The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable/hoax with zero google hits Cool3 01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as nonsense. The talk page was marked for whatever reason, hopefully an admin will see that. -- stillnotelfis invisible 01:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There's no such thing as a contested speedy; only admins may remove speedy tags. Speedy deletion is NOT prod. Warned the anons with {{drmspeedy}}. --Rory096 17:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But, to above, we should allow speedy contestations just in case a speedy would not be warranted. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April2006 @ 18:13 (UTC)
Comment. That's what admins are for. --Rory096 00:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a speedy delete, as it contains "She has been the guest speaker and panel member at many entertainment summits and forums including the worlds first entertainment media forum", which is a claim of notability. (And yes, I'm an admin.) However, delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. Stifle 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on Google --Snailwalker |talk 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted from Wikipedia because it is both original research and a how-to guide. Ginkgo100 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT a how-to guide. "This is my approach" — enough said, this reeks of WP:OR. --Kinut/c 01:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to guide --TBC????????? 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User said it himself "Suggestions and tips are from my own personal experience." Original work - sorry, Wiki isn't the place. Bridesmill 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC Celcius 02:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments at Aquarium. This isn't even a particularly cogent how to guide - no content worth merging. Kurutalk 03:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David Hoag 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikiquote. – Sceptre(Talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mass listing of many similar articles. All of these articles are very similarly dumps of primary source quotes lumped by category with no context. I propose: transwiki to wikiquote (which has themed entries) and delete. Dmcdevit·t 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikiquote per nom --TBC????????? 02:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikiquote. None of this is formatted or a real article. No reason to keep it here. SorryGuy 02:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tranwiki - looks like copyvio though... Celcius 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom. --Terence Ong 05:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Good resource. TKE 07:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki though I'm not entirely comfortable with letting a history teacher use any Wiki to host their lesson. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April2006 @ 18:17 (UTC)
Transwiki it's always a shame to lose content with value, so I always support transwikiing when it can be effective. Cool3 20:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Please! I was looking up a quote I heard. It was from the Surrender speech of Emperor Hirohito, and this was one of only two pages on the net found listing it. Still, I do sympathise with Cuivienen.Emo Elli 04:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep. April Fool's joke. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and end the conflict on Wikipedia. :P — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It helps the economy. Kotepho 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about oil prices? Do you want higher oil prices? It may help the economy, but does the conflict help you?--TBC????????? 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of Exxon/Mobil stock. Kotepho 02:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, might be notable, but with the exception of Nobel Prize winner User:TBC, nobody will ever understand it anyways.Bridesmill 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The Arab-Israeli Loveparade Celcius 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Everyone seriously needs to stop killing each other. AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME DESERVES TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clarinetplayer 05:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both sides to Antarctica, in the hopes that if they must quarrel, they will battle over an icebox where no-one else can get hurt. Grandmasterka 05:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And Jews, Christians, agnostics, Bhuddists...hell, anyone but me. TKE 07:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon ReflectionTBC????????? can stay. Helped me make my sig. What has anyone else done for me lately?TKE 07:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy kept. This is a serious topic with many lives lost and ruined. We should not be poking fun at it like this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 202 unique hits for searchstring [bushwar "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Remy B 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. ~MDD4696 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 104 unique Googles for searchstring ["Call to Arms" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection : There are a number of less than notable items - both software and entertainment related - that nonetheless should be catalogued and maintained - Mind you, that does not mean include all un-notable items - However, Battlefield 1942 was noteworthy, and I believe a mod to that game should be included - if only as a footnote. -- Mkamensek(talk) -The LeftOverChef 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Battlefield 1942 mods contains basic information and a link to the external site of hundreds of external mods. I'm more than happy for the basic information to stay there, but don't think it notable enough per WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE to merit its own article at this point in time. -- Saberwyn 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Remy B 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Battlefield 1942 mod.
126 unique google hits. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites, and several of these confuse themselves with the "Black Hawk Down" mod, and the combined project between the teams of both mods- "Conflict in Somalia: Black Hawk Down. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod, and the article itself states that the various incarnations of the mod were poorly received by the player community. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After deletion (if consensus goes that way), may serve as a useful redirect to somewhere. -- Saberwyn 02:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh God, not another mod! --TBC????????? 02:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come have a look at Category:Battlefield 1942 mods. I'm slowly going through them and sorting out which ones are externally verifiable with 'reliable sources', and AFDing the rest. -- Saberwyn 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Goat-flinglingly non-notable Celcius 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Battlefield and Delete as per nom & goatfling aspect. As per Saberwyn, may be useful redirect for the real Somalia conflict Bridesmill 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the information I personally think that is needed in Wikipedia on the mod is the external link provided at the List of Battlefield 1942 mods article. -- Saberwyn 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as modcruft. Royboycrashfan 03:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, modcruft. --Terence Ong 06:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as above, I don't think game mods are notable. JIP | Talk 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Remy B 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD G1 Naconkantarie|t||c|m 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense, tagged accordingly. Brian G. Crawford 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And poke author with a stick Celcius 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Fling a goat. Should've had the AprilFool template I think Bridesmill 02:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Adam(talk) 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 207 unique Googles for searchstring ["Desert Conflict" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
note. I moved the content of this article from Desert Combat back to its own article, where it had been dumped. This mod and Desert Combat should not be confused. -- Saberwyn 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blast it to hell along with any other non-notable mods out there --TBC????????? 03:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as modcruft. Royboycrashfan 03:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-mod. Stifle 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as revised -Sgt Simpson (4/4/06)
To my eye, the article still does not provide a counterpoint to any of the points I have raised in the deletion (ie very limited spread as per google, information is unverifiable through the use of reliable third party sources) -- Saberwyn 11:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a mod in progress, therefore no reviews can be accomplished, 'battlefield 1942' was a full game released which Desert Combat was the mod , Desert Conflict comes out for 'Battlefield 2' sources can be viewed in the updates section -Sgt Simpson (4/5/06)
Unfortunately, when it comes to reliable, third-party sources, using your website as a source for your mod is equevilat to me writing an article on how I am king of a hidden colony of elves, and saying "To see that I am telling the truth, ring me". -- Saberwyn 10:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it will be deleted then. I tend to agree with Saberwyn, even though I am a fan of the mod and thus biased. Jens Lyn IV 16:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a thing cannot be assumed, what he was talking about is trying to prove a fact, while the purpose of the website is to give information, not to convince opinions - Sgt Simpson 4/6/06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified by works cited now in article. Bucketsofg 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Kahuroa 11:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wasn't this nominated on AfD and verified yesterday? Anyhow, Encyclopedia Mythica has an article on the above subject--TBC????????? 03:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yes, the whole series was pulled and we're reconsidering them one at a time. Bucketsofg 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. The whole problem with many of these articles was that Encyclopedia Mythica seems to be largely made up on the spot. It seems to be an extremely unreliable source. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment, Just checked and it seems that Encyclopedia Mythica entrees aren't made on the spot, but based on user contributions, sort of like (ironically) Wikipedia --TBC????????? 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified by sources now cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since I'm the one who added the references to this. Crypticfirefly 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified and (it seems) nonsensical. Bucketsofg 04:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Kahuroa 11:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verify and Keep If this can be verified, why delete? Its this kind on information thats supposed to make Wikipedia better than a paper encyclopedia. I do not believe NOM has made a case for deletion with this individual listing. Roodog2k 14:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The point, Roodog, is that after several days of looking, none of us have been able to find anything to verify the entry. (See the talk page of the entry for a guess or two about what's gone wrong. One way or the other, it seems that this term is two or three removes from something) Bucketsofg 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it can't be verified. We went over this at the batch listing.--Cúchullaintc 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm assuming verification was attempted in english. Will strikethrough my vote if it can be shown that attempts were made to verify in the native language. --MateoP 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. See my comment on the discussion page of the article Talk: Pia (mythology) regarding its verifiability in the 'native' language. I am Māori. Kahuroa 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 content; I am moving this page to Ruatapu; I do not see a consensus to merge, but this can be futher discussed on the talk page. - Liberatore(T) 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified now by work now cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Kahuroa below Bucketsofg 12:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verified. --Terence Ong 09:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Paikea which deals with the same events. The name should be Ruatapu by the way Kahuroa 11:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see the slightest reason not to have stubs on lots of mythological characters. - Brownlee 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find verification for this one. Bucketsofg 04:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, found some sites that verify this article (About.com and Encyclopedia Mythica). Not sure if they are reliable, though [1][2], as they might have been based off of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I am wrong. --TBC????????? 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment, as I understand it, that site was the original source for many of the articles we're now sorting through. Some of the information there is correct, some is simply wrong. So, generally, I would say that if this is the only place we can find confirmation, the information is probably erroneous. Bucketsofg 05:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I recently looked through Encyclopedia Mythica and it turns out that the articles are based on user submissions, sort of like (ironically), Wikipedia --TBC????????? 06:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bucketsofg. Kahuroa 11:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified as far as I can see. Bucketsofg 04:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 09:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and because no indication of source culture. Kahuroa 11:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I agree - Pantheon.org is unreliable Kahuroa 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified. Bucketsofg 04:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 09:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Kahuroa 11:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified. Bucketsofg 04:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 09:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Kahuroa 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified by the sources now cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Bucketsofg verification. --Terence Ong 09:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Perhaps (I realise now) should be spelt Ta'iri and thus related to Tawhirimatea, Māori weather god Kahuroa 11:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified by sources now cited in article. Bucketsofg 04:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Bucketsofg verified it. --Terence Ong 09:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Kahuroa 11:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later comment: move to (Rohe mythology) as it is Rohe in all early sources I have found. This will entail a disambiguation page - there is already an article Rohe on another subject. Kahuroa 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified. Bucketsofg 04:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Kahuroa 11:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified by sources now cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Bicletspfg verification. --Terence Ong 09:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. "Bicletspfg"? :-) Bucketsofg 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's better than being called "Gruntess" all the time :) Grutness...wha? 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I would move it to PuatutahiKahuroa 11:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified in Kraemer (cited in article). Bucketsofg 04:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verified by bucketsofg. If possible, I would like to suppoort retention of all articles verified by bucketsofg and delete all those that they are not able to verify. Capitalistroadster 09:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Bucketsofg verification. --Terence Ong 09:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Kahuroa 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified. Bucketsofg 04:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 09:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Kahuroa 10:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about two game mods. One was for Battlefield 1942 mod (which according to the article was a total flop). The other (Half Life 2 mod) is still in development, therefore being vaporware and crystal balling. 261 unique googles when searching for ["Empires" "Battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]; most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites, and there are several "From the creators of the Battlefield mod, it's now coming to HL2"-esque confusions. Changing the games in the searchstring comes up with 241 unique hits. Article has minimal content. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as modcruft. Royboycrashfan 03:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Zxcvbnm 04:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn software, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 09:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The most notable and reliable source that this mod exists is from Valve Software from one of their press/marketing releases found here. Because of Valve's Steam content delivery system, that message will have reached at least a million people. Most people within the Half-Life gaming community will know of this mod in passing at least. The mod is currently in Beta, and has clocked up almost 3 million player minutes in the last month. I've not even played this mod (it sounds rubbish), but from my perspective and looking at the stats, it's more notable than Kreedz Climbing and GoldenEye: Source. - Hahnchen 12:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another game mod. JIP | Talk 14:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't figure out what this is about, but even if it is a notable and encyclopedic topic, this is not the right article for it. Smells of original research. --Kinut/c 04:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What in the world?? This looks like it was written by a five-year-old prodigy. No context, barely coherent. I would say speedy delete if I wasn't marveling over how strange and unusual this is... Grandmasterka 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Weak keep per Eloquence's comment, and as this is becoming a coherent topic now. Grandmasterka 02:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --James 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Man, it's written in metric. Nah, per above TKE 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely original research in the style of writing. Can't we just speedy this away? --Terence Ong 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per grandmasterka. If this needs mentioned, it needs some parent article to justify its content. If it needs to be kept, at the max its contents (after major rewrite) should be transferred to some other article. --Soumyasch 09:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per grandmasterka --Deville (Talk) 14:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, although it could be real, right now the article reads exactly like original research and/or a hoax. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April2006 @ 18:20 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - It sounds like a high-school paper and is lacking in Wikipedia cred, starting with the misspelled title. (It receives bonus points, however, for using the metric system.) But the subject is of importance in rocket launch telemetry and the like; I believe it was an airborne tracking camera that documented the foam strike that led to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. If the article is improved drastically, and probably trimmed somewhat, it should be kept. Otherwise, try again. ProhibitOnions 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am in contact with the user. He's not a five-year-old, but he's not a native English speaker and dyslexic on top of that. He does, however, know a lot about both the technology and history of spaceflight, and I think he could make useful contributions to Wikipedia with some mentoring. I'm making an attempt to work with him to bring the article up to snuff - please don't speedy delete it.--Eloquence* 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Adam(talk) 13:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. This is a twenty-something former Democratic staffer. She looked up a credit report on a Senate candidate without authorization. She pled guilty to this misdemeanor, and did 150 hours of community service. Do we really need an encyclopedia article on her? I think not. This is already covered in Michael Steele (the candidate), and at best ought to be a redirect there. Derex 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new article where I think it is more apporpriate DSCC credit report incident. I don't think it belongs in the Steele article as it will swamp it with too much details but a separate Weiner page takes away from the notable issue (which isn't Lauren but the whole DSCC event. Thanks to Derek for getting me to think about this. I am changing my vote to Delete. I ahve already merged the details. --Tbeatty 17:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've merged too many details. Wiener is nonnotable, and the datum about where she got her degree isn't worth mentioning in the article about this minor incident. I think Monicasdude has a good point, though, about this incident being kept alive for partisan reasons. (That Steele was a victim of this and of the Oreo incident seems to be the bulk of the rationale for making him a Senator.) Therefore, after this bio is deleted, I'd support a redirect to the article about the incident. JamesMLanetc 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so it's already mentioned on the candidate's article. Does we need a whole article on a picayune event, disguised as an article about some kid? Derex 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "involvement of DSCC higher ups" would suggest to many readers that the higher-ups were complicit in a crime. In fact, however, according to the cited document, their involvement was that, upon learning of the incident, they ordered Weiner to destroy the credit report. They then reported their employee's misconduct to the U.S. Attorney's Office. So, yes, that's technically "involvement", but not the kind that would make the incident notable. It won't become "a cancer on the DSCC" (the Watergate analogy). JamesMLanetc 08:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply meant it to include her boss who was also fired and complicit.--Tbeatty 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the story will be kept alive by partisans indefinitely and an objective reference will be useful. Monicasdude 04:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quit petty, but I really can't freaking believe this. Had just come back from being gone, but am again reminded how ridiculous this place has become. Got better things to do. sorry, _bad_ week. think the article should go on the merits. but got upset thinking how rotten it is for some young person to be memorialized with a wikipedia article for the rest of her life over something like this; not exactly watergate, and best handled in the candidate's article. at any rate, deleteDerex 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's a Brian Chase, not a John Siegenthaler. Gamaliel 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best she should be merged with one of the associated articles, as an individual she is simply not notable. JoshuaZ 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --James 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two reasons for my vote. Her search results return almost only (I haven't found a bio yet of 551) news results. She's a current event, so belongs in wikinews. That leads me to number two: that's where Watergate should be if this were just after the breaking. Move to Wikinews, or delete from here. I'd support recreation if it becomes more than the regular beltway scandal. TKE 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This individual is nonnotable. The incident is mentioned in the article on Steele. I'm undecided about whether the Katie Barge article should stay. JamesMLanetc 08:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. She just got fined and did community service?? If that is the case, everyone who did that also will have an article here. --Terence Ong 09:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant info about the incident should be in the Michael Steele article but she is way under the radar of deserving separate coverage. Thatcher131 12:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TKE has it exactly right --Deville (Talk) 14:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I don't think she's notable enough just because of that incident. JIP | Talk 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not notable enough by my standards. --Khoikhoi 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If everyone who had their name in the Washington Post once deserved an article, WP would not be a very good encyclopedia. Bcarlson33 05:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge any unique information relevant to the article on Michael Steele. Not notable enough for separate article. