was only published in 1994, just before I left to live in Hungary for a decade, and from which I have barely returned to my native Washington, D.C.!!!) I had hoped to stop responding to their attacks, but for whatever it is worth I am going to let them know about this one. Last but not least, I would very much appreciate it if you would be so kind as to establish a direct line of communication between us ([email protected]). With warm gratitude and may the force be with you, J.P. Fenyo & The Infinity Society 68.48.73.93 23:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not here to blaze brave new trails in human thought. Wikipedia is not here to distinguish "true" philosophy from stale academic philosophy. We are here to summarize existing human knowledge compiled from legitimate mainstream sources. If you are not generally recognized as a philosopher by the philosophical community (and not Who's Who or Hungarian television), then we cannot report as fact that you are generally recognized as a philosopher. When dealing with non-English language topics, availablity of legitimate sources is a challenge, but it is not one we can overcome simply by taking your word or anyone else's word for it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Gamaliel 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof Fenyõ Jean-Pierre Ady <<< place this is Yahoo!'s main search and you will find something interesting. A colleague of mine has just contacted me from Budapest and he suggests that all concerned should go to [[106]] and scroll down a bit and on the right-hand side you will find me identified as a "tudomanyos filozofus" !!! That there are so few Internet mentions is not surprising as I have explained before. Hooray for all the few decent Hungarians left today! J.P. Fenyo, still a philosopher and counting... The Infinity Society 68.48.73.93 23:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof Just in case someone finds it hard go to [[107]]. J.P. Fenyo, philosopher to a P 68.48.73.93 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have invited eight native Hungarian Wikipedians (found using the Babel language category) to help with this AfD. If none of them show up, I'll invite eight more. --Michael (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acknowledged Probably some of those invited Hungarian Wikipedians will "show up", but knowing other Hungarians as I do it does not mean they will speak in my favor. Hungarians, in general (there plenty of exceptions), are among the most cautious and skeptical people on Earth. This is much due to the nature of the Hungarian language and the cross-cultural phenomena that arises from their linguistic isolation. Which, aside from a diet that has too much Paprika, grease, salt, oil and sugar, is probably a major factor in why Hungary still has one of the highest suicide rates in the world! That and the unfortunate resurgence of virulent anti-Semitism which I estimate infects one in three non-Jewish Hungarians does not give me much reason for hope. Few Hungarians will admit that anti-Semitism has become a problem, once more, in Hungary and the Hungarian expatriate world. Nevertheless, most Hungarians are fairly decent folk and perhaps I will be lucky. J.P. Fenyo 68.48.73.93 00:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here comes along a hungarian. One of those "most cautious and skeptical people on Earth". This is anti-nationalism, or what? As I am currently in Lyon, and lived half my life around the globe (due to my father), I can only comment on this guy. Though I regularly read hungarian newspapers, I never ever heard of his name. But some notes on published stuff:
    • Kurir, One whole-page newspaper interview, Oct. 15, 1994. - this is like being publised in The Sun, in London. You can get published if you stood on your head for 10 hours straight.
    • Kiskegyed, Two-page magazine interview, Nov. 1994. - The same applies here, except you have to be a woman doing the same feat
    • 168-Ora, Two-page magazine interview, Oct. 1998. - This is the magazine of the socialist party in hungary - not too bad, but not anything amazing.
    • Irodalom és Élet - first off, it is "Élet és Irodalom"(!). It is a very intellectual magazine, that is true, but as I have graduated from an elite school in hungary, many of my friends have published there quite some stuff, and I don't consider them being eligible to be in Wikipedia
    • TV show-ups. Forget Sziv-TV, its crap. RTL-Klub: you can get in there by having an IQ < 20, e.g. in the programme 'Fokusz'. TV-2: a similar stuff to "Fokusz" is here, so forget it. Only interesting is the MTV appearance, but come on... Anybody even a bit well known in Hungary has no need to have himself credited with the stuff mentioned before. MTV should have been enough. Also, my father once having a popularity rate of about 10%, he could most probably list about 200 of these TV-appearances, so forget it.
    • Anyways, as a non-hungarian, my thoughts are the following: He keeps explaining why it is so important to have him here. That in itself should give us a clue of how important he is. So let's delete this stuff and go on doing something more productive then arguing *with*(and not *about*!) a self-nominated 'important' man.--Msoos 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed 68.48.73.93's latest comments as a personal attack against User:Msoos. Gamaliel 20:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here comes another Hungarian. I can largely corroborate what has been said by Msoos. Kurir and Kiskegyed are not serious newspapers, so the fact there were articles there about him doesn't mean too much. 168 óra is a more serious weekly mainly interested in politics and to a smaller extent culture. In any case, it usually doesn't deal with philosophy as a topic. It would be interesting to read the article itself, I may try and find and read it. Élet és Irodalom is a very prestigious weekly in Hungary, but he himself said that it was actually a letter of his that was published, which again doesn't prove anything as ordinary readers get their letters to the editor published every week. In his case, there was a debate on relaunching the literary weekly Nyugat his grandfather used to edit, and he expressed his opinion on this topic in a letter, so his statement (21:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC), below) that he was described as a philosopher in Elet es Irodalom is a blatant lie. The significance of the appearance on MTV (Magyar Televizió, (the state-owned) Hungarian Television) is difficult to judge as we don't know what kind of program he appeared in.[reply]
    • On the whole, what really should make us suspicious is this: here is an American philosopher who publishes in English, and still, for some reason, the main sources he marshals to defend his claim of being a recognized philosopher happen to be all in Hungarian. And, for some other reason, non of these sources actually prove that he is a recognized philosopher.
    • As a matter of fact, most recognized Hungarian scientists and scholars publish amptly in English, in peer-reviewed journals, so his idea of being recognized "only in Hungarian" is quite odd, especially in light of his book having been published in English.
    • His ideas of being hated by most Hungarians and having played a major role in toppling a government are ludicrous, as a matter of fact, I am sure he is completely unknown to most Hungarians. I myself never heard of him before being invited to this discussion. He may be a philosopher for all that, but a recongnized and well-known member of the intellectual (or even cultural) scene in Hungary he definitely isn't.
    • I made a quick search of Hungarian webpages, there were two classes of hits on his name: (1) where he was mentioned in connection with his grandfather, the late editor of the literary weekly Nyugat, (2) marginal pages like forums, the webpage of a community centre where he held a lectures, a magazine of lifestyle etc. Not one university homepage, not one homepage of a research institute or a journal of philosophy. And the number of hits was less then 10, before I forget... --Tamas 23:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AttentionAfter so many attacks on my name, character and person, and obfuscation of the fact that I am a philosopher, my most relevant ideas to date have all been published (some even on the Internet) and that such has even been written of me (Budapest Sun article, Internet-Galaxis 2000 program, etc.), I and several people who know me are of the conclusive opinion that Wikipedia is no longer what it set out to be and cannot be a fair arbitrer of anything! So USER: MikeTwo,USER: Trovatore, etc.... Go ahead and delete my mention on Wikipedia, for it is not worthy of my good name. USER: Gemaliel: hooray for you, you've done a great service to humanity (NOT!). Erasing my statement about the possibilities surrounding Msoos was actually a disservice to Wikipedia, besides you seem not to pay attention to 'qualifiers' as I have often been using them. USER: Msoos:

[[[[you seem to ignore the main question so far and the only issue on which USER: MikeTwo and USER: Trovatore are concerned with, namely; has any reputable source ever described me as a philosopher (!, which many have done jsut that, but in 168-ora, MTV-1, Elet es Irodalom and a number of others; in Hungarian]]]]), you should consider yourself to be a proud member of the what seems to be a world-wide anti-Wikipedia conspiracy to infiltrate it with people who seem to have a very dark agenda...probably to manipulate the general public's perception of 'reality' as it becomes defined by a select few. This is also the opinion of several dozen people, all of equal or greater notability than I, with whom we have established contact and who may find a legitimate way to inform the world about the tragic condition of Wikipedia. SO PLEASE DELETE ME and ignore all the facts as they stand and have stood. Last but not least: A shining bright star of reason did appear in the form of USER: conf ! May whoever that person be: the world needs much more of your kind, keep up the resistance and never doubt that your words of reason are much appreciated and have limited my own grief. Wikipedia must be saved. Some Wikipedians must be held accountable. The Infinity Society will continue to herald a new age...or perish with the rest of the world! I will always be true to myself: a real American patriot, fighting fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, bigotry, hypocrisy, elitism, racism, inhumanity, ignorance, hate, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and the list goes on. As my dear friend Larry Alaimo once put it: "J.P., the only problems with this infinity thing of yours is that it goes on and on forever (lol)." Yes, that's a good problem worth laughing about! The phenomena of the corruption of Wikipedia is no laughing matter. Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher, Founder & Director of The Infinity Society, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 68.48.73.93 21:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A potential factor to consider would be book circulation figures. Just another stone to look under. Out of curiosity, how many circulated copies does it take to make one a notable author? Go for it! 23:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Are his works built-upon in any widely published books by other philosophical authors? Go for it! 23:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Are his books or ideas causing any noticeable ripples in the field of philosophy, or in the world-at-large? Go for it! 23:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I nominated with an abstention, but the reports from the Hungarians seem fairly conclusive to me. I admit the possibility that I may be serving the interests of a dark cabal that seeks to keep the common man ignorant by holding down a truly enlightened man, but at this point I'll take my chances with that. --Trovatore 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a native Hungarian and I have to admit I have not heard of this man so far but that doesn't mean he cannot be significant. I did, however do a research on him on Google Hungary and it did give some information about him being a philosopher BUT I haven't found ANY major proof that he did significant work in his field. He does hold lectures about his things, as fars as I understood but one of the major Hungarian Literature Periodicals listed him in the category of "Crazy" when he stated some foolish thing about one of the major Literary periodicals of the beginning of the 20th century and that he apparentléy just took up the name Ady, who was one opf our biggest poets. http://www.kortarsonline.hu/9904/kristo.htm So it seems to me that this guy is just a balloon to be blown out, not a serious philosopher with recognizable ideas. But that's just an opinion. I would need some research in the topic in a real library. :Teemeah 11:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STOP INSULTS ++ Uzenet Fenyõ Jean-Pierre Ady-tol USER: Teemeah-nak: Ne haragudjon de szerintem nagyon tevedts... A nagyapam nem mas mint Fenyõ Miksa, a Nyugatos, volt. Maga Ady Endre kerte ha lesz unokaja hogy legyen a neveben "ADY", tehat 1964, sokk ev azutan hogy Ady meghalt (1919-ben) megszulettem es Ady nevet, mint kozep nev, kaptam. Egyebkent beszelhetsz a kovetkezokel telefonon (vagy, ha ok akarjak, akar szemelyesen is ... ja, a magyar nyelv nalam csak harmadik, az angol es spanyol utan, ugyhat nincs ekezetteim bilentyumon es magyar helyes-irasban soha nem voltam nagy szam):

Prof. Erno Lazarovits(36-1) 413-5578, a MAZSIHISZ kulkapcsolatok-ert felelos.