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 06:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per RyanFreisling. ProhibitOnions 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above information. Kukini 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, meaningful news coverage... could be merged though I guess. --W.marsh 17:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN machinima production. Still not released. It will be shown at SIGGRAPH 2006, apparently, which is in late July. How can this be notable yet? Is there a sale on crystal balls? Previously survived nomination about six months ago with a result of No Consensus. A google search for "Kai" and "Death of Dreams", filtering out hits from the official site, and Wikipedia and its primary mirrors gets only 383 hits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard deCosta (2nd nomination). Drat (Talk) 04:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article could always be re-created later if the production becomes notable. But, as with most of the arts, the vast majority of works do not reach that status. — TKD::Talk 04:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MaxSem 11:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 reposting of deleted content. Stifle 23:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly interesting website. Sadly, it seems to fail WP:WEB with an Alexa ranking of 848,428 (as of right now.) Delete. Grandmasterka 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. RobertG ♬ talk 13:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I have refactored part of this discussion to the talk page so that the long comments do not block up the day's AFD page. This is not an assertion that the discussion is of less importance than other comments, merely that they are a bit long. Please continue to place keep/delete recommendations here and use the talk page for longer comments.Stifle 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable movie, no IMDb profile [4] --TBC????????? 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Google shows no hits and the content isn't verifiable. (Pity in a way, as the movie sounds a lot more interesting than many movies whose existence is all too verifiable.) -- Hoary 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete...Content isnt on IMDB because it hasn't been released yet. It is a local film that has played in Seattle and Portland made by an independent who is the cousin of crispin glover. Content is easily verifiable. IMDB is not a standard for the existence of cinema. What does notable mean? The filmmakers web page is http://www.zerohorizon.com/zerohorizonoldold.html You have raised an intersting question in any case...Wikipedia hosting content that doesn't exist in another location would simply defeat the purpose of its existence, it would make wikipedia a cache/search engine. Your argument simply makes the statement that Wikipedia does not have content that is unique. This movie is definitely not a main stream movie and their are many films not listed in imdb. You should state what verifiable means? ....added by User:67.183.90.139 (contribs)
Comment The criteria for that are at WP:V. JoshuaZ 07:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete... It doesn't meet the criteria for deletion and it is becoming obvious after reading the talk page that the original deleter has a personal interest in removing the article.JoshuaZ 07:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ...This edit was made by User:Joshuaz (small z), who signed himself or herself "JoshuaZ" and was soon banned[reply]
Comment Good eye, Hoary... this was a subtle trick. I guess it is April 1. --Deville (Talk) 14:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very much non-notable. (Perhaps a pity as per Hoary, but that's how it is.) A [Google search seems to return 2 hits not on Wik or mirrors, and both of those seem to be on the filmmakers page. Particularly bad is what happens when you click on the official release page! --Deville (Talk) 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete...That apparently isnt an official release page, where did you get that nonsense? It is just an html page that was titled funkastophales.html. remainder of this comment refactored to talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.36.12 (talk • contribs)
Yawn, I already told you I've never been to your forum, the article was prodded because it didnt meet WP:N or WP:V, I suggest you spend time trying to explain to us how it meets WP:V or WP:N rather than engaging in personal attacks and making an impostor account. JoshuaZ 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per our policy requiring all articles to be verifiable. Capitalistroadster 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable assertions of notablity. - Rynne 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn film. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable movie, as per nom. David D.(Talk) 05:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable & non-verifiable. MaxSem 11:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn film. Stifle 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Adam(talk) 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable institute, and it has already been described and listed in the entry "vanity press". It might be suitable for either deletion or merge into vanity press. Fspol 05:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, just becase its been described in another article doesn't mean it can't merit its own articleDelete per Roodog2k --TBC????????? 05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Not enough context for me to establish a vote. Royboycrashfan 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Am I going crazy, or did nom create the article a week ago and is now proposing deleting it? Roodog2k 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it - I'd assume a consequence of further research. Average Earthman 16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say delete seeing as this is borderline G7. Royboycrashfan 19:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently User:Fspol joined Wikipedia to create the article on Valerio Massimo Manfredi. The user's information on Manfredi noted he had won some award from ABI. So the user also created an article on the "institute," using information from ABI's own publicity materials. When I changed the article to point out that ABI is a vanity publisher (a nice way of saying "scam,"), Fspol realized what ABI actually is. -- Mwalcoff 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD U1. Naconkantarie|t||c|m 05:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
May not be all that useful; seems to be a dictionary def. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Obviously one can tell that a Certified Novell Instructor is an instructor who is certified by Novell. --TBC????????? 05:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantarie|t||c|m 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn - only 4 google hits [5]-- Arnzy (Talk) 05:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Claims to be the "first private centre in Germany which began its practice only in the field of bariatric surgery", but I can't find anything to verify this. --TBC????????? 05:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suspect a hoax. The only links are Wik and Wik mirrors. A "Centre" for anything in Germany would have a web presence. And if it exists after all, nn. --Deville (Talk) 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, try (zentrum für adipositas chirurgie), as the centre is German and there may be less English links present.
Delete The Greman search only gives 9 hits - all of which seem to be for different places. Dlyons493Talk 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Centre new, according to its website. So there may be less links present. (Try Roserklinik as it is the same centre)--Inovat 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN independent film. "The film opened theaters in Dallas on July 22nd, 2005 to a generally receptive crowd and moderate acclaim." The flier on the myspace page of the "actor/director/composer/editor" shows that those "theaters" are actually a single small Dallas art gallery. Despite an IMDB entry, the film gets only 40 Ghits and not one review on Rotten Tomatoes. - Rynne 05:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't outsmart us. Yet another entry that I beat in google hits. Grandmasterka 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another example of where IMDb proves unreliable --TBC????????? 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn film. IMO, it is ok to use a lack of IMDB as a reason to delete, much more rarely as a reason to keep. JoshuaZ 06:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 40 Ghits ain't gonna get it for a film. Also agree with JoshuaZ's IMDb analysis --Deville (Talk) 14:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn film, 40 Google hits is definitely proved to be nn despite an IMDB profile. --Terence Ong 16:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the flyer shown is just from the premiere showing. But deletion is understandable in this case.
-Brandon
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why the page should be deleted Orion Minor 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Do NOT DELETE, NO! please notify me of any problems or inconsistencies. First off, the family tree is related to WORK, not genetics. The family tree is based on rank, as stated in the summary. Before saying stuff like that, read the bit first. of course vegeta isn't blood related. that's not what the tree is about. I'm against the deletion also because I spent hours making the pages. Let's fix the stuff you find wrong, but deletion is a bad idea. - Zarbon
If a family tree isn't based on genetic relationships, then it isn't called a "family" tree --TBC????????? 23:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete, hmm...i for one like the page. i don't think it's false info. i mean, the creator of the page has written in the beginning that its relation is for the work force and not based on a blood relaion, so you guys misunderstood him there. I think the page should stay. - 71.246.104.214
DeleteWP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not sure how this is of interest to anyone that has not watched the series and if you have watched it... what do you need this chart for? Kotepho 23:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT. --Khoikhoi 03:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft, OR, and because WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. MCB 07:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given above, setting aside my thought that 71.246.104.214 might be an anonymous Zarbon sock-puppet. Voice of Treason 07:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. MaxSem 12:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For all intensive purposes, you ppl are neglecting the work i put into it. it took me days, literally, to get all the stuff together. you do realize that there is truth behind it and its not fan-whatever you want to call it. you can easily fix the stuff you find inconsistent without deleting it. that's why discussion pages are made in the first place. but to say that something's fanmade is just plain negligent ignorance from all your part. - Zarbon
Zarbon -- please see WP:OWN and WP:NPA. Also see your own talk page and the dozens of criticisms and warnings you've received for violating various Wikipedia policies. You seem to have contributed some good edits in between the numerous edit wars and other conflicts, but if you continue like this you're eventually either going to get frustrated and quit or wind up banned. It's never good to lose someone who has the potential to be a constructive editor. 4.89.246.208 18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, what you are saying is recognizable. But what can i do to prevent the deletion of something i spent so long to construct? - Zarbon
Delete - fancruft. Kafziel 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neutral/don't delete, personally...i find some of the stuff accurate. the description is well done. based on some stuff though...(paragus)...there are inconsistencies. but overall, the page shouldn't be deleted. maybe you guys can have him fix the stuff or something. i don't think deleting the page will solve the problem though. - 149.68.168.184
I am seriously getting tired of being accused of sock puppetry. this is lame. just because others have similar ip's and post near the same time as me, does not make them sock puppets. Also, I'm leaving this decision on you ppl, because you seemingly aren't paying any attention to the work itself and are pretty much "ganging up" on me. Half the people here I already know or have crossed paths with before and they are obviously looking for a chance to screw me over since they've had it out for me ever since the start. - Zarbon
Comment: The reason you're being suspected of sock puppetry is because these anonymous IP addresses are posting to Talk pages as Zarbon. Note that the above "don't delete" vote and my note of sockpuppetry was deleted by 149.68.172.71, who also appears to be a sockpuppet of Zarbon. - Rynne 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case may be...the discussion is about my page. Please...for all those against me, please rethink it. I spent a very long time compiling all that which is needed to build this page. It is my essence, but it is also mostly factual. - Zarbon
It isn't your page; it's Wikipedia's page, and this is the procedure to decide if the pages stay or go. If you think it doesn't meet the stated criteria for deletion, then argue the specific points in question. Up until the time the pages are deleted, you can freely save a copy of the pages so that you can post them later to other websites if you want to. There are probably some anime Wikis out there that would welcome them. You might even be able to incorporate your power structure charts into existing DBZ articles here on Wikipedia, but having four articles just to showcase four charts you drew probably isn't ever going to gain acceptance.4.89.242.145 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN FC. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 16:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wikitree? I didn't even know that existed. - Zarbon
Delete - The tree is completely absurd and should be removed. If it isn't based on genetics, why call it a family tree?? Call it a corporate ladder or whatever, but under the current name, it only misleads those reading it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.195.149 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rory096 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Also, answering the quetion featured in the article, "Is democracy the root of Anarchy?", yes it is, and it has been for some time --TBC????????? 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopaedic, and not NPOV. --Dessydes 11:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantarie|t||c|m 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete author request, see page history. Someone should also tell the user how to use user talks and/or AIM. --Rory096 05:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 either for delete or merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it was in the local newspaper (local being the tri-state region), it won't be remembered in a year, let alone 10 years. Rory096 05:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though most likely no one will ever remember it, its notable enough in that its rare for a coyote to find its way into Central Park (only two recorded incidents). It has also been featured in the New York Times[6] --TBC????????? 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was all over the news here in New York for a day. For a day. Delete - its a [...] coyote. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Central Park. (And by "merge to Central Park", I mean there could be a sentence in the Central Park article which says, "Oh, yeah, and one day there was a coyote there.") I didn't hear about this, although perhaps I've not been watching "Fox Five" as religiously as I should, but this was clearly not really notable even for NYC. The best part is that the coyote "died mysteriously", like it's some kind of conspiracy theory. When, of course, the cause is clear: they let grad students mess with him. No mystery at all. w00t --Deville (Talk) 14:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a great deal of mystery surrounding Hal, how it got into NYC, the strange death, etc. Needs expansion to discuss the issues involved. -- JJay 15:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Deville.--Adam(talk) 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable national news. Also has connection to notable phenomenon of wild animals increasingly being found in urban areas. Interestingstuffadder 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's create an article about that instead. Daniel Case 18:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more suited to a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Not notable. --Tone 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Merge to Central park, it is interesting to mention it there. --Tone 17:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I have merged Hal (coyote) into this article, expanding it. Choess 19:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless the cougar found in Philly two years back gets an article. •Jim62sch• 20:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to say, this coyote is exactly as notable as the cheerleader who fell on her head, and she's survived AfD twice. Fan1967 20:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that Hal is probably one of the most famous coyotes in the US, he is hardly as noteworthy as Kristi Yamaoka. Hal never got a call from the President and died too young to be on the Today show. However, Hal's death in mysterious circumstances adds a whole new layer to the story. Like Jim Morrison his mystique can only grow with time. -- JJay 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They both had their Andy Warhol Minute, and will never be heard from again. The details of their AWM don't matter. Fan1967 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Warhol's 15 minutes lasted almost 40 years. If he was still alive he might have wanted to paint both Hal and Ms. Yamaoka. Both have had a lasting impact on many people, particularly of the cheerleader persuasion. And unless you know what is going to happen on April 20th, you really shouldn't make reckless predictions about the future. -- JJay 21:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: national media attention...although this is probably a 15 minutes of fame situation, such incidents seem notable when they attract this kind of attention...hal has likley become a piece of nyc and national lore. Quepasahombre 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NYC and national lore? His fame is already fading fast. His capture made it onto the front page of Newsday; his death barely got a quarter of a page. --Rory096 00:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hal's NY Times Obituary [7]. Note that the NY Times is distributed throughout the US and overseas. -- JJay 00:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the font size of NYT, that's extremely small. --Rory096 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Perhaps the BBC is bigger [8], or The Age (Australia) [9], The Australian [10], National Geographic [11], EiTB (Spain) [12], NewKerala (India) [13], Toronto Sun (Canada) [14], etc. I guess the news made it a bit beyond the tri-state area. -- JJay 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's made the news doesn't mean it's going to be notable in a year. And were those actually in the newspapers, or just online? --Rory096 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While you pose an interesting existential question, unless you are James Van Praagh we won't have the answer for another 12 months. My point in listing some of those links, was to show that instead of being a local New York news story as you claimed in your nom, it was actually an international story reported by news services in dozens of countries. Checking Newsbank I can confirm that the story was printed in newspapers in every major market in the US, and in the Canadian, UK, Australian, Turkish, and Mexican press. -- JJay 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mammals typically found in wilderness areas (e.g., cougars, bears, wolves) straying into urban centres is so common as to be non-notable. Fishhead64 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: you are right to an extent. ordinarily it is very non-notable when a wilderness mammal roams into an urban center. However, this coyote became a nationally (internationally?)-covered media event. It is this media event, as much as the coyote itself, that makes this a sufficiently notable topic to merit a wikipedia article. Interestingstuffadder 22:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. But it is a one-day-wonder type media event. Fishhead64 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it is basically a one-day-wonder event. But one day wonder events are frequently notable...see any super bowl or major disaster. They just happem, they are not dynamic or ongoing. Since so many events that anyone would consider notable would fall into this one day event category, this seems like an exceedingly weak rationale for deleting an article about a topic that gained such widespread media attention. Interestingstuffadder 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep how long has it been since a coyote was in c. park? 132.241.246.111 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Central Park. Moriori 01:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep. I leave it to the wikipedia experts to debate this, and value your opinion on this subject. My purpose for writing this article was to secure a place, albeit a small place, for Hal in the democraticly managed historical registrar, and not just allowing it to fade like an old front page of the New York Post. User:Thomashartbenton 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep at least for now. Let it play out a bit. Bcarlson33 05:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ephemeral news story. MCB 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...notable national news story and possible new piece of NYC lengend. Captaintruth 17:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nationol news Seano1 00:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not Wikinews. Stifle 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone wants to include a mention in Central Park, fine. But this is news and not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 21:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, was in two television shows (High School Stories and Love Monkey) on notable television stations (MTV and CBS)delete per below comments --TBC????????? 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor nn actor. JoshuaZ 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two minor roles doesn't make a working actor, and most definivetly not a notable one. Eivindt@c 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all and especially Eivind. This dude has to be waiting tables or the like as well, if he's eating. Also, "born April 26..." "What year?" "Every year!" --Deville (Talk) 14:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Maybe delete, and come back when more well known and of public interest --Thisisnottheway 01:08, April 2006 (UTC)
Hi...no waiting tables here...actual working actor, not waiter...I fixed a lot of links and validated some things...but I understand that the public interest may not be broad enough so delete it if you must.
-Brandon
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I {{prod}}ded this, prod removed without improvement, so delete as violation of WP:WEB. (aeropagitica) 08:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Alexa results == gone. --Deville (Talk) 14:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website, fails WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 16:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A song not released as a single, only claim to notability is that it is used in a Macromedia flash clip. Song not mentioned in our Kaizers Orchestra article. Article reads like an ad for the flash clip. Eivindt@c 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, at least verifiable. --Soumyasch 06:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
okay, Delete--Soumyasch 06:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, though verfiable, the guideline, WP:MUSIC/SONG states that " a song is definitely notable if it meets any one of the following standards: it has won a major award; it is an official anthem of a notable state, region, province or territory; it is a musical standard (e.g. a pop or jazz standard); or if its a folk song, hymn or Christmas carol with a documented history of more than fifty years". As far as I know, the nominated article doesn't meet any of these requirements --TBC????????? 06:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another person trying to promote their nn blog. Daniel Case 06:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response: It is not a blog, it is a website about new rants that arrive almost every week. Think of it as a Maddox-like website. I repeat, this is NOT a blog. Chubz123 06:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether a blog or something else, it doesn't meet WP:WEB. And having a weekly rant is highly unimpressive anyways, I have them at least daily. JoshuaZ 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daily or not, Josh, I run a busy schedule and therefore cannot continuously produce these articles. Doing a daily rant would also drain way topics and would turn it into more of a "same ol' same ol'" type deal than a site containing quality, humorous rants. Chubz123 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be offensive, but the amount of effort you put into making a blog doesn't increase its notability --TBC????????? 06:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That part was meant to be humorous, the issue you need to deal with in order for this to be kept on Wikipedia is explaining how the site fits in with WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 06:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it was my fault to have created this page in the first place. I didn't know that it was against the policy to create an article relating to a website that you wanted to include. I personally don't see what the problem is, since any other similar articles could be placed alongside it on a referral page or something of that type, but there's nothing else I really have to say. All apologies. Chubz123 06:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not your fault, votes aren't personal, and thanks for being civil. These pages are just business of keeping the server loads down based on building an online encyclopedia. Stick around, it's a nice place. CC to user's talk. TKE 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted, closing as per Mithent's request. (aeropagitica) 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encycolpediac Soumyasch 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted.. this needs closing. -- Mithent 12:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
You fool! You've created a paradox! --Golbez 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that just means it'll be deleted and recreated. And then speedily deleted as a recreation. Grandmasterka 08:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. BJAODN or transwiki to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which needs exactly this grade of "humor". - Sikon 07:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blast it to hell, Wikipedia should embrace its communist ideals and remove all nonsense articles that encourage individual thought and that do not help to promote the communist cause. Big Brother is watching! Big Brother is always watching! --TBC????????? 07:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Wikipedia is communism!? --Golbez 08:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Soviet Russia, you don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia edits you! --TBC????????? 08:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrible article. Obviously created solely for the purpose of vandalism. Also hard on the eyes. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with this page, then BJAODN the redirect, and afterwards Nominate for Collabiration of the Week, Article Improvement Drive, Peer Review and finally Feature it. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 11:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Disclaimer: The below referendum was an April Fool's joke and should not be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Consensus is muddy as to whether this is a redirect or a delete, but as there was a clear consensus to delete its parent article, deleting its daughter is the right thing to do. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge relevant material to Rutgers University Page. As listcruft and possible content fork. Jersey Devil 07:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge as per Jersey Devil. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more appropriate a la listcruft. Roodog2k 14:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Separate page like this is probably the best way to handle greek systems at individual universities. -- JJay 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fraternities are of virtually no interest to anyone other than their members. This article is a list of interest to only a very limited number of people, in other words it is listcruft. Stifle 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (if necessary) Keep; do not merge. Regardless of whether or not this stuff is notable (I certainly don't think so), it certainly does not belong in Rutgers University itself. Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete all of this information was in the Rutgers University page and was then removed by a user and put into a page titled Rutgers University Presidents, alumni, faculty, student organizations, buildings and campuses which was then changed to this page. I have re-added the info back to the Rutgers University page so we can discuss what to do with it there. As the page is now it doesn't merit its own article (as currently it could be called a content fork and listcruft as I just moved the info back). Jersey Devil 07:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as per Jersey Devil. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge content, delete article name as per above. Roodog2k 14:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see your point, but this article also includes places. THAT content should certainly be moved to stay in keeping with the other articles you're referencing Roodog2k 14:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that articles can be renamed, edited and merged. All without AfD. When I "vote" on AfD, I base my opinion on whether the subject is suitable for an article. In this case it clearly is. It does not matter that much to me if the list is separate or part of a very long Rutgers article. What does matter is that we affirm that it is valid to list noteworthy grads, places etc connected with Rutgers. -- JJay 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P199 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seperate, or something of the sort. Whatever happens, don't merge with the main article and clear it up. (This never should have seen AfD, by the way.) Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 07:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the article on the university. This is not a keep vote.Stifle 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a stick indiscriminate collection of information. John Reid 06:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As it is an unreleased magazine, which may or may not become notable, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball per WP:NOT. -- Blue520 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stifle 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New to Wikipedia and have edited the current entry. I disagree with deletion submission. Source is also verifiable. If necessary contact Dwayne Wiggins, Comedy Central, Eric Benet.
Respectfully submitted.
Keep --User:Krystal Cooper 1 April 2006
Hello, and welcome. It's tough to get into Wikipedia. Dozens of bands try every day. Most are deleted. There's a tough policy on how "notable" a band has to be to get in, and it's here: WP:BAND. Take a look there, please.
There are two key things about Wikipedia to know. First, you get written about; you don't write about yourself. See WP:VAIN. Second, everything has to be checkable against some outside source; TV, magazine, well-known web site, or something like that. (Blogs don't count. Neither
does your own web site.) It's all about your rep.
If you've been covered in magazines, add those mentions to your article. (They're supposed to be in a strict format, but if you just get the important info in there, someone else will probably fix that.) When you've been on TV or radio, list shows, dates, and songs. Or get your fans to do it. Most bands are put up on Wikipedia by their fans, not the band. That's what fan clubs are for.
What's killing your entry is that there's not much in Google about you. That's how everybody makes a quick check.
I'm not a music expert; I'm just doing cleanup tonight as a volunteer. I have no strong opinion either way. --John Nagle 09:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, (waving) Thanks John. That helps a lot. Actually this is a fan. How do I link to outside sources, TV, Magazines,etc. I don't understand the tags. What is format for including magazine articles. I wonder if another problem is that he goes by Taz. His real name is Dante' M. Roberson. But thanks again for clearing it up. We will try to fix the entry approriately to be accepted into wikipedia.
That's been taken care of by a move. Thanks.--John Nagle 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
verify, cleanup, and keep because he may be notable as per WP:MUSIC due to his association with Dwayne Wiggins. If he played on a hit album, how could he not be notable? Roodog2k 14:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Drummer with band seen by tons of people on TV. Seems to have recorded with lots of major musicians. Good enough for me. -- JJay 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking today, it looks like this is turning into a "keep" article. We now have a discography, it was a fan, not a vanity article, and more references are appearing. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Process of Cleaning up
Hi everyone, again thank you for looking at the article. I'm Trying to clean up and put in correct format. Is there a different type of tag I need? --User:Krystal Cooper 2 April 2006
--WP:Band Criteria
Went over the WP:Band article. I'm still trying to figure out how to link based on the WP Music/Band criteria
Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country[1]. Dwayne Wiggins, Eyes Never Lie and selected Discography.
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources. Dwayne Wiggins,98 Degrees, Eric Benet, Najee
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). -See Discography
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) D.L.Hughley, Comedy Central is a Network Channel.
Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.discography
Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.discography
Source Cited in Television: Comedy Central Network: Weekends at the D.L. :1st Season, 2nd season in production.
Source Cited in Video: Eric Benet' World Tour:
Source Cited in Links: Link to video from tour, Photography from tour and Television show.
Source Cited in Discography & Artists Toured with.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be pissed at this article, either a hoax or made-up. 10,800 hits on Google, many part of a fan site for the building or mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm going to vote delete.SushiGeek 08:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - holy crap what's going on here?! A new search without "Wikipedia" returns waaaay fewer hits. Weird. Grandmasterka 08:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly it. SushiGeek 08:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment deficient Latinity. (What would John Cleese make of this one? Urbis is genitive and feminine, interminatus is masculine and singular.) This makes me suspect it's a hoax: a real project would presumably get its Latin right.