Dr. Lang Jozsef, ugyvezeto Argumentum Kiado, (36-1) 485-1040, na o aztan nagyon jol ismeri a nevemet.

Prof. Howard Robinson, Head of The Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, (36-1) 342-2307 (otthoni telefon...ne kesobb mint 20:30 kerem), aki mondhatja hogy valoban filozofus vagyok, csakhogy nem akademikus, mert hogy " I am not a teacher of philosophy but a practitioner of philosophy".

Prof. Hernadi Miklos, Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Konyv es Folyoiratkiado Bizottsag, aki egyebbkent lektoralta a filozofia konyvemet (1999-ben)! (36-1) 302-5638 (jo ideje nem beszeltem vele...udvozlettemet adj tovabb).

Nagyon remelem hogy ezek dolgok utanna tudtsz erdeklodni... mert kar lenne ha azok tenyleg hibat kovetnek!

--

  • Comment

First things first. I share Msoos' opinion, and thus I vote for delete. Hangzatos szolamok helyett inkabb egy kis bolcsesseget javasolnek Ady urnak. A Wikipedia ugyan gyakran hasznalt forrás manapsag, de olyan temakban, mint peldaul a filozofia, meg jo par evig nem lesz mervado, velemenyem szerint. Raadasul a szoban forgo szocikk, mar ha nevezhetjuk annak, csupan egy par sor Onrol. A Google ugyan elsonek dobja ki, de ez csak azert lehet, mert nincs honlapja, az Infinity Society oldalan pedig nem sokat ir magarol.

Ahogy az elozo hozzaszolok irtak, amint megfelelo mennyisegu, megbizhato forras lesz elerheto az On munkassagarol, biztosra veszem, hogy be fog kerulni az ingyenes, nem pedig szabad, enciklopediaba.

Ha On tenyleg ugy gondolja, hogy megeri ez a felhajtas, es vegul kap egy oldalt, amirol mellesleg tudni fogjak az adminok es az aktiv felhasznalok is, hogy hogyan jutott el abba a stadiumba, amit mellesleg nem tul szivesen fognak gondozni, mar ha egyatalan fognak, es valoszinuleg egy ido utan tobb kart csinalhatna Onnek, mint hasznot, akkor egesz nyugodtan fektessen bele nem keves energiat, abba hogy itt vitatkozik.

Egy oldal nem a vilag, hagyja had menjen. Majd lesz masik, jobb, ami sokkal inkabb szolgal majd Onnek.

Belul nem hagy nyugodni az a szemtelen, de talan jogos kerdes, hogy milyen "filozofus" is On, ha ennyire gorcsosen ragaszkodik igazabol a semmihez. Udvozlettel:PAStheLoD 12:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - whether or not this individual is notable (which really does not seem to be the case), i thought it was a fundemental wikipedia policy that subjects of articles do not write their own articles. wikipedia would go to pot if this was allowed surely? Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, consider maybe writing a user page? you could continue to disseminate your undoubtedly worthy ideas from the safety of an appropriate platform, i think it would be great! Jdcooper 12:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STOP INSULTS ++ Uzenet Fenyõ Jean-Pierre Ady-tol USER: Teemeah-nak: Ne haragudjon de szerintem nagyon tevedts... A nagyapam nem mas mint Fenyõ Miksa, a Nyugatos, volt. Maga Ady Endre kerte ha lesz unokaja hogy legyen a neveben "ADY", tehat 1964, sokk ev azutan hogy Ady meghalt (1919-ben) megszulettem es Ady nevet, mint kozep nev, kaptam. Egyebkent beszelhetsz a kovetkezokel telefonon (vagy, ha ok akarjak, akar szemelyesen is ... ja, a magyar nyelv nalam csak harmadik, az angol es spanyol utan, ugyhat nincs ekezetteim bilentyumon es magyar helyes-irasban soha nem voltam nagy szam):

Prof. Erno Lazarovits(36-1) 413-5578, a MAZSIHISZ kulkapcsolatok-ert felelos.

Dr. Lang Jozsef, ugyvezeto Argumentum Kiado, (36-1) 485-1040, na o aztan nagyon jol ismeri a nevemet.

Prof. Howard Robinson, Head of The Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, (36-1) 342-2307 (otthoni telefon...ne kesobb mint 20:30 kerem), aki mondhatja hogy valoban filozofus vagyok, csakhogy nem akademikus, mert hogy " I am not a teacher of philosophy but a practitioner of philosophy".

Prof. Hernadi Miklos, Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Konyv es Folyoiratkiado Bizottsag, aki egyebbkent lektoralta a filozofia konyvemet (1999-ben)! (36-1) 302-5638 (jo ideje nem beszeltem vele...udvozlettemet adj tovabb).

Nagyon remelem hogy ezek dolgok utanna tudtsz erdeklodni... mert kar lenne ha azok tenyleg hibat kovetnek!