Delete. Seems to be some architects' pipe dream. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Sandstein 14:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. --MaNeMeBasat 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. --Deville (Talk) 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm assuming hoax on the basis of the incorrect Latin grammar. Peter Grey 02:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 FUNNY. -Docask? 11:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VANITY. After all, what's so "special" about Special:Random? Seriously though, Speedy keep, this April Fools Day nonsense is getting out of hand --TBC????????? 09:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right, Delete (sarcasm). --Soumyasch 09:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wipe the random page script from existence. - Sikon 10:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, defaults to keep - Liberatore(T) 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be transwikied to Wiktionary Nippoo 10:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A wiktionary article may be a good idea, but deleting it from Wikipedia is crazy- at the very least the uses in churches and competitions can be made into proper article (section)s. Fastifex 12:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup a lot. This seems to be much more than a Wiktionary entry. --Deville (Talk) 15:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overgrown dictionary definition. Brian G. Crawford 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and elaborate major section(s) or (ultimately) turn into disambig Juvis 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. Good dictionary entry but not for wp (WP:WINAD). -- P199 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deville. Stifle 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's obviously unencyclopaedic, whatever it is. --Edwy 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finally requesting that this article be deleted. It does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. The proposed deletion tags {{prod}} and {{prod2}} were removed, so this is the next step. - CorbinSimpson 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart positions, notable members, tours. (aeropagitica) 14:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Edwy 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who had added the {{prod2}} mentioned in the nomination. -Colin Kimbrell 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Deleuze 09:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is simply a directory of venues with a large gallery of unnecessary photos. - Tangotango 12:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is integral to the documentation of LGBT culture in Singapore and is of immense use to gay people. Please do not delete it. The photographs replace reams of descriptive text and are actually space-saving.Groyn88 12:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I wish the LGBT community in Singapore no harm and appreciate the hard work that Groyn88 has put into this article, it seems to me unsuitable for wikipedia. First, it turns wikipedia into a directory, which is not its purpose. Second, it seems to be original research. Bucketsofg 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. This would be a perfect MySpace page... --Deville (Talk) 15:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Edwy 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Pity there's so many good pictures that are probably going to have to go as well... Grandmasterka 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as insufficiently notable. Bucketsofg 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think it is notable. Thunderbirds has a cult following, so it just isn't "any" TV show. It does seem really silly, but Wikipedia isnt paper...Roodog2k 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Terence Ong 12:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable stub--Zxcvbnm 13:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep or transwiki It certainly exists. Since Singapore is a small place, it may not be common outside of there. Wikipedia isn't paper. Just because its esoteric or uncommon, doesn't mean it isn't notable. [[16]]
Keep, notable food dish in Singapore. One of Singapore's favourite food dish for breakfast, definitely notable. --Terence Ong 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable dish of Singapore [19][20]Gu 17:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The custom of eating steamed rice cakes for breakfast isn't notable enough for its own article. I also have doubts about whether the transliteration of the title is accurate. Brian G. Crawford 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brian G. Crawford. Fishhead64 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable food. Might also be chwee kueh, but I won't pretend to know for sure. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its more commonly known as Chwee kway. I will move it if the AFD result is keep. --Terence Ong 04:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 {{nn-bio}} Stifle 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per db-bio speedy deletion, just to make the deletion definate since the tag isn't surviving a minute on the page. If this doesn't get deleted, i'm uploading biographies of all my past school teachers. └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 13:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable teacher-cruft. Is he related to Fat Rik? If so, I could be tempted to change my vote. Badgerpatrol 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-bio~, Charting the Autobiographies of Mark Twain seems to be a thesis project [21] with 16 Google hits Gu 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. --Edwy 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure he is a wonderful teacher, and an inspiration to his students, but a high school teacher would need something exceptional to be considered notable. Fan1967 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible speedy although there are some assertions of notability there. However, there is nothin in the article that establishes notability. Capitalistroadster 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete High school teachers are almost never notable. You may merge some content to the school's page if you wish. JeffBurdges 14:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completely idiosyncratic non-topic, offensive language, not suitable for wiki Harvey1001 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN Heh... what day is today? Roodog2k 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nominator. --Heptortalk 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, no references for the concept 'beautiful picture' Gu 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Edwy 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you can string any adjective with a noun and make an article if we keep this one Barry Zuckerkorn 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fan1967 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article (per history notes), seems to have been created for no other purpose than to turn a red link blue in the following post from Talk:Democracy, about the phrase "Pure democracy": "In many ways, it's a concept on the same level of ambiguity as "beautiful picture". Do we need a beautiful picture article? The phrase certainly is used a lot. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Nikodemos 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" - Fan1967 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as Fan1967 indicates, the idea arose out of Mihnea's suggestion in Talk:democracy, that "beautiful picture" often functions the same way in discussions of aesthetics that "pure democracy" does in discussions of politics. It certainly doesn't follow, as Mihnea now seems to contend, that I'm "disrupting" anything. Only that I am sometimes subject to his influence -- it's odd he should think his own influence so disruptive, especially sans evidence. The point, though, is that both phrases have paradigmatic value (in the old-pre-Kuhnian sense of the world paradigm (disambiguation)), so both phrases should have articles. They are both very different from the phrase "ugly tires," as I haven't encountered the use of tires in such a context lately, but I have encountered and used both of the expressions that are involved in Mihnea's analogy. --Christofurio 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It seems to me that Nikodemos (or Mihnea?) was making the point that just because a phrase is common does not mean it deserves an article. Either you totally missed his point, or you created this article in order to make a point of your own. It does not deserve an article. Fan1967 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The top part looks like self-promotion to me. Does anyone think that the bottom part could be salvaged as Seeme Gull Khan? SnoopY 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Delete as we don't need bios of "spiritual leaders" of NN websites (iSufiRock.com has no Alexa data).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lack of comments, plus the fact that this was not listed as an AfD on the article during the AfD period, I think this needs to be relisted. W.marsh 14:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly any external Google hits and it sounds very much like advertising Gu 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Edwy 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to missing Google hits it seems to be a nn-comic Gu 16:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. --Edwy 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable networking website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete.DMG413 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. --Edwy 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need Further Info/Keep - I think it's quite useful as I heard my friend in the US used something called the "FD Network" and had no idea what it is. I searched Wiki and it has basic information about it and the website. I don't know if it is the same one but at least I found something. I'm not a very experienced user of this(only look up random information) but I think providing information about this very real non-profit organization doesn't hurt the quality of the Wiki as long as the information is not biased. And that's what Wiki is about: finding information on things people are interested but not familiar with. I looked up the site and added a little more information to it. If everyone thinks it should be deleted then there isn't a problemwith that either. I just find it unnessasary. --CostaRican 16:10, 2 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.153.34 (talk • contribs)
Keep I think it's fine. Real organization with hundreds of established members with decades of experience and education from well known universities such as Harvard, Stanford, Dartmouth, Berkeley, UCLA, assuming these informations are correct. --[Unknown User] 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.65.81 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity piece, started by Dj Washington himself, non-notable •Jim62sch• 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely nothing notable. The movie he is supposed to have acted in should be speedy deleted as well. --Heptortalk 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom CLW 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Edwy 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 only list researchers, there are plenty of non-researchers questioning the official version. This was a part of 9/11 Truth Movement, until it was broken out so it would not dominated the article, see Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement#List. Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a specific group and has nothing to do with this article. This is not the place to hold a "is category better than lists" arguement, consensus is that categories and lists can exist at the same time, see List of lists, lists offer things categories do not. Also, some people keep removing the polls in the article. --Striver 16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. Topic seems too diffuse to me. List seems to run the gamut from hardcore opponents to people who have questioned small areas of the 9/11 report. Salvageable material should be merged back to 9/11 Truth Movement. -- JJay 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying it should be deleted for not differentiation between " hardcore opponents to people who have questioned small areas "? That is a editorial issue, not grounds for deletion. Further, that is alomst impossible to do, where should the line be drawn? When are you not enough "hardcore" to be listed among them? Also, this list would dominate that article.--Striver 17:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment: Well, that was sort of my point. If we can't draw the line maybe we shouldn't have the list. As much as I try continually to seek a justification for having articles on various topics, this seems like something that needs a lot more editorial explanation to have any real value. Otherwise, to me, it looks like a blatant attempt to create a long list of personalities/activists/nutjobs who may have questioned, at one time or another, aspects of 9/11, or signed a petition, or supported someone who did. Anyway, the future participants here will decide. I don't have a particularly strong feeling and could move to neutral depending on the arguments. -- JJay 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me further state that this should never be a category. A category of this type is frankly worthless and dangerous. I'll switch to keep if that's the way this starts heading. -- JJay 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand worthless, but why dangerous? If you want, reply on the talk page so we don't side-track the discussion. Tom HarrisonTalk 18:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment above, I'd rather see this as a list, where the absurdities are patently obvious, than as a category, which has a veneer of respectability. Since a new user has now created Category:People questioning official 9/11 story, I'm switching to keep on the list. -- JJay 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too wide a scope, should it be listing every non-notable 9/11 questioner ever? --Rory096 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a silly article with no standards for inclusion. Either make it a category or an article on public opinion, but as both it's too unspecific. Upon further consideration of the examples your cited, just delete. --Mmx1 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And upon further consideration, those lists are useless. To shoehorn people into a category is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be doing, which is explain the nuances of their position. Particularly with respect to political ideas. All it will do is produce nonesense debate over "does X fit into Y category" It's a bit more clear-cut with religion, but still, what's the use of a list of Christians? It'd be uselessly large. --Mmx1 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above vote is from an editor who claims to work for the Department of Homeland Security, FWIW. Is it appropriate to count votes from governmnet agents on matters such as this? Pedant 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is just going to eventually be owned by the user who created. Plus as previously mention it is redundant.--Jersey Devil 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You dont own things in wikipedia, for your information. --Striver 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear that you've figured that out yourself. --Calton | Talk 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because? What do you base your accusation on?--Striver 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You constant attempts to create a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory walled garden, your creation of articles on marginal/non-notable/trivial topics so you can link to them, your zealous attempts at preserving your POV throughout -- other that, I guess, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None sense, the 9/11 articles are no more walled gardens than the Bahai articles are.--Striver 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. A walled garden is an isolated section of a Wiki where pages link only to each other and don't link outside. Really, Wikipedia's Star Trek content, with its legions of interlinking minor character articles, could be seen as a walled garden. The 9/11 Truth Movement articles, on the other hand, link to current events and to people notable for reasons having nothing to do with 9/11: the content is not isolated. I'll also add that, if anything, Striver has been working to make the topic *less* of a walled garden, linking it to as many outside sources, such as Erica Jong and Charlie Sheen and A.J. Hammer, as possible. --Hyperbole 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This matter can be better covered on other articles. Capitalistroadster 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement maybe. I think this article is not too badly put together, it's relevant, it's interesting, but it might be a bit redundant. If it were to be merged, the Truth Movement article is the most appropriate place that I can think of. SkeenaR 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(revised: I would be ok with a backward merge, merging the content of the 'researchers article' with this one)Keep and expand and Do not merge as 9/11 Truth Movement is merely one small subset of the people who hold to alternate theories of the events of September 11, 2001. Amazing that so many articles about September 11, 2001, including United States President George W. Bush speech to Congress on September 20 2001 are being deleted, almost as if there are people who don't want anything related to the events of that date to exist anywhere. If we allow this article and others on the subject to be deleted by government agents, we are allowing Wikipedia as a whole to be owned by the government. "MONGO", just one of the government agents editing WP, selectively deletes portions of discussions on related subjects to discredit editors who don't hold to the account put out by the 9/11 commission. Within this very discussion, he has deleted portions of the discussion. And MONGO is just ONE of the people here trying to prove a point by using controlling discussion to slant things to fit whatever agenda he is working from.Pedant 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit over the top. Articles are being deleted by government agents? Mongo and other government agents are selectively deleting parts of discussions to discredit you? I don't think so. I do think hyperbolic rhetoric like that undermines your argument. Tom HarrisonTalk 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only parts of the discussion that have been deleted are these. See the talk page. Tom HarrisonTalk 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of the deletions I am speaking of: [22]Pedant 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were archived, not deleted. --Mmx1 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What we have here, ladies and germs, is, at best, a great big appeal to authority, or, at worst, essentially celebrity endorsement list. --Calton | Talk 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was a great example of the use of term straw man arguement. Could you please explain to me why this is those things, but List of transhumanists is not a " a great big appeal to authority, or, at worst, essentially celebrity endorsement list"?--Striver 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand the meaning of the term "straw man"? Let's find out: what, pray tell, is the "great example" of a false argument I've created that I'm knocking down? As oppsoed to, of course, your great big phony comparison, which is a list of practitioners?
MONGO, stop deleting the polls! --Striver 14:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the correct place for sending a message to another editor. Weregerbil 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mmx1 et al, too vague. Also the article is strangely about some similarly vague polls and article's "owner"/creator as usual won't allow fixing it. Unencyclopedic unmaintainable mess with more potential to miselad reader than to inform him. 9/11 conspiracy stuff has a soapbox too big already. Weregerbil 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Calton; additionally, the argument that use of strawman & appeal to authority is acceptable because others have done it is like saying rape is ok because it's been done lots before....Bridesmill 16:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the article needs to have many more sources and the people on it need to meet notability criteria. Otherwise, it's a useful list for anyone researching this topic. -- noosphere 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article will only be useful to future researchers if each person listed has a specific footnote or inline link to where and when they questioned the official line; or if they have made many statements, links to the best summarized or most prominant. Also, the list should only include people who would be notable enough for a wikipedia entry if they had kept silent on 9/11 or were supporters of the official story. Do I think Striver will follow these suggestions? No. Do I have the time and energy to do it myself and keep it on permanent watch? No. In a perfect world I would suggest keeping but in the real world, delete.Thatcher131 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Because otherwise the conspiracy nuts will just put the information somewhere else, and that's not encyclopedic, but maybe it's the lesser of two evils. Then again, maybe it is encyclopedic and notable that there are philosophy professors (whose job is to question things) on the list but no civil engineers. Peter Grey 03:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A keep is a keep, but let's refrain from personal attacks and insults like 'conspiracy nuts', it's the so-called conspiracy nuts that brought the Iran contra affair to light, and poked holes in the Warren commission report, now widely held even by the 'mainstream' as a work of fiction.Pedant 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Cite for the claim that the Warren Commission Report is considered by the mainstream as "fiction", please? --Calton | Talk 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After deliberating on this overnight, I'm going to go with keep, on the basis that such lists of people by belief (Christians, communists, etc.) are common on Wikipedia, so it seems more POV-neutral to keep this than to delete it. I definitely don't think it should be merged; lists like this do nothing but add clutter to non-list articles. --Hyperbole 07:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But can we change the name to People who question the 9/11 Commission's findings? The missing apostrophe drives me crazy, the participle seems inappropriate, and the word "account" seems both clunky and possibly POV-slanted. --Hyperbole 07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that, unless "account" and "findings" carry some different meaning that escapes me. --Striver 09:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. Account would be the factual record of what happened. Findings being the judgement on whether right or wrong decisions where made. Some folks on this list question findings, others question account, most are not very qualified to do either.Bridesmill 15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the wording 'findings' as it more accurately describes what the 9/11 Commission was charged with doing - provide 'findings' as opposed to giving an 'account'. Utunga 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep This page seems like a simple listing of people's names. Looking through the policy on deletion, the only thing that comes close is 'soapboxing' but this page is not soapboxing. It boild down to a simple statement of (allegedly) fact - that these people here support this thing here. Furthermore I would say that this statement is also factually accurate - I'm sure that most of the people listed here would be happy to be listed on this page(in fact I can't see any that are out of place). The intense emotions relating to this particular subject is all the more reason to tread carefully before taking the extreme step of actual deletion. Utunga 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a strikethrough my previous 'keep' because maybe I need to think about this a bit more. Perhaps it would be better as a category. Not sure yet. Can one propose a merge between a list and a category?Utunga 07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see above that someone has already made the category, so currently we have both.Tom HarrisonTalk 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that your first edit was on April 4, 2006. [23]. Can I ask how you found this page? We have been having "new users" adding votes on these 9/11 truth afds with several sockpuppets already found.--Jersey Devil 07:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, massive cleanup and rename, standardize the formatting (this means boldface). I guess we should have a place to list people like Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner. Rhobite 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like the title because there are more entities to disagree with than simply the 9/11 Commission Report's findings, i.e., Rice said they never imagined planes could be used as weapons but an FBI official said the opposite in the Moussaoui trial, that they'd known for years planes could be used as weapons. Many other documents also support that position, such as the war games official documents which played out those scenarios. But the content of this page is excellent - thanks, Striver. There should be some reorganizing, but the basics are there. Bov 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes the status quo, then? --Mmx1 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this is original research, nn, and violates WP:RS. Morton devonshire 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: there seems to be some amount of invitations to hand-picked editors to comment on this AfD [24][25]. Please use due judgement in considering whether such lobbying causes unrepresentative slant in results. Weregerbil 09:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More lobbying[26] , [27] to users with expressed bias on the issue. --Mmx1 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to characterising me as a 'user who has expressed bias', I am an editor with thousands of stable contributions on hundreds of topics and have not expressed a bias. Look at my contributions if you think I'm a biased editor. Mmx on the other hand is a user who brags of having "over 800 edits", proudly claims on his user page to be a "Wikipedia exclusionist", a "hopeless cynic" who "wants to join the United States Military", a "member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" who "strongly opposes the United Nations" and "lives in New York". Pedant 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning your bias, but the bias of vote advertising toward people with known viewpoints, which amounts to vote stacking. For the record, a majority of New Yorkers believe the USG was complicit, so that's hardly a qualification. --Mmx1 18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again trying to refactor the discussion. I am not asserting that "MONGO, Mmx1 has a bias", I am stating as fact that "I am an editor with thousands of stable contributions on hundreds of topics and have not expressed a bias." MONGO, Mmx1 has characterised me both as one of a group of (2) "users with expressed bias on the issue" and as a member of a group of "people with known viewpoints". You don't know my viewpoint. What bias or 'known' viewpoint does this proposed paragraph express???:
Since the attacks, a number of people proposed alternate theories about these events, such as suggesting: that the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were intentionally demolished for some reason; or that some group within the U.S. government either had foreknowlege of or were actually complicit in the events of September 11, 2001. Some have speculated that because of the absence of photographic evidence, that something other than a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon, and some suggest that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations.
All I am asking is that you MONGO, Mmx1 (or anybody else for that matter) stop making personal attacks on me in order to discredit my contributions. I'm a good editor, I just don't like to see wikipedia become a tool of government agents. If, in your role as a government agent, you wish to persecute me, do so in the real world, where I can, at least presumably, defend myself in acourt of law, and not have you nimbly refactoring discussions I am engaged in. Pedant 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I got the two of you confused, MONGO and Mmx1, no offense was intended, I guess you both look pretty much the same from my viewpoint, that is if I had a viewpoint. Pedant 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quit being so self-centered. Striver has been going around to users who have been pushing the 9-11 conspiracy POV and asking them for their input on this page. That's what we were pointing out - you were just one among 4. You can defend yourself here as well. Nobody's censoring you, and conversely, there's no restraint on me to point out poor-faith actions like Striver's vote stacking, or "refactoring" as you call it. Government agent? Please, save your drama for the theater. So it's a personal attack to point out that you're biased toward the conspiracy theorists but it's not a personal attack to accuse me of being a Government agent out to persecute you?--Mmx1 22:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll apologise again, as I mistook you, Mmx1 for MONGO, it's MONGO who is the government agent, and I'll happily take your word for it that you are not. I'm sorry, it was a mistake, I was confused, and maybe becoming senile. I sincerely apologise for the mistake... However, MONGO actually does appear to me to be censoring me by selective archival: [28],. I am trying to point out that if I have shown bias it is towards the conspiracy theorists... it can be amply shown that there was a conspiracy, and any explanation of that conspiracy that includes conjecture and unproven 'facts' is also a theory, so in fact the 9/11 commision's findings are a conspiracy theory. I'm not disputing facts but theories. It is a fact that WTC 1,2, and 7 collapsed to dust at freefall speeds after being struck by aircraft. Do you dispute that? It is a theory that the collapse of all 3 buildings was caused by the aircraft. You hold that to be fact, therefore you are biased toward accepting that particular conspiracy theory as a fact. I do not accept as fact anything that is not provable, and I object to the inclusion as fact of unproven theories. I am biased AGAINST conspiracy theories, at least I do not think that theories are Neutral in their point of view, or merit inclusion in an encyclopedic text, unless they are represented not as facts but as theories. I wish you could understand that. The mere fact that you assume that Striver contacted me because he thought I might weigh in 'on his side' of this issue does not make me biased.Pedant 23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striver inexplicably directed me to this page after I had already voted on it. My presence here is not the result of lobbying. --Hyperbole 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this is better than a category, in terms of being able to cite sources, it still is redundant to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Also, I think these are all Category:Living people. As some of these people may have more nuanced views, I'm concerned a list like this may misrepresent some people's viewpoints. Also, I don't think that *questioning* is the right word to use here. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how a list of researchers makes a list of people redundant? Maybe you imply that all peopla are researchers? --Striver 20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there's a fast and loose criteria for "researchers", what is the difference. --Mmx1 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there's a fast and loose criteria for "researchers", what is the difference. :::--> For Mmx1, if a researcher isn't an engineer, their view cannot be considered, and if they are an actual researcher, there is just a "fast and loose criteria" for them, even though a number of them have published in science journals and teach at universities. Then, continuing this pattern, if they aren't at MIT, their university work doesn't mean as much as those at MIT. Apparently only Mmx1 knows who should and should not be considered proper enough, or the right sort - engineer or scientist - for all analyses of the many aspects of the 9/11 attacks. Bov 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth. If a researcher isn't an engineer, their view does not carry authority. The page Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 does have a fast and loose criteria as a housewife, a "media critic", and a few webmasters are apparently "researchers". I've never brought up the "MIT" criteria, you have (do I detect a scent of anti-intellectualism?). When you're pulling out theoretical physicists and water testers (Kevin Ryan) as your authorities based on their resumes, yes, I'm well within my right to question their qualifications. --Mmx1 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or, otherwise, Keep Looking through the policy on deletion, there's no formal motivation justifing this action. I agree to change from "researchers" to "people", as long as the first ones are mentioned as such within the article. Normal nick 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
>>"If a researcher isn't an engineer, their view does not carry authority."
Like I said before, in the crash of American Airlines Flight 191 the person who figured out what actually caused the crash was not an engineer, he was a metallurgist, working in a research setting. The NTSB started off saying it was a single bolt failure and was going to leave it at that, was busy replacing all the bolts on other DC10s, and had it's engineers backing that story up. That story was wrong. It wasn't just the bolt, it was a mistaken procedure for engine maintenance that stressed the bolt beyond capacity. But it took a metallurgist examining the fractures on the pylon on a microscopic level, and then through a process of deduction, concluding that it could not possibly have been the bolts alone, to determine that.
As the History Channel describes it:
"the investigation that followed was a firestorm of a different sort: everyone involved--the FAA, American Airlines, McDonnell Douglas and the pilot's union--pointed fingers in an attempt to avoid blame; a key witness mysteriously disappeared; important documents and physical evidence was misplaced. Now, a quarter century later, some of those close to the case speak for the first time, revealing why key players chose to live with the "acceptable risk" of such an accident rather than correct a known problem."198.207.168.65 20:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability criteria for persons do not apply to the mentions of persons on a page which are
relevant to the topic of the page. Therefore the notability of individuals is not pertinent to the AfD. It is only germane to the content of the article.Aminorex 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 - I can't see why to distinguish between "researchers" and "other people". But it's useful to have a list rather than a category because e.g. a category can't tell me that Amiri Baraka wrote and performed "someone blew up America" then refused to apologise, but wasn't active in the "research" movement as such. A brief description like that, though, would be excellent: informative, useful, and encyclopedic. At present, unlike what this AFD nomination claims, this article is not redundant because there is nowhere for non-researchers to be listed. TheGrappler 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People who are not "researchers" but are instead "activists" or "politicians" or otherwise notable figures are included in the topic of the article. Therefore, it would be more suitable to merge the Researchers article to this one, rather that disqualifying content which is otherwise of interest by restricting the topic.Aminorex 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Researchers" are generally considered to be academics. A list of academics may have no room for, say, politicians, movie stars, or other notable people "questioning the official account of 9/11". -- noosphere 17:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A merge the other way around could work. Researchers fit in the broader list of "people". But, still this list needs to be really well cited and verified. It would be really unfortunate for Wikipedia, if someone was mistakenly listed here and led to another John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an emotionally charged issue. So I agree that extra care should be taken to verify that the people on this list really do belong on it. -- noosphere 18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Researchers" include some academics, but "academics" do not include all researchers, according to normal English use.Aminorex 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kmf164. Sandstein 09:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. --Heptortalk 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-nonsense Gu 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first uttered by Sohail N. to refer to a friend of his , neologism, simply made up. --lightdarkness (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. --Edwy 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical neologism Bucketsofg 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote I'm putting this article up for discussion. As far as I can tell, this is original research and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However this is not my field and it requires wider review, hence the AfD Gwernol 16:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, Wikipedia is not ArXiv, and is not for original research. I read the paper and it seems reasonable enough, but it certainly has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal as of now. When it has been, this article might have a chance (although of course then there might be a question of notability).--Deville (Talk) 18:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have read eveything here and know a bit about Physics (I am a chemical physicist but chemistry trained). I agree entirely with Deville. --Bduke 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete, discounting the sockpuppet votes.--Adam(talk) 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article is highly biased and unencyclopedic. A small group of users is replacing any occurrence of m/z with m/q, e.g. in Mass-to-charge ratio and Mass spectrometry. Google ("m/q mass spectra" vs "m/z mass spectra") and the scientific literature clearly shows that m/z is the most common term. The probably more correct but minority term m/q is already adequately mentioned in the cited articles. This page should be deleted, the arguments should be added to the respectve articles Cacycle 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article. Read it instead and try to understand it. m/z as a dimensionless quantity is wrong! You are free to find better arguments - but don't just delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs) 16:13 1 April 2006
Not biased: This article is not biased. It defends the official IUPAC policy which is summed up in the IUPAC green book. It is the relatively small mass spec community which does not keep to the wider rules of the green book. Therefore consensus among the majority of scientists would be that m/z is not acceptable.
not unencyclopedic: This article is not unencyclopedic. In all enciclopedias you will find that mass spectrometers measure a physical quantity called mass-to-charge which is not dimensionless. This is why if anything then the m/z is unencyclopedic.
Google:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Therefore it is irrelevant wether you find more m/z or more m/q on Google. As ist stated in the Google test page: the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. For example, a search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives 10 times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor.
Cacycle writes: The probably more correct but minority term m/q is ... - even you mention that m/q is more correct. However, if you read my article then you will see that m/z is wrong. Therefore m/q is the only correct version.
not OR: This article is not original research, because it cites the IUPAC green book which exactly explains how to handle the issue. The fact that you find many m/q in Google also shows that it is not original research.
This article may not represent the majority thinking in the (small) mass spec community, but just deleting it is against Wikipedia guideline.
Procedure: if you think m/z is more correct then please add your point of view in the Mass-to-charge ratio page. Do not just delete what is more correct but less frequently used. Wikipedia is not made for reinforcing wrong majority terms.
Balanced: the wrong m/z is adequately mentioned in my article, even with a quote of the IUPAC. This shows that it is well balanced.
missing deletion arguments: there may not be a consensus wether m/z or m/q is better. However, since m/q is widely used in journals there is no reason to beleive that m/q is wrong. If you want to change back to m/z you should only do so based on better arguments - not based on majority thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs)
Comment This is quite possibly the most confusing afd page I've ever seen, all those unsigned comments. The article seems to be making a good point, but it could probably use more outside sources. Morganite 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: in the WP:OR it says: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Since "m/q mass spectra" shows 71'200 hits on Google it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that this should be OR!
Sources: see here for a journal using m/q. There are many others. m/q is widely used. This clearly shows that the OR claim is completely wrong. Please stop this [instruction creep]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs)
I don't think anyone is disputing that m/q is used. But m/z is also used. If the use of m/q is suggested or required by some journals, a link to those policies would give more support to your argument. (And please, please, sign your comments...) Morganite 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If both, m/q and m/z are used, why keeps Cacycle changing from m/q to m/z? Why am I not allowed to change back? Kehrli 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a reference to such a journal where m/q is used.
Nobody ever uses z as a symbol for charge. Everyone uses q. And in the mass spectrometry page m/q is explicitly refering to the mass and charge of the formulas in this page. Therfeore m/z would make the article INCONSISTENT. Kehrli 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess because m/z is what was used in earlier versions of the article. On the sources issue, a journal article where m/q is used is not the same as a journal policy about the use of m/q. The latter is really the sort of thing you need if this is to not be considered original research.
Morganite: already in the very earlyest stage of the article there was the Lorenz formula included, and in this formula q was used, not z. So there was always an inconsistency between the Lorenz formula and the m/z. This is why it was necessary to change to m/q. I mean, we should write consistent articles in Wikipedia, shouldn't we? Kehrli 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Journals: many Journals have a policy to allow both, m/q and m/z as mass spectra x-axis labels. However, once you use q in the Lorenz formula most journals would probably insist on using m/q in the text (maybe not in the mass spectra labels) for mass/charge, otherwise it is just inconsistent. Kehrli 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious from searching that there's a fair amount of inconsistency in the usage of m/q and m/z - many pages seem to be using both. (I also ran into one page describing m/q as "archaic", which is surprising given that it seems to be the more recent development from what I've seen.) Trying to merge information on this with Mass-to-charge ratio might just confuse things further, and this seems to be an issue that should be mentioned somewhere. Morganite 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct: m/q is the more original version. m/z was introduced later by mass spec users (no longer designers), probably by analytical chemists that did no longer understand the physiscs behind their instrument. If you do the math you realize very quickly that m/z is not dimensionless. Kehrli 14:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Policies: Wikipedia Deletion Policy clearly says: If in doubt, don't delete. If even the person that initialized the deletion request thinks that m/q might be more correct, then don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrli (talk • contribs)
Comment Kehrli: Nobody disputes that m/q is more correct than the way more common m/z. But this is not the place to promote your personal opinion that only m/q should be used - this is an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NPOV for the way how we handle such issues here at Wikipedia. Please stop replacing m/z by m/q, instead write a neutral and short paragraph why m/q is more correct. I don't see a way to keep this biased article, especially under this title and I doubt that the topic deserves more than a short paragraph. (Please sign your contributions here by appending ~~~~)
I did write a short article why m/q is more correct than m/z - and exactly this short article is now in danger of beeing deleted. Unfortunately the argument takes longer than just a paragraph. (In the mean time I learned how to sign) Kehrli 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
m/z cannot be used in the mass spectrometry page because the formulas in this article would no longer make sense. Please look it up. The m in m/q stands for mass and the q in m/q stands for charge. This is is a very different use of m/q than the one the m/z promoters claim. They claim to use m/z for the mass-to-charge ratio and they claim explicitly that z does not stand for charge and m does not stand for mass. In the formulas, however, there is mass and charge and therefore m/q MUST be used in this case. Otherwise the whole article is no longer consistent. Please, please look it up. Look up the formulas. There is no way you can have z in those formulas. Kehrli 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cacycle: I agree that this topic does not deserve even a short paragraph. It should be completly clear that m/z is wrong. Unfortunately some people (not me) keep changing m/q into m/z which makes the mass spectrometry artcle inconsistent. In order to explain this to those people I had to write the page that is now in danger of being deleted. I am happy to delete the article as soon as the m/z is gone, but not before. The m/z makes the mass spectrometry page inconsistent and therefore cannot be tolerated. Kehrli 22:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per LukasPietsch, offends against WP:NORBucketsofg 21:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me exactly what should be OR - then I can show you the reference that proves it is common knowledge. Kehrli 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think that a linguist can even understand what this discussion is about. I don't want to be arrogant, but I have dealt with mass spec for more than 20 years in my professional life, and I would be quite frustrated to have an article deleted by someone who just used the term mass spectrometry for the first time in his life. Kehrli 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should reflect the general view of the scientific community not act as an advocate of change or opponent for that matter. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
m/q is the traditional notation. m/z was introduced later and now gradually (and wrongly) replaces the m/q. Therefore, the use of m/z would promote a change, not the use of m/q. 195.186.218.219 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the overhelming part of the scientific community and even the overhelming part of the chemical scientific community represented by the IUPAC green booksupports the m/q. It is only a part of the very small mass spec ccommunity (represented by the IUPAC orange book) that favors m/z. 195.186.218.219 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Units are chosen popularly, not by the book, which is why the United States still uses Standard for carpentry and construction. Also, WP:MOS and an ArbCom decision from last year say that whenever two different styles are appropriate (think of the serial comma) that making articles internally consistent correct but attempting to "correct" other articles is wrong. - CorbinSimpson 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corbin: this is not a discussion about what units to use, it is a discussion if the physical quantity mass/charge has a dimenson or not. Even a carpenter would not say: the length of this pilar is dimansionless. In other words: I do not favor a specific unit, I just promote the correct dimension. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS: This is not a dicussion about style, it is a discussion about right or wrong. Should an encyclopedia promote something that is obviously wrong only because it is widely used? I don't think so. To see what is widely used we can use Google, we would not need Wikipedia. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corbin: If you really don't like the style then improve it, but don't just delete it. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brian: this is not about [29], it is about right or wrong. I do not have any interests in promoting m/q over m/z except that I would like to improve Wikipedia. I would hate to see Wikipedia spreading information that is so obviously wrong. Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
which above? Kehrli 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advocacy. A mention on Mass-to-charge ratio would be appropriate, but I don't want to suggest merge because the article is so blatantly POV. --Sneftel 19:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sneftel, if you read the page carfuly you will see that the mass-to-charge ratio page IS referenced at the very bottom.