  • Nota Bene The article from KORTARS is very, very insulting...it is an op-ed piece by a known anti-Semite, and the fact of the matter is it does not reflect what any of the above highly-reputable persons (all currently in Budapest...all speak English fluently) will say. I HAVE KEPT THIS ACE CARD UP MY SLEEVE just for this purpose! If the young lady (Timea is a female name, so if I'm wrong about the gender it was not intentinal) USER: Teemeah should contact these fine gentlemen and get the whole, unadulterated truth! My grandfather Fenyo, Miksa established the NYUGAT (arguably Hungary's greatest literary and social review) in 1908 along with co-founders Osvat, Erno and Ignotus, Hugo in order to bring into Hungarian intellectual life (in Hungarian as opposed to German) the great ideas of Western philosophers like Kierkegaard, Nietzche, Schopenhauer and the list goes on... It was a heroic feat! And now I too will be vindicated...if USER: Teemeah does me the kindness! I have really had it up to here with all the attacks, incinuations and other failures to maintain protocol! I was hoping to step aside and observe the deletion with the knowledge that very soon thereafter certain people of mine in Budapest, of very high esteem, will contact each and every one of you Wikipedians who have incessantly attacked my good name, my reputation and what not. But the last call was just too much: USER: Teemeah is not an anti-Semite but sure could benefit from calling the people mentioned and ascertaining the full facts! I intend to hold all this as an exercise in taming Wikipedians who are too quick to pass judgment and who would fail to see the difference between an op-ed piece from a highly biased source and something more reputable. Lastly for USER: Teemeah: neither I nor my father gave uncoditional support to Mr. Tolvaly Ferenc to commit "irodalmi nekrofilia" < English: literary necrophilia by letting him re-start the NYUGAT more than fifty years after it folded...I and my father simply suggested that we would support a new version of the publication if, and only on such condition, it would meet the highest standards of literary journalism. The P.I.M. < Petofi Irodalmi Muzeum < Hungary's official museum of literature named after Petofi Sandor, Hungary's chief poet laureate, knows exactly who I am and that not only am I a philosopher but that I never consented to Mr. Tolvaly actual plans. In fact, Mr. Tolvaly (who also was the head of a major TV station) was unable to actually start-up the New NYUGAT because I withdrew my conditional support as soon as it became evident what he really had in mind (this after he spent millions of forints on publicizing his intentions!). So there it is! USER: Teemeah: do your duty to truth* STOP INSULTS ++ Uzenet Fenyõ Jean-Pierre Ady-tol USER: Teemeah-nak: Ne haragudjon de szerintem nagyon tevedts... A nagyapam nem mas mint Fenyõ Miksa, a Nyugatos, volt. Maga Ady Endre kerte ha lesz unokaja hogy legyen a neveben "ADY", tehat 1964, sokk ev azutan hogy Ady meghalt (1919-ben) megszulettem es Ady nevet, mint kozep nev, kaptam. Egyebkent beszelhetsz a kovetkezokel telefonon (vagy, ha ok akarjak, akar szemelyesen is ... ja, a magyar nyelv nalam csak harmadik, az angol es spanyol utan, ugyhat nincs ekezetteim bilentyumon es magyar helyes-irasban soha nem voltam nagy szam):

Prof. Erno Lazarovits(36-1) 413-5578, a MAZSIHISZ kulkapcsolatok-ert felelos.

Dr. Lang Jozsef, ugyvezeto Argumentum Kiado, (36-1) 485-1040, na o aztan nagyon jol ismeri a nevemet.

Prof. Howard Robinson, Head of The Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, (36-1) 342-2307 (otthoni telefon...ne kesobb mint 20:30 kerem), aki mondhatja hogy valoban filozofus vagyok, csakhogy nem akademikus, mert hogy " I am not a teacher of philosophy but a practitioner of philosophy".

Prof. Hernadi Miklos, Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Konyv es Folyoiratkiado Bizottsag, aki egyebbkent lektoralta a filozofia konyvemet (1999-ben)! (36-1) 302-5638 (jo ideje nem beszeltem vele...udvozlettemet adj tovabb).

Nagyon remelem hogy ezek dolgok utanna tudtsz erdeklodni... mert kar lenne ha azok tenyleg hibat kovetnek!

  • Nota Bene The article from KORTARS is very, very insulting...it is an op-ed piece by a known anti-Semite, and the fact of the matter is it does not reflect what any of the above highly-reputable persons (all currently in Budapest...all speak English fluently) will say. I HAVE KEPT THIS ACE CARD UP MY SLEEVE just for this purpose! If the young lady (Timea is a female name, so if I'm wrong about the gender it was not intentinal) USER: Teemeah should contact these fine gentlemen and get the whole, unadulterated truth! My grandfather Fenyo, Miksa established the NYUGAT (arguably Hungary's greatest literary and social review) in 1908 along with co-founders Osvat, Erno and Ignotus, Hugo in order to bring into Hungarian intellectual life (in Hungarian as opposed to German) the great ideas of Western philosophers like Kierkegaard, Nietzche, Schopenhauer and the list goes on... It was a heroic feat! And now I too will be vindicated...if USER: Teemeah does me the kindness! I have really had it up to here with all the attacks, incinuations and other failures to maintain protocol! I was hoping to step aside and observe the deletion with the knowledge that very soon thereafter certain people of mine in Budapest, of very high esteem, will contact each and every one of you Wikipedians who have incessantly attacked my good name, my reputation and what not. But the last call was just too much: USER: Teemeah is not an anti-Semite but sure could benefit from calling the people mentioned and ascertaining the full facts! I intend to hold all this as an exercise in taming Wikipedians who are too quick to pass judgment and who would fail to see the difference between an op-ed piece from a highly biased source and something more reputable. Lastly for USER: Teemeah: neither I nor my father gave uncoditional support to Mr. Tolvaly Ferenc to commit "irodalmi nekrofilia" < English: literary necrophilia by letting him re-start the NYUGAT more than fifty years after it folded...I and my father simply suggested that we would support a new version of the publication if, and only on such condition, it would meet the highest standards of literary journalism. The P.I.M. < Petofi Irodalmi Muzeum < Hungary's official museum of literature named after Petofi Sandor, Hungary's chief poet laureate, knows exactly who I am and that not only am I a philosopher but that I never consented to Mr. Tolvaly actual plans. In fact, Mr. Tolvaly (who also was the head of a major TV station) was unable to actually start-up the New NYUGAT because I withdrew my conditional support as soon as it became evident what he really had in mind (this after he spent millions of forints on publicizing his intentions!). So there it is! USER: Teemeah: do your duty to truth, humanity and the original Wikipedia! 68.48.73.93 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

, humanity and the original Wikipedia! 68.48.73.93 12:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyõ, how many copies of your titles have been sold?[edit]

If the circulation figure for any of your book titles exceeds 5,000, then you qualify for inclusion to Wikipedia through notability as an author. And if the book happened to be one of philosophy, then your notability would be as a writer of philosophy, which for all intents and purposes is synonymous with philosopher. See Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Thanks, Michael, for the reference. Go for it! 17:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not "for all intents and purposes", but, maybe, for our intents and purposes. Conf 23:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer To USER: Go for it! > In Hungary a printing of 5,000 copies of a philosophy book would be, for all intensive purposes, impossible. Note that Hungary's internal population (not including Hungarians residing 'permanently' outside of Hungary, in Transylvania, Germany, the U.S., Australia, etc.) is not more than 11 Million. Even some of the more famous Hungarian intellectuals do not get a first print of over 2,000 copies! Mine was only 1,200 copies, and distribution was limited because of threats to book-sellers! <<< I am a very controversial figure in Budapest society...and now that it has been almost two years since I left people are beginning to forget me; some because of the fact that I was a nuisance in their lives (reminding them of serious social problems in Hungary, such as racism and prejudice towards minorities), others because in today's world if you're not constantly exposed in the mass media then within a year people (most) will forget! I would say, however, that 1 in 20 people living for over ten years in Budapest will know something significant about me (that's roughly 100,000 persons, give or take a few thousand). In Hungary I'd dare say 1 in 40 (250,000). In New York City my fame index hovers around 1 in 40 persons (roughly the same as in Hungary: 250,000), not very good, but that puts me in the top 1% of humanity. By Wikipedia standards my notability as a "writer" is virtually zero! But the measure of my noteworthy is problematic and very complex at that; for on some level Wikipedia must also mention those whose degree of influence on world events is very high, but whose fame level is very low. Which reminds me of the time when a previous President of Portugal asked his A.D.C. who the hell I was (at a V.I.P. event hosted by the Hungarian government) and his A.D.C. whispered in his ears something to which he said (loud enough for people around to hear, and in Portuguese; "Oh, that's the man...well keep me away from him and any other philosophers who might be present!" The President's stare was rather ominous! My ideas about infinity have inspired dozens of major companies, since after my first days of fame in 1987, to use the word or motif (logo: symbol) of infinity, in various altered forms and straight for their public brand or company image recognition!!! My letters of advice to world leaders, mostly in the early 1990s, influenced decisions, sometimes with impressive results. Of course, these things are virtually impossible to prove conclusively, for by their very nature they do not lend themselves to the kind of proof of causality that other things do. One serious factor...mind you I still think DELETION has its up-side (especially after the fact that it had already gone through scrutiny once before over 3 years ago and more or less passed without any major problem) and I would just love to get e-mails of apology further down the road when the evidence of my noteworthiness/sincerity starts rolling in! My mention was on Wikipedia for almost as long as Wikipedia has so far existed, and I will not let those who delete my mention get off easily. I just love receiving apologies...even years down the road!!! Wikipedia needs to have room for extremely odd and complex exceptions, especially if the person in question is highly likely to be the next Spinoza or, in terms of popularity only, the next Jean Paul Sartre (whose views on Existentialism I almost completely disagree with). There is nothing exciting about a major Internet reference source that only covers the subjects already covered by the mainstream. Wikipedia must recognize the need to include the avant-garde and the unusual if it wants to be of any use to the mass media and students in a world whose speed of information exchange and change itself is beyond easy comprehension. No longer does Andy Warhol's famous "15 minute of fame" apply; the question has to be not in quantitative terms but in qualitative terms: and given that it is I alone, in the known English language world, who claims (before any others ever did) that infinity is the only concept that will truly evolve us humans from the homo-ignoramus most of us still are (explain what happened and why in Rwanda, Bosnia-Hercegovina and other recent inhumanity...after The Holocaust!!!!) to the true homo-sapiens we should already be! No other concept is as important in defining one's humanity...for while primates can communicate and thus think about some basic concepts directly associated with emotion(s), they will not be able to conceive, to any extent/degree, the concept of that which is everything and has no beginning in terms of time-space-change!!! Maybe, if we humans survive this catastrophic period of history, then thousands of years from now (unless we do some odd cross-genetic breeding!) will primates evolve sufficiently to become able to conceive the infinite! Infinity is truly the final thought that we can conceive!!! So...I have enjoyed educating a few people...but hidden jealousy is no reason to defame a daring new intellectual!!! "And they will fear the words and ideas of those who might wake up all the sleeping tigers...and they will find ways aplenty to silence the lions of truth who dare bathe in the bright sun rays of reason and truth." Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher to the N-th degree! [[108]] 68.48.73.93 22:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. NN bio. This guy has absolutely no reference in the Philosopher's Index which is the definitive resource for philosophy in the English language. Even if he were notable in some other language (which I'm sure he isn't), he oughtn't be added to an English-language encyclopedia until he has reached multinational (i.e., multilanguage) prominence. KSchutte 07:05, 30 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Child[edit]

non notability Melaen 20:36, 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 redirected to Jon Sopel (presenter) by User:DanMS. – Robert T | @ | C 00:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sopel[edit]