The IUPAC orange book says abut m/z: "It has long been called the mass-to-charge ratio although m is not the ionic mass nor is z a multiple or the elementary (electronic) charge, e." The "it has long been" indicates that m/z is no longer considered to be the mass-to-charge ratio. And that makes sense since the mass-to-charge ratio is not dimensionless. Hence, the link that you request is no longer necessary. Kehrli 09:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Title is inherently POV. To get something accepted in Wikipedia, you shouldn't prove that it is right, you should prove (with references) that it is considered right by many people. So, a reference needs to be provided which says that m/z is wrong. On the technical side, the article starts by claiming that "The concept of the dimensionless mass-to-charge ratio m/z is a misconception". However, as the IAPUC "orange book" says, m is the mass number, defined as "The sum of the total number of protons and neutrons in an atom, ion or molecule" [30], and z is the charge number, "the total charge on an ion divided by the elementary charge (e)." Both are dimensionless, hence m/z is also dimensionless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jitse: thanks for your effort - you are one of the few people that actually tries to give an argument for his opinion.
according to the IUPAC green book m is a mass and not a mass number. According to the same book, mass number would be A. Therefore m/z is wrong according to IUPAC. If anything it would be A/z.
mass spectrometers measure mass/charge, not mass number per charge number. This is mathematically proven on the mass spectrometry page. Therefore the physical quantity mass number per charge number, even in the correct notation A/z, has nothing to do with mass spectrometry. It may be a useful quantity in nuclear physics but not in mass spectrometry.
You are correct: A/z is dimensionless, but this is irrelevant for this discussion since mass specs do not measure A/z, they measure mass/charge which is not dimensionless.
I did give a reference: the IUPAC green book which is more basic and more important than the orange book.
the title is not inherently POV because it can be proven that mass specs measure mass/charge and not some dimensionless quantity. Therefore it is proven that the use of dimensionless m/z in mass spectrometry is a misconception, even though many people believe in this misconception.
as a mathematician you should know that 2+2=5 is wrong even if the majority of the people would claim it is correct. Hence 2+2 = 5 should not be in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should spell the truth, not the majority opinion. Kehrli 09:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by your technical arguments. Different symbols are used for the same quantity, and the difference between mass/charge and mass-number/charge-number is just a constant factor, so saying that you can only use the former to report the results of mass spectroscopy goes a bit far for me. But more importantly, for the Wikipedia article to be kept we would need at least a reference which says that m/z is wrong. The references you provide only can be used to build an argument that m/z is wrong. To take your 2+2=5 example, of course I know that it's wrong, but if there is a reliable source which says that 2+2=5 and I can't find one which says that it is not 5, then there is no place in Wikipedia for an article on the "2+2=5 misconception". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. If this article is to be kept, it needs to link to external references that make the point it does. Right now it draws conclusions that are not stated in the references it lists. The argument it makes is actually a pretty good one, but Wikipedia isn't the place to present it. --Christopher Thomas 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher: thanks for noticing that I made a good argument. It is too bad that you too want to delete it. You say your hobby is fighting pseudo-science on Wikipedia. So do I. m/z is pure pseudo-science. Please help me fight it. Kehrli 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References: the conclusions in the article are based on very few references: (1) Newtons second and third Law, (2) the Lorenz formula, and (3) the IUPAC green book. There are no other references needed for the conclusions in the article. Reference (3) is mentioned, the other two can be found in any physics book. Kehrli 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made extensive changes so that the article now gives an unbiased view on on the misconceptions of m/z. No more reason to delete it. 83.77.121.120 12:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:POV and WP:NOR to see what the criteria are for judging that an article endorses a point of view, or contains original research. The article as it presently stands still does both for about 80% of its length.
There are two major ways in which the article does not meet these policies at present that I can see. The first is that you need to link to external references that say that 1) m/z is misleading or incorrect, and 2) that do all of the calculations you're doing in the article, or equivalent calculations, in order to include those conclusions or arguments in the article. Otherwise it's "original research". The second is that in order to be "neutral", the article must represent opinions with coverage proportionate to the degree to which they are present in the associated expert communities. Mass spectrometrists are a community relevant to this article, and they apparently think that using the term "m/z" is fine. As far as I can see no attempt has been made to _count_ the number of scientists saying "m/z is bad, use m/q", but in order to have most of the article be a diatrabe against it, you're going to have to show that the number of scientists vocally opposing the use of "m/z" greatly outnumber the mass spectrometrists. This can't be done by hand-waving ("every scientist _should_ oppose"), but by citing bona fide statements and publications and texts and so forth that specifically state, "this is called 'm/z' in mass spectroscopy, and should not be".
I hope this clears up why there are objections to the article. --Christopher Thomas 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Describes a series of games played by "a total of 38 different players." No Google results except for the willsoutback site itself. FreplySpang(talk) 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Ghits I can see, as per nom. The creator's passion serves him well, but I think we're going to have to let this one go. --Deville (Talk) 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, etc. (Note to Xezzite: don't take this personally. We are not criticizing you or your game. It's just that wikipedia is suppposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such it limits itself to things that are notable enough to be included. If you read through WP:NOT, I think you'll get an idea of what is and isn't allowed. In my judgement your game just isn't important enough to merit inclusion.) Bucketsofg 17:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment finally! thank you bucket for finally showing me somethnig ive been asking for. i will look through it, but i would like it if somehow people could consider it. i didnt think you had to be huge to be on wiki, i guess i was mislead by a friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xezzite (talk • contribs)
ok i read it and like, i guess you have a point but my point is this line "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." if theres no limit why is mine worth deleting? does that make sense? i'm not trying to be mean anymore, im just asking, like in my eyes its i guess- whats the harm?i do think people will use it for outback, i dont think im promoting my site or myself, if thats it please tell me i will glady take the link and my name off of it. i really don't get why its a big deal that its deleted. its not like "oh let him have his fun" but more like why not? think of it like this- you go to best buy u get the stuff thats mainstream, and thats great. but isnt it a cool feeling going somewhere else that isnt necessarily as good of a store but you can find that rare bloodhound gang cd? i don't know, i guess to me if its not doing any harm then why kill it off? it might actually do good but i guess i have no proof of that so i'm not in a good arguing position.
can someone link me or keyword me to where it says i have to be more than just a local based game that's in the news or something equal to? once again, i'm not trying to be a smarty smarty, but i don't see it. i seriously don't see why not keep it since im not promoting myself- no where in it do i ask for sign ups or hits on my websites. Hits mean nothign to me, just signups and i like to talk in person for signups. so please if someone could hook me up with a link to where it says i have to be 'mainstream/well known' that would be wonderful. sorry for the drama drama, i just took it as an insult and i would really like to keep the article but if being small and local is against the wiki rules then i fold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xezzite (talk • contribs)
woot i think i found it for myself " Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. In particular:
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.
Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC, prior to isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic.
Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
For a wiki that does allow discussion of "future history", visit Wikicities Future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xezzite (talk • contribs)
It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xezzite (talk • contribs)
my defense is- i'm talking about the future in one paragraph- the rest is history and i see nothign about 'notable history'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xezzite (talk • contribs)
Delete as non-notable. --DMG413 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
quote where it says it has to be kthnx i will give you a cookie, hey, was wiki notable when it started? notable shmotable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xezzite (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete The article is not offensive, false, or misleading. The Deletion Policy expects the author to be givin good faith about the value of his article. Just because some feel that the information is unimportant does not that mean that it should be removed. Hypothetically, let us say I am a university student studying Communications, and am doing a report on cultural effects of Reality TV. This article could be very valuable to such research. You may want to suggest that the author could provide his unique prspective through other media, but what is Wikipedia for if not to illuminate and legitimize otherwise obscure facts and themes. This article does nothing to impede or erode the exchange of ideas on Wikipedia, rather it contributes what it can. Do delete it simply because it seems insignificant to a few web surfers contradicts the "freedom" upon which Wikipedia was based, and has thrived.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theandy2k4 (talk • contribs)
Delete I would like to point you to WP:NOT: for original research, for self-promotion and for advertising, and also to WP:V. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April2006 @ 18:44 (UTC)
The article is not attempting to publish original research, nor is it trying to publicize any commercial or philanthropic endeavor. The vanity guideline is just that, a guideline which Wiki distinguishes from other official rules. It is not such an editorial rule, and should not be enough to warrant deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theandy2k4 (talk • contribs)
Comment This article is not verifiable - we need to be able to look the subject up in some other published source. And by the way, Wikipedia is absolutely not here to "illuminate and legitimize otherwise obscure facts and themes." FreplySpang(talk) 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Theandy2k4 has only two edits, both on this page. If this is you, Xezzite, I encourage you to look at WP:SOCK. (BTW, admins are to discount votes by brand new users in these discussions.) Bucketsofg 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry my names not andy stop accusing me of things
you know i can sit here and cry "WP:NOT!!" over and over but again i ask you- quote the specific part that applies to me- i have asked for hours an no one has delivered. I read the terms gentlemen, I see nothing.
i am sorry if this sounds sour but it seems that many of the mods against this article are simply abusing their authority. They think they can say things like "WP:V WP:NOT" and that i will cower down to that. But the thing is, i have read them, please scroll up and read what i have said before you make claims against me. Where in wp not does it say nothing that isn't mainstream? It clearly says nothing not notable about the future which could not even take place- mine is about past, present future, it says no irrelevant history such as - Jon Bon jovi spells his name John now.I am promoting my site? where in this does it say go to my site? should i not link the website that goes with the event? Should I not say who created it? I think knowing why it is called Wills Outback is somewhat important, but if you want the link and my name gone i can take it away. I don't need wikipedia to promote my game, I have done fine without it. I just want wikipedia to be useful. If everything on wiki is google-able then why have wiki? So that people can troll like the information is just a forum? Seriously, take the time and try to find the specific reason why this article should be deleted. I am not andy and i do not like being accused of that, i am trying to argue reasonable, which is more than everyone here can say. Why is that? You do not take the time to read what I have to say. I have heard you loud and clear- WP NOT. I have looked through all the violations and policies and I see nothing against a small, local event/union of people. How can this be a flaw when there are articles out there COMPLETELY wrong? And if your answer is "well who looks at the vampire counts article anyways?" my answer is, well me, and if its obsolute then why doesn't it get petitioned to be deleted? Just because I am from no large corporation or business why am I being bullied by wikistuds? Think about what you are doing, and if I see someone say WP NOT one more time im going to scream, QUOTE IT WITHIN THE WP NOT POLICY thank you, i have quoted what i have found I wish people would stop posting to post and actually look into what they are doing. Thank you
Another question, do moderators know what they are talking about or do they just know letters? Has anyone read WP:NOT? seriously, I am for the success of wikipedia as much as you are, I think wiki is a great idea that's why i'm fighting so hard to use it. But wiki isn't going to work if people don't take time to read the rules and when someone asks for the specifics you give them more general letters that mean squat unless you read them. I don't know why I am being accused of things or why I am being bullied around, I guess this is how you treat new users? I am asking for a clear definition of the policy that says Outback shouldn't be there. I've heard 'promotion' and according to the deletion petition it says we are supposed to work on getting the article into WP form, well, what can i change to make it not promotion? I mean for it to be informative, do you want my URL or name off? I will glady do that if it means keeping the article. Please stop accusing me of things and basically binding me to intentions that are not mine. Again, I recruit through talking in person, on the phone, via networking through friends. I don't need Wiki for that, please realize this. Yes, I have only had 38 people, but I have only had 4 games so far, it isn't like I'm using wiki to exploit it. I have my own website if I need to show people a link. It's just really frusterating because no one seems to listen to me- tell me specifically what in WP:not am i violating and if everyone agrees that I'm promoting then what can I do to fix it? It just seems like you guys don't care, you just want to say deleted because you do not understand the magnitude that is Outback. Maybe if I just wait someone who is not lazy will put the effort into getting the answers I long for. And if you think I'm asking too much, then why have wiki? Why have a website only a select few can add to? You guys are really missing the point.