This page really isn't needed. A search for Jon Sopel, as I carried out today to edit that page should go directly to that article rather than this which then links to the article everyone wants. Cut out the middle man! :) Wikiwoohoo 20:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jon Sopel. — Haeleth Talk 23:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to a redirect, as was originally intended, and as it should be. The original text of the article was “see Jon Sopel (presenter)”. I changed “see” to “#redirect”. •DanMS 01:12, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Lift International[edit]

notability Melaen 20:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. --Andrew 21:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this might be a speedy -Banana04131 21:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Izehar 22:20, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Wars Film[edit]

Speculation, vanity, spam. An article about a film which currently has no storyline, by two aspiring film-makers, made using low-cost PC-based video editing tools. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:04, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fu and Tell / Flight of the Unicorn[edit]

very small article on very small subject. I would merge and redirect, but the titile is not in the usual WP format, so the redirect would almost certainly never be used. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:16, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CHA-[edit]

Non-notable dicdef at best. Delete. Found while checking all the vd's contributions. — Jeandré, 21:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Izehar 22:19, 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 no consensus (3 keep, 2 delete, 1 merge.) – Robert T | @ | C 00:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney World College Program Roles[edit]

Sorry, but I really don't think the "Walt Disney World College Program" (aka corporate training scheme) is sufficiently important to justify two articles , one of which (this) is primarily a list of menial jobs dressed up with fancy titles. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This page is nessesary as the WDWCP needs a separate page that lists all the internsip positions that people can apply for during a recruting presentation. It also contains some "alumni generated information" presented by people who have experianced the program before. There is another page that has since been "blanked" so this is the only one with this information. Shifter55 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the hugeness and wide influence of Disney and how readily Wikipedia accepts articles on minor aspects of the fictional worlds created by companies such as this, I think articles on the inside organisational aspects of the corporation might be of some general interest, as long as they are verifiable. This article could however be merged with Walt Disney World College Program. u p p l a n d 06:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found it interesting. CalJW 08:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The internal corporate workings of an in-house training program are not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 19:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Izehar 22:18, 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 no consensus to delete, so kept. Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of avowed Christians in science[edit]

This is a partial re-creation of the original List of Catholic scientists which was deleted here (quite convincingly). This page was started largely as a response to that vote and as such is a borderline speedy based on WP:CSD, G4. However, there was an attempt to tighten criteria and introduce greater sourcing in the new article and thus they are not identical; after discussion it was decided to place it back on AfD. Note that the List of Catholic scientists was remade as a re-direct immediately after the AfD and is itself on WP:RfD. Given that this nomination is essentially a matter of AfD integrity rather than specific content, I will abstain. Marskell 21:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not just because it's listcruft, but also because an exhaustive list would be vast (half the Christian Union at uni were scientists, and several of them are now Professors, in the British university system sense of occupying chairs or being head of department). Also, it's arbitrary, and worst of all it entirely fails to explore the fundamental issue (namely the relationship between science and Christianity). This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a game of Trivial Pursuit. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and expand to List of religious believers in science. The criterion for inclusion should be that the person is notable as a scientist, and notably defended religious belief. --Trovatore 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd accept that. I'm normally a rule abiding person and I wasn't intending to hurt the integrity of the place. It's just that on the deletion page of the Christian one I got some sense a list like this would be acceptable. I wasn't "sneaky", in case that's a concern, as if you check the delete page I said I'd make this page to see if it's more what's wanted. I guess this is will get a sense of the answer.--T. Anthony 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That said "religious believers" might be broad enough it'd be unacceptable. Possibly "theologians in science"(with sections for different religions) or "Writers concerned with 'religion and science'" would be better. Although ideally I'd prefer it to stay specific to Christianity, as we have List of Muslim scientists and philosophers already, I'd accept that kind of change.--T. Anthony 02:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Do not expand, do not move. Postdlf 22:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I voted to delete the original articles as too vauge, it could encompass any scientist who called themselves Christian or Catholic - which is just about all of them before modern times, and for many scientists their religion has played little or no part in their science. However, I see where this article wants to go, it want to include those people who are notable both for being religious and for being in science. And that is an important cross over, for many of them have been influential in the science and religion debates over the ages - many will have published cross-disciplinary works (e.g. John Polkinghorne). Providing this isn't a list of scientists who go to church, or clergymen with an MA in physics, but the subjects are notable for being cross-disciplinary, then keep. But rename - and I'm not sure what. --Doc ask? 00:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it survives it will be renamed. Possibly something like "List of contributors to Christian and scientific history" or "List of scholars of Christianity and science" or something.--T. Anthony 01:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Achieves relevance and verifiability. Durova 07:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More POV mixing of orthagonal groups into a single list. Turnstep 20:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor. The list is useless as it is. It only becomes useful when it is a list of those who have commented in some way on the relationship of their own faith to their science. I would get rid of all the rest, where they are merely people who have done science and are known to be believers. John Polkinghorne is perhaps the canonical (excuse the pun) example who would belong on the list. Some title change is absolutely necessary ('avowed Christians' is POV). However, if this isn't the community consensus, then it would be better to delete and start over again. David | Talk 21:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the best of these types of lists that I've seen. Could be an extremely useful starting point for students. Should not be expanded to other religions as someone may have suggested. -- JJay 07:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd prefer it stay about Christianity, others on other religions is fine, but I was willing to expand if that'll save it from delete. I may have gone overboard on fixing it tonight:)--T. Anthony 10:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I respect that. However statements there included "In brief: the quality of these lists is too low for them to be useful. It doesn't say how they were made or what the criteria for inclusion are, and no sources are given, so cleanup is practically impossible. User:Dpbsmith." I tried to make very clear what the criteria are here and pretty much all sources are listed. "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." I added that all names before 1600 have to be noted as such. Scientists may not have to list their religious affiliation, but in the case of in least Eyring it was mentioned at the National Academy of Science obituary. Other objections to that list was that it was too arbitrary or too loosely associated. I think that should be much less true now.--T. Anthony 06:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first sentence convinces me this is of value..... to help in the look at the relationship between christianity and science
  • Keep — Encyclopedic. — RJH 00:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Izehar 22:18, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matchmaven[edit]

Advertisement written in biased point of view. Significance of subject not asserted. Hurricane111 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam spam spam spam lovely spam, wonderful spam (Spam is a trademark of Hormel Foods Company, used without permission. May contain traces of meat). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — advert. — RJH 00:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Izehar 22:16, 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 Speedy delete WTF?. -Doc ask? 00:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woo woo woo what the fuck is this[edit]

Neologism, non-encyclopedic. --Alan Au 21:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A1 short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 23:21, 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 no consensus. – Robert T | @ | C 00:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jovo[edit]

Potentially encyclopedic, but seems too much like an advertisement as currently written. --Alan Au 21:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Read Again I have edited the page to be more like the other Construction Toy pages (like Zome or K'NEX) --Alex Doskey 01:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep as rewritten; the new version is much better. --Alan Au 23:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Izehar 22:16, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional psychopaths[edit]

This list involves speculation and original research. There is no documentary evidence that some of these were psychopaths according to the medical definition. Oh, and it's listcruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reyk 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This list would be potentially huge, if kept. Nearly every crime novel/murder mystery/crime movie these days has some sort of psycopathic person as the villain. •DanMS 01:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — as speculative rather than factual, per nom. — RJH 00:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Izehar 22:16, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adversal[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Would seem to fail WP:WEB and WP:CORP guidelines if you're into that... Alexa rank of 268,928 [110] and well, not nearly as many Google hits as you'd expect for a link/advertising site. [111]. Author seems to have added a lot of other referal-spam looking stuff recently... --W.marsh 22:01, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imaginarius[edit]

Band vanity. 'Imaginarius "Orange County"' gets two google hits. You know the drill. --InShaneee 02:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The two members look notable. I think its a case of hoax because one is a programmer and the other is a film director. Delete. Hedley 02:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN or hoax. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity and/or hoax. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jessup[edit]

It's not so much that I'm having trouble finding evidence of notability, I can't actually find any evidence that the items in the discography actually exist. I even tried Jessop instead of Jessup. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as biography where no claim of notability has been made. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks an awful lot like a hoax or someone(s) playing games on the Wikipedia. (1) Allmusic never heard of her. (2) There is no beach in Skiatook, Oklahoma, (3) Look at the unlikely series of song names. (4) Most of all, look at the last line of text: “She likes...annoying the Wikipedia admins.” •DanMS 01:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be surprised to hear that the article is valid. She's a very unknown independent artist, but she's most certainly real. Also, Skiatook, Oklahoma is home to one of the larger lakes in the state, so there's where your "beach" comes from. —preceding unsigned comment by 66.82.9.89 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 November 2005 who is one of the contributors to the article.
    • As you are the contributor of the list of songs, please provide verification. •DanMS 02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • “Very unknown” = not notable. •DanMS 02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete looks like an obvious hoax to me.--Kalsermar 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verification and such, this is the only site I have ever been able to find on the subject. 66.82.9.81 09:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete cannot be so totally obscure and notable Pete.Hurd 07:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I personally know Ms. Jessup and can vouch for the authenticity of this entry The reason you all are having trouble with the Discography is that all of her albums were independantly produced and only released locally in the Tulsa metro area. smoke_eater_502 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Izehar 22:16, 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 speedied by RHaworth. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stinky House Entertainmemt[edit]

Very little context, appears to be advertising. Not sure if speediable, so sending it here. --Alan Au 22:19, 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 there's no point to delete, it's just a redirect and nobody's offered a reason to delete it. I have the IRC CABAL backing me up, so don't mess with me, people! :-p Seriously, if anyone thinks this should go, the right place is Redirects for Deletion, not here. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade (modern)[edit]