Dear Kinu,
Seriously, if you are a moderator of Wikipedia you are a horrible spokesman. You did nothing to contribute to this discussion but label me with things I am not. Made up in a school day? How about you fuck yourself, if this is what wikipedia is fuck you. Do you feel tough that you can type in a few letters? A school day, wow, I would love LOVE to see you try to make something half as good. I don't care, label me for cussing and 'hatred', fuckin ban me, if moderators are pieces of shit like this I don't care. If you want to verify wills outback i have a lot of sources you can talk to, not just chump moderators who do it for no pay, but people who are somebodies. But I mean, if that's how you want to be it's cool, I made this up at school one day and it's basically like a flag football game. No it didn't take hours and hours and hours to plan, more hours to set up and a shit ton of thinking and work on my part. I am just a young chump. Abuse your power kinu! I thought I could use this for what wikipedia said it was- to discuss what was wrong, not to say NO. But no one cares, no one wants to work things out. I guess that's why you are moderators, too lazy for a job that requires work and dedication so you click buttons and eat butterfingers all day. Well, I probably will be banned from wiki soon for this post, but I know I am going out with my head high and in the right. Bully me more, bully all the people who had dreams of creating something more than just a chump school game. This isn't senior pranks, a game of assassins, this is a game that requires more intelligence that any moderator could possess. I asked for reasons, you gave me letters....thanks. The letters were good at first but then I replied saying I wanted specifics and I just got more letters. Well it sucks guys, I really liked wikipedia, I will be using wiki a little for my next outback, but mostly the warcraft wiki (I don't even know if they are linked with this one ?). But I won't be helping anymore, I know you don't care, but it's sad. Wiki should be about getting information on ANY little thing you want. I hope people don't trust too much in here, when I saw the mistakes on that article earlier today I actually laughed out loud for how wrong they were. Liches btw, are not the same as necromancers, they are actually in different armies and they actually hate each other. I tried to put some insight, information, and book power into an article incase someday some kid wants to read up on his favorite warhammer army. So Wiki, I leave you with this, and I hope you listen... You want me to verify it is all real Kinu? That it isn't a game we just made up at school? You want verification that it's not just a few guys and that it is known in, well, other countries? Well my question for you is...what do you verify? You google things to verify facts? I could make a website called napoleon101edu.org and say that napoleon was a homosexual who lost in waterloo against the duke of wellington because he was too busy giving oral to thomas jefferson. Is that verification? Would you even go as far to google it? Or just take a bite of your candy bar and say "never heard of it" DELETED? If this is what wikipedia is, well, I hope someday they get enough money to hire experts, I really do. I think this site could be EXCELLENT, but because of lazy bums who assume, label and stereotype me as a young hooligan trying to show off his website, this site will never be more than a forum. I'm sorry for any moderator who did care or tried, but seriously, it's a fucking website, I hope you feel good with the little power you have, I hope when you die you feel good that you could bully a young wikinoob around and not give him a specific reason why he is gone. So consider me a e-freedom fighter fighting for the rights of people to not have assraming dickless lazy pieces of shit moderators tell them what they should and shouldnt have access to. Oh and by the way, keep being experts on Napoleon Dynamite, it's not like everyone has already seen that movie. Keep promoting the movies you find so funny. Sorry for any true wikipedia mod who actually cares. I guess you can't really expect anyone to, it's too easy to say WP:NOT.
ButterfingerNobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger. --Kinut/c 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an intersting project. However, Googling the title ["Wills Outback"] comes back with 27 unique hits, the majority of which focus on either the Burke and Wills expedition in the Australian outback, or a conference named after this expedition (When we talk about google verifcation, we're looking for reviews on major websites, online articles from news services, or anything that can point us in the direction of what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source). Alexa has no data for the website this porject is run from. This combination shows that the project doesn not meet any of the three points at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) inclusion guideline. For WP:NOT, I think you would be looking at "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought": point two on original inventions. When people refer to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, they are referring to how a sizeable group of users interpret the guidelines listed on that page (To quote:"in a nutshell - Resist the temptation to write about the new, great thing you and/or your friends just thought up."). Items included in wikipedia should have reliable third-party sources to back them up, which I personally can't find. As the creator of the project, and the primary contributor to the article, it can be considered a vanity article, which wile not a crime in itself, is seriously discouraged, as it can very easily lead onto violation of several other policies and guidelines, and because this article is about a project, can be perceived as advertising (WP:NOT a soapbox, point 3 - although you are not a company, promoting your project is considered to be advertising for the purposes of the WP:NOT policy). If you can demonstrate a widespread impact on a larger than local community, through the use of reliable, third party sources, then I personally don't see why it can't b kept in some form, although at the moment, it doesn't look that way. -- Saberwyn 00:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey this is Xezzite. Thank you Saberwyn, that is exactly what I have been asking for. Hopefully someday soon I will have what it takes to get on Wiki and get my little article going. I was under the impression that it would fly but obviously taking the time out and giving me the reasons I have been looking for. Any suggestions for what I can get for a third party? Someone hinted at newspaper articles or something of that nature, any ideas would be very much appreciated. I understand it may look like I'm just promoting my site so I guess I'll just have to go get some proof like you said. =D
You'd be looking at news articles, reviews by magazines or major websites that deal with this type of project, publications. Pretty much anything that says "Hey, I'm not involved with Wills Outback, but I've studied it and here's what I can say about it. By the way, these are my credentials." The Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline would be of more use to you on the type of material you need than I am on this matter. -- Saberwyn 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet wiktionary's guidelines, so baleet. Kotepho 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rpresser 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, {{nn-band}}. Stifle 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BANDWP:VAINWP:V Self-posted promo article for unknown band. Non-notable, not verified. Article creator has twice deleted deletion tags from article.John Nagle 17:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7, tagged as such. Also, a protected {{deletedpage}} wouldn't hurt. --Rory096 17:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD A7, NN-Band. Don't know about the deletedpage though, considering it hasn't been deleted/recreated many times, but Speedy Delete none-the-less. --lightdarkness (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Edwy 18:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. It's a "web discovery engine" which "is in development for a full beta release". NickelShoe (Talk) 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it's notable enough for an article. The user who created it referred to it as a "profile" [31], so perhaps he has misunderstood what Wikipedia is. I also don't think WP:WEB is satisfied. --Edwy 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are lots of companies with profiles on Wikipedia and many of them are not yet well known to everyone. Isn't the breadth of content one of the key benefits of Wikipedia? What is gained by deleting this article? Is there a concern that people will be outraged by Wikipedia having too much information? Should Wikipedia only be about Britney Spears and McDonalds?
The articles need to meet certain criteria to be here, most of which revolve on the subject being externally verifiable by what Wikipedia considers to be reliable, third-party sources. As a piece of internet-based software, a better guideline to what is required for an article can be found at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline. If evidence can be provided demonstrating that the engine meets this guideline and the general policies and guidelines, then there should be no problem in keeping this in some form. -- Saberwyn 22:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like advertising to me. Fishhead64 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the original poster, I say fine, delete away. Sorry for trying to contribute. I'll be sure to come back when I learn something new about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure POV that, if anywhere, belongs in a software jargon dictionary. Any content deemed useful from this page belongs in Visual Basic .NET#Controversy. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a very minor term that doesn't deserve an article. The description of VB.Net is also inaccurate. Although porting old projects is difficult, the syntax is similar to VB6, meaning there is almost no learning curve for existing VB programmers. It's easy for VB6 programmers to write new VB.Net code. While this may not be important to purists and MS-haters, it does matter to people who actually make a living developing software. Rhobite 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. With 4 out of 6 in favour of deletion there is an element of discretion here, but the fact that the nominator seems unsure about whether this should even be deleted makes me err on the side of keeping. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Hip hop singer" is a misnomer (this is a group of singers from other genres -- mostly R&B and reggae -- who frequently appear on hip-hop songs - which actually would include 70% of all R&B artists, making the selection of artists inherently POV) - and artists who happen to record hip hop music and other genres as well. The article will only confuse readers, and provides little factual encyclopedic value. I would suggest renaming it as "List of singers who frequently appear on hip hop songs", and it could replace the large and unwiedly Hip hop collaborations, which I have proposed for deletion using the "prod" tag. FuriousFreddy 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this list and the nom seems to be asking for a rename. To my knowledge renaming an article does not require deleting it first. Hence keep. -- JJay 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I also vote keep-- a move can be properly discussed on the talk page.--Urthogie 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need a consensus first Some people may not believe that either article should exist. --FuriousFreddy 22:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: This feels a bit like Wikipedia is trying to list/categorize something that is without a doubt culturally notable, but doesn't yet exist in a firm, defined, categorizable way in the culture. But there's probably too much going on in this one request to form a concensus on what to do. Is AFD the right venue? Cleanr 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to a category. This appears to be listcruft. Stifle 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My fave there is List of smooth jazz performers which grew over time to include sublists of composers and disc jockeys amongst the performers of smooth jazz. Were it not against the rules, a List of lists containing multiple unrelated lists would be fun to illustrate the trend -- but then we'd need a duplicative category, too. :-) Cleanr 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was that the article is about a school, so, surprise surprise, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no context, possibly advertisement--Zxcvbnm 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
verify, rewrite and keep Granted its a crappy article at the moment (possibly a copyvio?) but if the place exists it deserves an article of some sort. Jcuk 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible copyvio as noted, no assertion of notability or context, get rid of it ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire! 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this box collection. No assertion of notability, no references. - Liberatore(T) 18:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clean up, verify and it'll be fine. I believe there is genuine information in this article albeit poorly formatted and delivered - information is what we are here for. Gardar Rurak 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Adam(talk) 13:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verifiable but not notable. Stifle 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Kukini 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable enough. --Soumyasch 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. As there is no evidence of notability that wasn't in the version that was redirected to Micronation, I am taking the old 2004 VfD into account, which showed a clear consensus to delete, and tips this discussion over the borderline into reinforcing the consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following a VfD debate in 2004, preserved on Talk:Republic of Talossa, this was redirected to Micronation. Some weeks ago User:Libertariandeist began a new article on the same topic, but the old reasons why it is insufficiently notable for a separate article still hold for the new attempt IMO. I prodded the article citing WP:NFT, which was contested without comment by an anon. Later User:Stanley011 added a new prod with the reason
wikipedia is an encyclopoedia of names, places, concepts, and things that are NOTABLE, not a repository of non-notable organizations that involve 50 or fewer members masquerading as a serious enterprise
It being against WP:PROD procedure to re-prod an article I am taking it to AfD for consensus instead. Henning Makholm 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, first of all when the article was first written, there were no more than ten members. It has since grown to 36 citizens, and with friends of the republic and prospectives (who participate in the group but just don't vote) there are more than 50 "members". Libertariandeist 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the micronation with the best-known example of a micronational language. It is featured extensively in the Wired article "It's Good to Be King", and is covered in the book Conquering Consumerspace: Marketing Strategies for a Branded World. Wiwaxia 01:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as utterly non-notable made-up stuff. After seeing a bunch of these sorts of articles, I tend to agree with Stifle's sentiment. Sandstein 09:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, but rename as Bioresonance therapy. Doesn't appear to be an advertisement, but any commerical links should be removed. It is definitely quackery, but quackery isn't necessarily a reason to delete. It does appear to be verifiable subject in that "bioresonance" gets 103,000 Google hits amd "bioresonance therapy" gets 29,900. Claims of success and other whatnot should be attributed to sources. -AED 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing concert tour. The article currently is pretty much just a listing of the acts. Does not seem particularly notable, and this info seems to more belong on the individual artists' pages than on its own separate page. Prod tag removed without explanation. DeleteDMG413 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Fishhead64 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 22:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a website with a fairly high Alexa ranking, and doesn't have much else to recommend it. I listed it on prod, but User:Dark Tichondrias questioned the deletion on my talk page. NatusRoma | Talk 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article says almost nothing. Of the website itself, it looks like the only active part is the forum. News items are sporadic at best, and most of the links from the main page go either to nonexistent pages or nowhere at all. The HTML code kind of looks like a site under construction, as if other pages were planned, but never created. Fan1967 00:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I'm inclined to redirect to unbirth as the real information is already there, and the rest - the stuff about being forced into one's partners testicles - looks like complete bollocks (no pun intended). However, there's no consensus for that either, so I'll let the furry fandom deal with it. Yeuch. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, univerified dictionary definition plus original research. See VfD for Unbirth above. Brian G. Crawford 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that makes provisions and various policies for endorsal to keep it as proffessional as possible. To attempt to pass off such original claims in dictionary format is outrageous. -ZeroTalk 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fringe trivia. --Fire Star 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let someone else figure out a merge. We don't need conflicting AFD merges. Kotepho 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Take a look at these lines (last line in the article) — Though most sessions end similar to unbirth, in which the character is curled up securely and comfortably within the stomach area of their partner, some characters are forced into their partner's testicles, in which their body is broken down through unknown means and transformed into semen used to fuel their partner's own orgasm.. This is clearly a hoax, justifying the article's speedy delete. --Soumyasch 04:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an erotic fantasy, not an actual practice. Perhaps the article doesn't make this sufficiently clear. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to unbirth. As someone familiar with this practice, I must specifically note that Soumyasch is incorrect, and this is a fetish on the internet. Specifically, it is a subclass of Unbirth, which is a subclass of Vore. I also point to [32], another Wiki that deals with the matter, for reference. Tialla 06:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tialla.. this exists, but it's definitely niche. Re: Soumyasch's comment, it's obviously not possible in real life! -- Mithent 13:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to unbirth, or merge both this and unbirth to vore. I'd stumbled across these before, and wasn't sure what to do with them, though I had merged soft vore into vore. But they have serious WP:V problems that their fans (if there really are) need to address. Шизомби 18:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried looking this up in Google book search, and scholar but no results. A few on blog, including a Monty Python Cheese sketch tranferred into the realm of paraphilia and another that specifically mentions the WP articles on Cock vore and unbirth. And drawings... yergh... There's also mentions on fur.artwork.erotica going back to 2001 (though just a couple), so I guess it's verifiable, it's more a question of notability. Шизомби 01:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-informative, wikipedia is not dictionary, article name is barely a commonly referred term. Everything that covers this topic is already at Shred guitar. GreyCat 21:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to shred guitar. -- Saberwyn 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A not-particularly-notable individual. He sings in the band Lapwing, which is also up for deletion, and is an "aspiring wrestler." Joyous | Talk 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged accordingly. There's no assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 {{nn-band}}. Stifle 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. The article even states that the band never gained recognition. Brought here because the PROD tag was removed, although no further evidence of notability was added. Joyous | Talk 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this acticle was a redirect to 22nd century before one sock of User:Science3456 changed it to a disambiguation page and another sock immedeatly listed it for deletion. A trick he has pulled before. —Ruud 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this page necessary? If not, then it should be deleted. Booking563 21:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as redirect to 22nd century. Reverted vandalism. —Ruud 21:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be careful about how you use the word "vandalism". That was a very legimate edit, not vandalism. Anyway, it shouldn't be reverted while the afd is still going. 205.188.117.74 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With both the person who changed this from a redirect to an article and then nominating it for deletion being socks of User:Science3456, I'm willing to call this vandalism. —Ruud 22:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article. It's a disambiguation page. Learn the difference. 152.163.100.139 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the comment above. —Ruud 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain as redirect. -- Saberwyn 23:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The topic of whether a particular 00 year counts as the first or last in a centurn is well-covered by the century article. 2200 is not the same as the 22nd century. In fact, to many people it is the start of the 23rd century. I reverted the redirect because others can have a different opinion. — RJH 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the place for the end/beginning of century argument, but still a year article in the standard Wikipedia format. ProhibitOnions 21:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (i.e. keep and revert to the redirect version) – Gurch 10:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 22nd Century. - Erebus555 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a crystal ball, therefore, there is no need for a year page for a year 194 years in the future. Might as well delete it. 2200 is not the same thing as the 22nd century OR the 23rd century. I changed this page to a redirect to 22nd century previously, simply because that matched what looked like precedent at 2300 and so on, but it really doesn't make sense. Mangojuice 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was put up for prod as "Unreferenced pseudo-scientific nonsense", but the tag was removed without comment by the original author, so up for a vote it goes.