This page has been recently created. It's not a well written page and I have tagged it NPOV and I expect other tags could be used as well. Chelman tagged it for speedy delete, and I will add his vote here for him. However, the term is real, and the concept probably important. I think speedy is too fast, so I am nominating it for AfD. I however, intend to vote 'weak keep' Regards, Ben Aveling 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Chelman per nom. First off a crusade implies a war to further a (christian)religious cause. No matter what people's stances on the war in Iraq are it is conducted by mostly secular countries with a strict division of church and state who have no interest in overthrowing a religion. I am guessing that the author intended the more colloquial usage of the word crusade. In that case I would still opt for deletion. While the resentment among sections of the Islamic populace is undeniable I don't think that the term Crusade describes it. Only a handful of rather extremist organisations use that term. There are possibly many other sites that use other terms for the perceived aggression. It would make no sense to have an article for each since we could then have Final Solution (modern), Western Lebensraum (modern) and many more crafty terms. An article on this matter should be titled something like Perception of the War in Iraq whereby it would become possible to shed light on what extreme, moderate and non-muslims think about it as well as what do the Americans, Europeans etc. think about it. This would be a much more valuable entry. I am guessing that a similar section is in fact already present in the War on Iraq topics. Chelman 11:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Badly written, but worth saving, as above. Ben Aveling 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic is inherently POV. Zora 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user creates approximately ten new articles a day, many of which show up in AfD, as they are badly written stubs and strongly Shi'a POV. It takes us a lot longer to debate them than it does for him to create them. It's a losing battle. Some change in our procedures seems indicated. Zora 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV original research and WP:Complete Bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV/original research --tickle me 23:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for reason already mentioned --RaiderAspect 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to POV/original research. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tenth Crusade and Redirect. Googling for iraq crusade bush gives about 1,550,000 hits, so while the article may be POV, the term is real. And George Bush has described the GWOT on terror as a crusade. Only when he was told how much damage he was causing, did he stop using the term. He still describes it as a war on evil, which is more a religious term than a political one. All the arguments about POV I agree with. (I placed the POV tag myself, and I've checked the creator's edit history.) But the biggest argument is that there is already another page on this topic so I suggest a merge and redirect. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy merge I am the creator of the article. I made a Wiki search, but did not found anything. I míssed Tenth Crusade. Speedy merge the article into it. As for Zora, i claim that it is natural that many of my articles get deleted, whem im doing "10 per day". Of all voted for deletion, two are going to get deleted and this one merged. That is a good record IMHO. --Striver 07:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A good record would consist of having NO articles deleted and NOT making extra work for other editors. Zora 07:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that would be the case fot people not creating anything. --Striver 09:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that would be the case for people not creating cruft. --Last Malthusian 09:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV/original research Bwithh 03:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the page to a redirect. Which could still be deleted of course. But may I suggest that the above votes not be considered as votes on deleting the redirect unless the signatures are refreshed? Thanks, Ben Aveling 02:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 new/refreshed votes to delete. 0 to keep. (I'm abstaining.)

We could wait a little longer, but I suggest it's looking like consensus to delete even the redirect. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:38, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Software[edit]

Potentially encyclopedic, but I can't seem to verify that the term exists so I'm treating it as a neologism. However, if anyone wants to take a crack at improving it, feel free to do so. --Alan Au 22:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete last line begging not to delete as it is "growing" is a red flag. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose 'Green' would refer to the fact that it does not 'pollute' the computer on which it is located by modifying files other than its own? User:BrokenUnity 23:51, 23 November 2005


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atanas Atanasov[edit]

Atanasov was not notable for anything other than being killed in the attack. He is already mentioned in the Limburg_(tanker) article. -Reyk 22:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Even though I created the page in question I think we should delete it. PBP 22:37, 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 keep (although it has been suggested that this article should be renamed to Examples of fiction that breaks the fourth wall. BD2412 T 21:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall[edit]

I keep coming back to this one. On the plus side, it does make some attempt to discuss the encyclopaedic subject of dramatic irony; on the minus side, the list is potentially almost limitless, depending on where you put the bar; the technique is a mainstay of stage comedy (not least pantomime) and always will be, and many "straight" plays use this as a narrative device. So in the end, it is not actually particularly unusual, which I guess is why it is large and expanding, and why I consider that it is pointless, because it is potentially merely a list of al comic and a good proportion of dramatic theatre. Oh, and it includes original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An article about breaking the fourth wall would be justified. But making a list is rather like making "list of fiction where the protagonist dies". You could go on for all eternity. --RaiderAspect 23:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article appears to have been created to support the fourth wall article and I think it's got reader interest. It might be better served to rename the article Examples of fiction that breaks the fourth wall to avoid the list stigma. 23skidoo 05:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong merge to fourth wall. Pick a handful of examples and mention them there. Any list is going to be hopelessly unmaintainable and likely to attract cruft, but it isn't an idiosyncratic non-topic like many of these lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- with reservations I created this page to save fourth wall. No matter what I and a handful of other wise editors did on that page, pointless cruft examples kept creeping back in. This page was a last ditch attempt to make fourth wall encyclopedic, at the expense of a clearly pointless page here. It worked! Fourth Wall has remained largely undisturbed and I think is a good page. This list is, I admit, awful and I'd love to see it go, but for some reason Wikipedians seem to be desperate to list these somewhere. Think of this page as a holding area for useless content! Please check the history of fourth wall for a bit more background, and please, please, please, don't merge! Coyote-37 10:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very useful list, and I find most of the items presented here quite interesting. — JIP | Talk 11:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sure it has issues - fix them. --TimPope 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Before this article was created, the fourth wall article contained this list. Despite the efforts of some editors to trim the list down, examples continued to be added to the list. Attempting to establish some sort of minimum standard for this list didn't work, so the list was split off to its own article. It should remain or the same problems that you see here will again become part of the main article. Val42 18:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list, items extremely verifiable, not limitless as nom postulates. Obviously lots of work has gone into this article, and it seems well-maintained. Turnstep 21:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, and agree in principle, but my experiences of editing fourth wall tell me that there is no way to merge this without totally undermining the content of that page with a fancruft swamp. Fourth Wall currently deals with breaking in as much detail as I think is necessary. A list is not only bad prose, it invites deluge examples as seen here. I don't think Fourth Wall should contain a list of any kind. Coyote-37 10:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, makes examples available in more genres/media than if it was merged. Kappa 13:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is very cool and may even provoke others to buy or rent the media to see the fourth wall being broken.
  • Keep. Useful list. Not sure how we prevent it growing endlessly. Agree with 23skidoo's rename suggestion above. -- RHaworth 03:24, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maneuver x[edit]

film trivia plus non-notable neologism equals AfD Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Per nom. I'm not quite clear why somebody even bothered to put this page together. — RJH 00:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 07:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if someone feels it is super important merge it in with the movie Sethie 07:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Izehar 22:15, 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. – Robert T | @ | C 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Game Nostalgia[edit]

Blatant spam, advertising an obscure website that really hasn't got a lot of content. Reyk 23:41, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_23&oldid=1081093163"