Delete as prod nominator. As far as I can tell, it goes to great length to argue that time is cyclical by invoking various famed physicists. Fails WP:OR and the real physics touched by this article is covered elsewhere (see my comment below). Cleanup. The added references support keeping, there appears to be a real concept somewhere in there. However, the article is of very poor quality, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion. --Henrik 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and crankery. Brian G. Crawford 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be referenced, but the article could be improved. Fishhead64 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per Fan1967's point. Fishhead64 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with references, the article is an attempt to synthesize a number of very differing viewpoints, and does qualify as original research. - Fan1967 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original and crackpot --Deville (Talk) 00:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure we can use an article on this concept and I don't think it is trying to merge them all into one but explain them all (but going about it the wrong way). Kotepho 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author is a cult member and essentially trying to push their world view of a single constantly repeating 5,000 year cycle of time through the facade of psuedo-science. 195.82.106.244 13:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that your link to Recurrence timeis not pointing to that article. Note that the Poincare recurrence theorem and Loschmidt's paradox articles pointed out above do not engage into the realm of time. In that respect, they treat this aspect without a deserved depth. Even though those theories are mentioned, the consecuences of reciting them have been obscured. Please check this link: http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/ There are many deep corollaries once the acceptance of the validity of the above discussed theories is granted. That is the information behind "cyclical time."
Comment - The above comment by Fan1967 is little incorrect, I hope that I can clarify. This article - which I was only recently made aware of when attempting to find some avenue to enter into a discussion with this other contributor having left a few comments on their user page - and the AfD are not directly related to the article on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation. The initial AfDs were proposed by other entirely unconnected contributors. The only connection is the reasonable supposition that 70.119.13.124 (talk·contribs) is an adherent of the so called Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and I can qualify that he/she is promoting their party line. It is correct to state that this group do teach cyclic time as part of their faith, but in their case a single identical repeating cycle of 5,000 years. I hope this helps. 195.82.106.244 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that crankpottery is not a valid reason for deletion (there are many forms of notable crankpottery), however, this runs massively into WP:OR. JoshuaZ 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 361 unique hits for searchstring ["Eve of Destruction" "Battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod, and a very brief hitory of the project that would be of more use on their website. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn mod. Stifle 22:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as it pains me to delete any mod, should be merged with List of Battlefield 1942 Mods ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire! 23:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is uninformative, and the information is also contained here. discospinster 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information already elsewhere, and would serve as a poor redirect anywhere. -- Saberwyn 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete per above, and do not redirect. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must be dozens of shows with a Season 2 article, so redirect would be pointless. Fan1967 00:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snow in the Bay area is unusual, but not "amazing." Does not count as a suitably significant weather event. Fishhead64 22:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normal weather events, even if unusual for the area in question, are not encyclopedic. If the "snow event" had lasted for weeks and had a significant impact on public consciousness, then I would support inclusion. —Seqsea (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above users. —LrdChaos 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, WP:NOT the weather almanac, and (you guessed it) WP:SNOW. --Kinut/c 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaurenMcMillan. Unencyclopaedic. Stifle 22:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was a blizzard, it would be another story. This was not a blizzard. David Hoag 08:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Adam(talk) 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 167 unique hits for searchstring [Finnwars "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons, vehicles, and maps in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my personal stance to weak keep per wwwwolf, but not withdrawing nomination. -- Saberwyn 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft--Zxcvbnm 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn mod. Stifle 22:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been commented on in Pelit, a major game publication in Finland, I'd wager it has at least some local notability. I could dig up the references if you absolutely want. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May as well. Save you from having the same problem further down the track with verifiability. -- Saberwyn 08:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already found it. Pelit 9/2005, to be exact - too bad the article archive isn't available on web for non-subscribers, but for those who do subscribe, here's the link [33]. Also, note how we have articles about this in both fi: and sv:, which does speak something about local notability =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for Finnish gamers. That's enough for me. bbx 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesnt establish notability enough to make up for the lack of interest demonstrated by Google. Remy B 14:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is interesting and should not be erased Yuckfoo 21:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People actually play it still, at GMT +3 19.00 you'll find more players. Many mods for BF1942 don't have any players and their development has been stopped. FinnWars' hasn't.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Adam(talk) 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 320 unique hits for searchstring ["Forgotten Hope" "Battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a overly-exhaustive list of the maps, weapons, and vehicles used in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak keep per Fuzzie, but not withdrawing nomination. -- Saberwyn 02:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. My Google gives 750,000 unique hits and no wonder, it's definitely the most popular mod for BF42 out there. Believe me, it's been helping me cope with stress for quite some time now. The article could indeed be a tad corrected, with the lists perhaps transformed to some other format in order to make the ToC shorter, but deleting it is not the way to go. Finally, it's a computer game mod; don't expect any serious publications on it as there are hardly any academic monographs of computer games at all. Which however does not mean that this article is unverifiable, add the proper {{fact}} tags where applicable and you'll see for yourself. //Halibutt 01:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your search was for ["Forgotten Hope"]. Battlefield 1942 may be the first hit on Google for it, but there are numerous other things out there that use that as a name. Adding the qualifier "Battlefield" to that search string drops it to 332 unique hits. -- Saberwyn 10:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems popular enough, with even a Something Awful review. I had no real problems finding sensibleish reviews, either - for instance, one from the Mac Observer. --Fuzzie (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Hey, the Battlefield 1942 article itself has a list of popular mods. This one apparently had 42,329 players, in a month in the past, and clicking links shows it still has a large percentage of the played mods - that's definitely notable, in my opinion. So, changed to strong keep. --Fuzzie (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn mod. Stifle 22:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the most popular mod for BF1942. Seano1 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to provide a reliable source backing up this claim? -- Saberwyn 04:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused as to how this mod can only get 332 Google results... the mod was very popular in its prime. I'm sure a lot of other people reading this AfD will be thinking the same thing. Remy B 14:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The most popular BF1942 mod after DC. stroooong keep ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire! 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, could you please provide externally verifiable evidence to back up this claim? -- Saberwyn 10:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's attempting to be a semi-exhastive reference to the jokes of Arrested Development, which the OP already does and does better. This article spoils the jokes and makes them unfunny at the same time. The article is messy and doesn't seem like it could be made encyclopedic. I love Arrested Development, but this article doesn't do it any justice. — Miles←☎ 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic cruft. Eivindt@c 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consign to Wiki-Hell as fancruft. Brian G. Crawford 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic fancruft. Fishhead64 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unmaintainable...in fact, so much so that this article (if it is supposed to be accurate and complete) would have to list literally tens of thousands of songs. Delete as excess, and possibly replace with article on list of singers who frequently collaborate with hip hop artists (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hip hop singers. FuriousFreddy 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't at all understand what type of alchemy this nom hopes to work between two articles that seem entirely unrelated to me. This is a list of hip-hop collaborations as cogently explained in the informative intro. It then lists some of these collaborations. I see no reason for it to list 10,000 collaborations or 100,000 collaborations. I also do not decide an article's merits based on hypothetical postulations about what may or may not take place in the distant editing future. The concept here seems valid based on the importance of collaborative projects in this genre. The article maybe need some clean-up, perhaps adding whatever this nom wants to add concerning singer-hip hop collaborations, but not deletion. -- JJay 00:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FuriousFreddy. --MaNeMeBasat 07:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
....Which is neither policy nor guideline. Just so we're all on the same page. -- JJay 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting the article would be utter nonsense, simple as that. It is very enjoyable and significant, and I cannot see any reason to delete it. Once its coding is standardized, it will be easy to maintain, especially after I add Christian hip hop collaborations. This may seem a bit rude, but aren't there better ways to remedy boredom than marking fine articles for deletion? |phantasy phanatik|talk|contribs|
Delete per nom; I agree this smacks of listcruft. Eusebeus 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split and Merge if the page proves itself unmaintainable or the deletion wins the vote and people are thinking on a third solution. Just wondering how others can disrespect such a big ammount of others' work. Merging it into pages that are accessible from the main artist's article (a "50 Cent list" for 50 Cent and so on) would easly make sceptics' anxiety dissappear. But unless someone does this NEW big ammount of work :
Keep would be the ideal decision. Why is it a huge problem if a page consists of lists (and maybe of lists only)?? Why is it so important to be maintainable and up-to-date (there are way too many articles that would require daily editing and gets one edit per month...and doesn't get deleted just because of that)? If this list are left unmodified in this stage it would serve its purpose like this. And why people are so afraid of lists and list-heavy articles? What's the matter with an incomplete list that keeps growing permanently, like every unclosed list do??(BTW the incomplete list tag exhorts the readers to add new info if possible) Lajbi 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all. Flowerparty■ 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Family tree" based on work connection of a series of mostly minor characters from the DragonBall franchise. Per WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". -- Saberwyn 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons I nominated the other page. --Orion Minor 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given on the original deletion page. Voice of Treason 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Muchness 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the standards for notability in Wikipedia, in contrast to other articles that have been wiped from Wikipedia.. Article was created by a member of the machinima's crew. Tykell 23:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although Tykell's own production was just recently deleted, which may make this a WP:POINT violation in the eyes of some, I say Strong Delete, if notability cannot be proven.--Drat (Talk) 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's non-notable, and recommend a keep. WP:POINT. Stifle 22:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a parody of RvB, one of, if not the biggest mechinimas out there, and a featured article. I'd call that notable. Dr. B 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If Wikipedia wants to maintain any semblance of consistency with its habit of deleting pages (and I've seen some gross inconsistency in the past), it will delete this article. Nine episodes hardly makes it notable as a piece of machinima. JaysCyYoung 02:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Keep, as per Dr. B. Plus, i'm going to go with the "WP:POINT" nomination too by Tykell and Jayscy. The notablitiy isn't in the number of eps, it's in the subject and content. Plus, I barely watch RvB but I've at least heard of this. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire! 06:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, for having nominations in multiple categories in the 2005 Rockets on PrisonerHalo machinima awards, and for being an official selection at the 2005 Machinima Film Festival. No awards won, but this does verify that SvF does have some notability within the machinima community. — TKD::Talk 07:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Following the links provided by TKD above, and looking at Google and at its forums, I do not feel that this is a notable piece of machinima. Yes, it's WP:POINT from a jilted editor, and but it sounds like one of those things that RvB fans will have heard of, but not care about. - Hahnchen 11:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I'm a fan of the show and all, but if OTCS was deleted than I'd say to delete this as well. OTCS was much more known than SVF, so it'd be inconsistant if this isn't deleted. Cinema Void 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. – Sceptre(Talk) 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki unless more content can be added. Seems to be a reasonably well-established (if obscure) term, but unless it has some significance beyond the definition, I can't see as useful anywhere but Wiktionary. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April2006 @ 23:23 (UTC)
Transwiki. This is a perfectly wonderful word with the correct definition, but this is just a dicdef. I'm not sure how this would be expanded to be an appropriate WP article. --Deville (Talk) 00:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this article specifically because I was looking for information about this concept, beyond the dictionary definition. This article clearly needs expansion, as it isn't nuanced enough to give a clear explaination, but it appears to be complex enough to warrant an article. ~CS 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Wiktionary won't take it as it hasn't been used for a year. Stifle 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come back next year. Or never. Midgley 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki; this appears to be referenced in a dictionary [34]. - Liberatore(T) 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke article and no sources are cited. NN --SoroSuub1 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't google well, and the Chinese characters given are actually Ma Chao, not "Wo Di". This plus the "moron" does indicate it might be a hoax. Kusma(討論) 00:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Fire Star 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Khoikhoi 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it's not a hoax, it's utterly non-notable. Stifle 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, misguided nomination. Stifle 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page to redirect to the main University of Hertfordshire page with a capital H and now found that when searching in the Search pages i could only go to the main page, not find other pages with University of Hertfordshire in. I Therefore see this as a HUGE mistake. The article is not the main University of Hertfordshire with a Capital H but University of hertfordshire with a small hSimply south 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Simply south[reply]
Keep no reason to delete. FetofsHello! 23:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect doesn't work because of a typo. After the VfD is closed and the typo fixed, it should work. That said, it should be kept.Brian G. Crawford 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No reason at all to delete. youngamerican (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Adam(talk) 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not silliness. 4chan's /d/ has tons of this stuff. There actually is a market for this, which is sort of sad and disgusting but nonetheless real. I won't vote, but I would just like to remind the voters that this is not a hoax. - CorbinSimpson 10:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, grossed-out keep. As pointed out, this looks like a genuineparaphilia, so we might as well delete most all of Category:Paraphilia if fetishes aren't notable. I wouldn't really object to deletion on grounds of lack of sources, though; plus this does seem really fringe. Sandstein 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed this. If the closing admin needs to see the history before my vote, you'll need to look there for it. Kotepho 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to be er.... real. Wow...Roodog2k 14:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the love of god, delete. This may be all too real, but this is fetishcruft. --Deville (Talk) 14:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it's asserted in the article that this concept has been discussed in the psychiatric literature, it should be deleted. Otherwise, Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming an authority on "Unbirth." Brian G. Crawford 16:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, rubbish. --Terence Ong 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ewww... err, I meant keep. Heard of it before. --Andylkl[ talk! | c ] 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's real. Night Gyr 20:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brief mention in paraphilia would be sufficient. Just because something is real doesn't mean it's notable enough for an encyclopedia. Fishhead64 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strange but quite real; I've actually run into examples the stuff. Ew. Also, Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of, um, not grossing people out or whatever the complaint was. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything but delete. Should be mentioned somewhere on WP. If keeping it is not viable, I vote for a merge to Paraphilia. - CorbinSimpson 00:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fringe trivia. --Fire Star 03:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm only voting keep because I don't know a good merge target. Kotepho 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paraphilias need to meet the same conditions as everything else, such as WP:V. Random fetish websites go no more to verifiability than random fan websites do. JoshuaZ 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Josh. --Khoikhoi 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verifiability is questionable. If verified, slight merge to paraphilia. Stifle 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. -- noosphere 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just used it to research a freelance article, as I often do with the less mainstream entries in Wiki. Articles like this are invaluable for getting direction. Please don't delete just because it grosses some people out, or sounds unbelievable -- it is real, I have heard of it, and I could never find reliable info on it anywhere but in a place like Wiki! Jamie K. Wilson -- 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:OR and if it was verified it should be a line in an article, not its own one. Midgley 23:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
??? ??? ??? 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
(talk) 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
(talk) 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ready Aim Fire! 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
